Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-05/02/2000-RegularMay 2, 2000 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, May 2, 2000, 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, Byrne, Kastein, Martinez, Mason, Wanner and Weitkunat. Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Krajicek, Roy. Citizen Participation Glenn Haas, Director of the Colorado State Environmental Learning Center, spoke regarding a gift of 116 blue spruce trees received from the Colorado State Forest Service for the new Welcome Center and thanked City staff for its efforts in moving the trees to the site. Citizen Participation Follow-up Councilmember Wanner thanked the Trees, Water and People group for its help in planting the trees at the Welcome Center. Councilmember Bertschy commended City staff for their efforts and thanked Volunteers for Outdoor Colorado for their work on a project at the Welcome Center. Aeenda Review City Manager Fischbach stated that item #25 First Reading of Ordinance No. 54, 2000, Authorizing an Option to Lease, and the Subsequent Lease, of City -owned Property on East Laurel Street to Sportsman's Storage, LLC, for Sublease to Nextel for Installation of a Monopole, and Authorizing Associated Easements has been withdrawn from the agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR 7. Consideration and adoption of the Council meeting minutes of March 21. April 4, 2000 and adiourned meeting minutes of March 28, 2000. May 2, 2000 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 39, 2000, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General. Fort Collins Police Services' Crimes Against Persons/Victim Services Units have been awarded a one-year Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) grant to help fund training opportunities for Police Services Detectives and Victim Advocates. Ordinance No. 39, 2000 was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 18, 2000. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 42, 2000, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Conservation Easement on the "Sauer" Open Land Property to Latimer County. Ordinance No. 42, 2000, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 18, 2000, authorizes the easement to be conveyed to Larimer County when the property is acquired from the seller, currently scheduled for May 15, 2000. 10. Items Relating to Library Services. A. Resolution 2000-62 Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with Latimer County for the Purpose of Providing Library Services to Residents of Larimer County. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 43, 2000, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for the Library Outreach Program. Latimer County provides funds to six library service providers in the County. This year, the County is paying $120,120 to the City for library services for County residents. Of this amount, $30,030 will be used for the City's library outreach program. This program brings library services to the homebound, the economically disadvantaged and services remote book drops throughout the community. The Resolution authorizes the Mayor to enter into an Agreement to provide library services to County residents and for outreach service. The Ordinance appropriates $30,030 for outreach services. The remaining $90,090 goes into the General Fund and represents a 5.1 % decrease over the projected amount in the 2000 budget. 11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 44, 2000, Amending the General Form for Petitions for Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. The City Charter requires Council to prescribe by ordinance the general form of petition for initiative, referendum, and recall. This Ordinance amends the general form by splitting the combined form into three (3) individual forms, reformatting the signature lines to provide more adequate space to provide all required information, clearly indicating required attachments, and eliminating from the Affidavit of Circulator the statement that the circulator is a registered elector. (The U.S. Supreme Court has held that it is impermissible to require that petition circulators be registered electors.) 287 May 2, 2000 12. Items Relating, to an Intergovernmental Agreement with Great Outdoors Colorado for the "Expansion of the Cathy Fromme Prairie" Conservation Project. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 45, 2000, Authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement with Great Outdoors Colorado for the "Expansion of the Cathy Fromme Prairie" Conservation Project and Authorizing the Execution of a Declaration of Convenants, Conditions, and Restrictions on a 139-acre Portion of the Cathy Fromme Prairie, as Required Thereby. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 46, 2000, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund 1/4 Cent Natural Areas Capital Project for Reimbursement Toward the Purchase Price of a 139-acre Portion of the Cathy Fromme Prairie Acquired in 1995. In September 1995, the City of Fort Collins was awarded a $400,000 grant from Great Outdoors Colorado to be used for the acquisition of a 139-acre portion of the Cathy Fromme Prairie. The property was acquired from G. D. McGarvey and Lee A. Stark in January 1997. Recently, staff has been working with Great Outdoors Colorado to close out the grant and receive the reimbursement of funds for the property. These Council actions will complete the grant requirements and funds are expected to be received in June 2000. The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions on the property would prohibit the use of the property in a manner inconsistent with the conservation values of the propertythat have been identified, including the natural, scenic, open space, wildlife habitat and passive recreational values, in perpetuity. Great Outdoors Colorado and Latimer County would be empowered under the Declaration to enforce the restrictions imposed. The Declaration is required as a condition of the Great Outdoors Colorado grant. 13. Items Relatingto o Intergovernmental Agreements with Great Outdoors Colorado and Latimer County for the "Cathy Fromme Prairie" Conservation Project. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 47, 2000, Authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement with Great Outdoors Colorado for the "Cathy Fromme Prairie" Conservation Project and Authorizing Execution of a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions on an 80-acre Portion of the Cathy Fromme Prairie as Required Thereby. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 48, 2000, Authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County Regarding the 80-acre Portion of the Cathy Fromme Prairie Acquired from Dan Jensen and Authorizing the Conveyance of an 11 % Undivided Interest in the Property to Larimer County as Required Thereby. ME May 2, 2000 C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 49, 2000, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the 1/4 Cent Sales Tax for Natural Areas Capital Fund received from Latimer County and from a grant from Great Outdoors Colorado for the "Cathy Fromme Prairie" Conservation Project. In September 1995, the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County were awarded a $235,000 grant from Great Outdoors Colorado to be used for the acquisition of an 80-acre portion of the Cathy Fromme Prairie. Larimer County also pledged $60,000 toward the purchase price of $520,000. The property was acquired from D. Jensen Enterprises in January 1995. Recently, staff has been working with Larimer County and Great Outdoors Colorado to complete all of the outstanding requirements for this conservation project. These Council actions will approve the grant agreement required by Great Outdoors Colorado, provide for the long-term ownership and management of the property by the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County and provide for the reimbursement of funds for the purchase of the property, which is expected in June 2000. 14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 50, 2000, Authorizing the Purchase of 6 Acres at 3301 East Prospect Road for Natural Area Purposes and Authorizing the Lease of the Property to the Seller. MBI Corporation, for a Period of up to Four Years. Natural Resources recommends the purchase of 6 acres at 3301 East Prospect Road from MBI Corporation. Natural Resources and CSU have acquired the "Flatiron" gravel mine property to the south and west of this parcel for natural area purposes. The land was acquired over time at bargain prices and by donation. This 6-acre parcel with Flatiron's old office building had previously not been acquired due to the higher land value. This parcel is now one of the last pieces in the puzzle in the effort to preserve the entire river bottom on the east side of the Poudre River, from Timberline Road southeast to I-25. The purchase price of $340,000 represents the fair market value of the property as determined by Dennis Marion, M.A.I. Although this purchase price is a comparatively high price to pay for 6 acres of natural area, the visual benefit of removing the office building and restoring the site will be spread across the hundreds of acres of natural area surrounding this property. The property is in an ideal location for redevelopment. It is near I-25 on Prospect Road, which will be widened in a few years, and it is surrounded by natural area. The cost to acquire this parcel is expected to increase over time, so delay would likely result in increased expense. If this site were redeveloped, the negative visual impact to the surrounding natural area would be there for a very long time. FM May 2, 2000 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 51, 2000, Amending Chapter 12, Article H. of the City Code Pertaining to Garbage and Refuse and Chapter 20, Article III of the City Code Pertaining to Weeds, Brush Piles and Rubbish. Portions of Chapters 12 and 20 of the City Code contain very similar language and cover similar types of nuisances. Chapter 12, Article II covers garbage and refuse and defines terms such as owner, occupant, property, refuse and rubbish. The bulk of Article II (Division 1) covers the prohibited accumulations of refuse and rubbish, while the remainder (Division 2) deals with the collection and removal of refuse and rubbish. Chapter 20, Article III, also covers rubbish, as well as weeds and brush piles. It contains many of the same definitions as Section 12, Article H. These Code provisions are so similar in nature, and contain so much duplicate language, it was felt they should be consolidated, making it easier for both staff and citizens to reference. Toward that end, redundant provisions in Sections 12-16 through 12-21 are being repealed; certain other provisions pertaining to rubbish accumulation are being transferred to Chapter 20; and the remaining provisions in Chapter 12 relating to rubbish collection are being consolidated in one division, which will remain in Article II of Chapter 12. In addition to transferring some provisions from Chapter 12 to Chapter 20, there are two substantive changes to Chapter 20. First, staff is recommending the addition of a new subsection (k) to Section 20-42, which would require businesses which, by their nature store material in such a manner as to make it difficult to keep it neat and tidy, to fence the material if they are adjacent to a residential neighborhood. The City gets a significant number of complaints every year from citizens who reside near businesses that generate unsightly materials. Junk dealers and car repair businesses are two examples of those types of businesses that generate complaints. The second is a revision of Section 20-44 regarding the charges assessed for mowing weeds or removing rubbish. Currently the City charges twenty (20) percent of the costs of abatement. Staff is recommending that the fee be increased to fifty (50) percent. The abatement fee should serve as a deterrent to property owners letting their property go and then letting the City clean it up. It is believed a twenty (20) percent abatement fee is not enough incentive to cause more property owners to abate the nuisances. 16. Resolution 2000-64 Making Findings of Fact and Conclusions Regarding the Appeal of a Decision of the Building Review Board Relating to Huntington Hills Filing No. 7 (BRB #1- 00). On April 18, 2000, the City Council voted unanimously to uphold the Building Review Board's decision denying Bob Campbell's variance request that would have allowed a single licensed structural framing contractor to oversee numerous non -licensed framing subcontractors building the structural frame and sheathing for the appellant's proposed 290 May 2, 2000 multiple -dwelling -unit project. This Resolution makes findings of fact and conclusions to complete the record and to finalize its decision in this case. 17. Resolution 2000-65 Authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement with Great Outdoors Colorado for the Loveland -Fort Collins Corridor Conservation Project. In May 1998, the City of Fort Collins, City of Loveland, and Larimer County were awarded a $500,000 grant from Great Outdoors Colorado to be used for the conservation of priority open lands in the corridor between Fort Collins and Loveland, west of U.S. Highway 287. Since that time the partners have negotiated the purchase of several parcels of land in the area, including the McKee Trust property, the Buckner property, the Miltenberger property, and the Glode property. Recently, the partners negotiated a purchase and sale agreement on the remaining keyparcel, the Sauer property, and Council has adopted Resolution 2000-50 authorizing an intergovernmental agreement between the partners, and has, this same date, also adopted on Second Reading Ordinance No. 42, 2000 authorizing conveyance to Larimer County of a conservation easement on the property. This Resolution represents the final Council action needed on the project to approve the grant agreement with Great Outdoors Colorado, which is necessary to receive the funds for the project. 18. Resolution 2000-66 Approving an Exemption to the Use of a Competitive Process for Completion of Phase 1 of the Mason Street Transportation Corridor Project. This request is for an exemption to the competitive purchasing process requirements in order to contract with LSA Associates, Inc., as the lead consultants for the planning and design phase of the Mason Street Transportation Corridor Project. The Mason Street Transportation Corridor Project is funded through Building Community Choices dedicated sales W. The contract amount will not exceed $400,000 and will extend to October 31, 2000. Funds are available within the project budget for FY 2000. 19. Routine Easements. A. Grant of permanent drainage easement from Dalco, LLLC, located southeast of the intersection of Trilby Road and Shields Street, also known as the Colina Mariposa Natural Area. Monetary consideration: $10. B. Deed of dedication for easement from Dalco, LLLC, located southeast of the intersection of Trilby Road and Shields Street, also known as the Colina Mariposa Natural Area. Monetary consideration: $10. 291 May 2, 2000 C. Temporary grading casement from Warren Farms Development Company, north of Horsetooth Road, and west of Drake Road. Monetary consideration: $10. D. Access easements from Warren Farms Development company, north of Horsetooth Road, and west of Drake Road. Monetary consideration: $10. Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 39, 2000, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 42, 2000, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Conservation Easement on the "Sauer" Open Land Property to Larimer County 26. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 40, 2000, Authorizing Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Easements Necessary for the Locust Street Outfall Storm Drainage Improvements. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek. 10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 43, 2000, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for the Library Outreach Program. 11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 44, 2000, Amending the General Form for Petitions for Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. 12. Items Relating to an Intergovernmental Aueement with Great Outdoors Colorado for the "Expansion of the Cathy Fromme Prairie" Conservation Project. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 45, 2000, Authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement with Great Outdoors Colorado for the "Expansion of the Cathy Fromme Prairie" Conservation Project and Authorizing the Execution of a Declaration of Convenants, Conditions, and Restrictions on a 139-acre Portion of the Cathy Fromme Prairie, as Required Thereby. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 46, 2000, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund 1/4 Cent Natural Areas Capital Project for Reimbursement Toward the Purchase Price of a 139-acre Portion of the Cathy Fromme Prairie Acquired in 1995. 292 May 2, 2000 13. Items Relatingto o Intergovernmental Agreements with Great Outdoors Colorado and Larimer County for the "Cathy Fromme Prairie" Conservation Project. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 47, 2000, Authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement with Great Outdoors Colorado for the "Cathy Fromme Prairie" Conservation Project and Authorizing Execution of a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions on an 80-acre Portion of the Cathy Fromme Prairie as Required Thereby. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 48, 2000, Authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County Regarding the 80-acre Portion of the Cathy Fromme Prairie Acquired from Dan Jensen and Authorizing the Conveyance of an 11 % Undivided Interest in the Property to Larimer County as Required Thereby. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 49, 2000, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the 1/4 Cent Sales Tax for Natural Areas Capital Fund received from Larimer County and from a grant from Great Outdoors Colorado for the "Cathy Fromme Prairie" Conservation Project. 14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 50, 2000, Authorizing the Purchase of 6 Acres at 3301 East Prospect Road for Natural Area Purposes and Authorizing the Lease of the Property to the Seller, MBI Corporation, for a Period of up to Four Years. 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 51, 2000, Amending Chapter 12, Article II, of the City Code Pertaining to Garbage and Refuse and Chapter 20, Article III of the City Code Pertaining to Weeds. Brush Piles and Rubbish. 24. Items Relating to the City's Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Community Development Block Grant and Home Investment Partnerships Programs. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 52, 2000, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Projects in the Community Development Block Grant Fund. D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 53, 2000, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Projects in the Home Investment Partnerships Fund. Councilmember Wanner made amotion, seconded by Councilmember Mason, to adopt and approve all items on the Consent Calendar. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Byme, Kastein, Martinez, Mason, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED 293 May 2, 2000 Consent Calendar Follow-up Councilmember Bertschy commented on Consent Calendar items pertaining to natural areas purchases. Councilmember Reports Councilmember Wanner reported on Finance Committee discussions relating to options for transportation funding, preliminary figures for sales and property taxes collected for 1999, and an update regarding legislation affecting the City. Councilmember Bcrtschy reported on Poudre Fire Authority discussions relating to the purchase of land for Station No.14 in the Fossil Creek area. Mayor Martinez reported on Legislative Review Committee discussions concerning HB1440 relating to intemet taxation, the growth initiative, HB1477 relating to a community mediation council and administrator, HB1447 relating to phone rate increases, SB 147 relating to the use of contingent fee contracts to retain private attorneys, HB 1154 relating to securities lending, and HB 1046 relating to public securities. Consideration of the Appeal of the March 15, 2000, Decision of the Water Utility's Hearing Officer Denying the Application of Earle and Maxine Horton for a Xeriscape Certification and Grass Height Variance, Hearing Officer's Decision Modified The following is staffs memorandum on this item. "Executive Summary This appeal is taken from the "Decision of the Hearing Officer" dated March 15, 2000, issued by Steven Klausing, as the City's Water Utility Hearing Officer appointed by the General Manager of Utility Services, a copy of which decision is attached (the "Decision'). The Decision pertains to the application of Earle and Maxine Horton for a xeriscape certification and a grass height variance under Section 20-43 of the City Code for their residence at 2750 Pleasant Valley Road, Fort Collins, Colorado. 294 May 2, 2000 BACKGROUND: Xeriscape Certification/Grass Height Variance Several years ago, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 89, 1994 designating a xeriscape certification program as part of major changes to the City Code provisions relating to grass, weeds and brush. The Water Utilityfelt the certification was a way to encourage water -conserving landscapes and adhere to the intent of the City's water demand management policy. Under Section 20-43 of the Code, a certified xeriscape may receive a conditional variance from the Code provisions that regulate the height of grasses in Code Section 20-42(c). The xeriscape certification program is administered under regulations developed by the Water Utility under the direction of the General Manager of Utility Services, as authorized in Code Section 26-52. The criteria used to evaluate applications for xeriscape certification are divided into two parts. The first part is used to determine whether the landscape demonstrates the principles of xeriscape, including visual appeal, and the second part is used for determining whether to grant a grass height variance. The variance criteria evaluate whether the grass would create afire hazard, attract undesirable rodents, insects or snakes, produce allergens or promote the spread ofgrasses and weeds. The criteria evaluate, among other things, community aesthetics to see if the proposal is compatible with the nearby landscapes and whether people seeing it will consider it attractive. Horton Application In July 1999, in response to a complaint from a neighbor, a City weed inspector left Earle and Maxine Horton at 2750 Pleasant Valley Road a notice that they were in violation ofthe grass height ordinance. Subsequently, Mr. Horton called Ms. D'Audney, the xeriscape program administrator, to ask about obtaining a xeriscape certification for his property. Ms. D'Audney made a brief inspection of the propertyfrom the road and assessed it as mowable grasses and weeds. She left Mr. Horton a message saying she didn't think the landscape would qualify for certification. Ms. D'Audney subsequently received on September 30, 1999, an application from the Horton for xeriscape certification and a grass height variance for their entire property. An accompanying cover memo explained that their landscaping, although deviatingfrom the principles ofxeriscape, was intentional and was in keeping with their philosophy of natural gardening. The memo also stated that the application was submitted under protest because they felt the City lacked the authority to regulate the height of their grasses. The Hortons' home is in the Siena subdivision, which is a two or three year -old subdivision consisting of moderately priced homes. The lots are relatively small, with limited room for transitions from one type of landscaping to another. Landscapes in the neighborhood are generally irrigated and mowed, with trees and defined planting beds. 295 May 2, 2000 Ms. D'Audney visited the property again in October, 1999. Not being able to identify the grass species on the property, Ms. D'Audney asked horticulturist Jim Clark to visit the property. He confirmed that most of the species were water -conserving, but he also noted that several of the non- native grasses can be invasive. Evaluation of the Horton' application was difficult because the grasses and plant material were water -conserving, but the landscape didn't have the usual characteristics ofa xeriscape. Compared to a traditional landscape, xeriscape typically has smaller turf areas, lower water -using plant selections and more efficient irrigation. Xeriscape usually has mulched planting beds and plantings that are laid out in a particular design. In staffs view, the Hortons' landscape is more ofa prairie than a xeriscape and, if their lot were 114 acre or larger, it would f t better under the City's natural areas certification program. The goal of that program is to encourage site management practices that focus on protecting, restoring and enhancing native animal and plant communities, which is more in line with the Horton' objectives. Aesthetics Evaluation After applying the xeriscape program criteria, Ms. D'Audney determined that the landscape had acceptably met all of the criteria except the visual appeal and community aesthetics criteria. To double check her opinion on these two criteria, Ms. D'Audney told Mr. Horton she was going to ask for input from his neighbors. On November 4, 1999, Ms. D'Audney sent a letter to ten of the Hortons' neighbors. The letter asked for a written reply about the attractiveness of the Horton' landscape, what modifications could be done to make it acceptable and whether they could support the City granting the Hortons a variance to the grass height ordinance. The letter also stated that their responses would be kept strictly confidential. Confidentiality seemed appropriate in an effort to not disrupt the neighborhood dynamics. Ms. D'Audney's preliminary evaluation accompanied the letter, including the conditions under which the variance would be given. Six of the neighbors responded with letters. Denial of Application In a letter dated December 9, 1999, Ms. D'Audney informed the Hortons that their requests for xeriscape certification and the grass height variance had been denied. Although the Hortons' landscape met the goal of water conservation, Ms. D'Audney believed that the community value of aesthetics had not been satisfied. In response to the denial, the Hortons sent Ms. D'Audney a letter dated December 20, 1999, informing her that they intended to appeal the denial. The Hortons also requested copies of the letters received from the neighbors. 296 May 2, 2000 Letters Withheld In a letter dated January 6, 2000 from Deputy City Attorney John Duval, the Hortons received a summary of all the comments received from the neighbors without identifying their identities. To further protect the identities of the letter writers, on or about January 18, 2000, Michael Smith, General Manager of Utility Services, petitioned the Larimer County District Court, pursuant to the Colorado Open Records Act, to permit the City to withhold disclosure of the identities of those that wrote responses to Ms. D'Audney's November 4, 1999 letter. This lawsuit is currently pending. Appeal On January 9, 2000, Mr. Horton appealed the denial of the xeriscape certification and grass height variance to Wendy Williams, Deputy General Manager of Utility Services. The City agreed to reconsider Ms. D'Audney's denial of the Horton' application and on January 20, 2000, Mr. Smith appointed Steven Klausing as the Water Utility's hearing officer. The City and the Hortons exchanged information and submitted materials to Mr. Klausing, a private attorney who also serves as the City's Administrative Hearing Officer under its Land Use Code. The City submitted to Mr. Klausing all the letters and documentation to date (excluding the letters received from those neighbors who still desired confidentiality), copies of relevant court cases and written reports from two xeriscape experts. Mr. Klausing also visited the Horton' property on February 28, 2000. On March 15, 2000, Mr. Klausing rendered his decision (a copy of the record before the Hearing Officer is attached). He held that the City does have the authority to regulate the weed height ordinance and to regulate land use based on aesthetics. He also confirmed that the Horton' plantings are xeric. As far as aesthetics, he felt that attractiveness per se was not the question, but that his task was to determine whether the proposed xeriscape was aesthetically acceptable in the context of the neighborhood. In conclusion, Mr. Klausingfound that the proposed xeriscape is not consistent with the intent of the xeriscape program and does not aesthetically qualify for this location. Accordingly, Mr. Klausing found that the Water Utility properly denied the Hortons' request for xeriscape certification and a grass height variance. Second Appeal On March 24, 2000, the Hortons submitted an appeal of Mr. Klausing's denial to City Council pursuant to Sections 26-53 and 26-351 of the City Code. An amended notice of appeal to Council was submitted to the City Clerk's office on April 10, 2000. Procedure at the Appeal Section 26-53 of the Code states that any water user affected by any decision, action or determination made by the City's Water Utility in interpreting or implementing any programs developed under Article III of Chapter 26 of the Code may file an appeal in accordance with the procedure set forth in Section 26-351. That section, in turn, calls first for reconsideration by the 297 May 2, 2000 General Manager of Utility Services as the Director ofthe Water Utility. (In this case, the Director utilized the services of the Hearing Officer to undertake that reconsideration.) Section 26-351 then provides that if the person requesting the reconsideration is not satisfied with the final decision of the Director and wishes to appeal the decision, such person is to appeal the Director's final decision to the City Council in accordance with the procedures contained in Division III of Article II of Chapter 2 of the Code. The Hortons' amended notice of appeal asserts the following grounds for appeal: (1) failure to properly interpret and apply relevant laws and provisions of the Code and Charter, (2) failure to conduct a fair hearing in that: (a) the Utility exceeded its authority orjurisdiction as contained in the Code or Charter; (b) the Utility substantially ignored itspreviouslyestablished rules ofprocedure; (c) the Utility considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading; and (d) the Utility improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant. Staffs response to the allegations contained in the amended notice of appeal is included in the agenda materials. At the conclusion of the appeal hearing, the Council is authorized to uphold, overturn or modify the Hearing Officer's decision in this matter, or, in the alternative, to remand the matter for reconsideration by the Director or the Hearing Officer. " Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, that the City Council find based upon a review of the municipal Code sections relevant to this appeal that the current xeriscape and weed variance program was improperly adopted, that based upon this finding that the City Manager be directed to repeal the current program and to provide research to the City Council regarding the possible future adoption of a new program, and that until such research can be received and evaluated by the City Council that all pending applications for xeriscape certifications be held in abeyance. Earle Horton, 2750 Pleasant Valley Road, appellant, inquired about the effect of placing all pending applications in abeyance. Caroline Blackwell, special counsel, stated that there would be no FM May 2, 2000 enforcement of the weed ordinance against Mr. Horton's property until such time as the Council has had an opportunity to evaluate the research to be brought back to them. Mr. Horton spoke regarding the City's solicitation of neighborhood input regarding the variance and noted that only four out of 19 neighbors provided negative input regarding the aesthetics of his landscaping. He stated that if the variance were to be denied that a grass specific herbicide would be applied to the property. He spoke in support of reevaluation of the program. Helen Freeman Lane, 421 South Howes, stated that she wished to speak regarding the overall xeriscape certification program. Ms. Blackwell stated that it would not be appropriate to take such comments at this point in the hearing. John Duval, Assistant City Attorney, stated that he is present at the hearing representing staff and that Ms. Blackwell, Loveland Assistant City Attorney, is present as special counsel to advise the City Council. He stated that the authority delegated to the Utilities Director by existing ordinances has been a proper delegation of authority and is sufficient to sustain the decision of the hearing officer. He stated that Council could decide to hear the matter and outlined options for Council's consideration. Councilmember Byme asked about recommended and prohibited species under the landscaping requirements. Ms. Blackwell stated that this question relates to the overall program rather than to the motion that is before Council. Councilmember Byrne stated that his question bears upon the adequacy of the current program. Ms. Blackwell stated that the issue relates to criteria within the program and that the motion relates to the issue of whether or not the process used to adopt the program was appropriate. Councilmember Byrne asked how the adoption process was flawed. Ms. Blackwell stated that the basis for the motion is that the ordinance granting authority to the Water Utility to develop a xeriscape program that would result in determining eligibility for a variance of the weed ordinance did not contain sufficient guidelines for the Utility Director to utilize in the development of the program. Councilmember Byrne stated that the question is whether staff created a program that is fair and can be managed. Ms. Blackwell stated that the problem is with the mechanism of the grant of authority and that re -delegation would need to be accomplished through the adoption of an ordinance containing sufficient guidelines for creation of a xeriscape and weed variance program. Councilmember Mason asked for clarification regarding the research work to be done. City Manager Fischbach stated that professional assistance would be obtained. Councilmember Mason asked about the process to remand until the new ordinance is established. Ms. Blackwell stated that the appeal could be held in abeyance. Assistant City Attorney Duval 299 May 2, 2000 stated that the hearing could be continued until the Council has had an opportunity to consider an ordinance to delegate authority and establish acceptable criteria, and that if the adopted criteria are the same as those currently in place that there would be not need to remand to the hearing officer. He stated that if new criteria would be adopted that the matter should be remanded to the hearing officer for consideration under the new criteria. Councilmember Byrne asked about the timeframe for consideration of a new program. City Manager Fischbach stated that a minimum of three months would be needed. CouncilmemberByrne asked if the program could benefit from additional study. Laurie D'Audney, Water Conservation Specialist, stated that the program could benefit from some changes. Councilmember Kastein spoke regarding the issue of delegation of authority. Councilmember Wanner stated that there are questions regarding the program and that the intent is to direct staff to look at the program and make recommendations regarding needed changes. Councilmember Mason spoke regarding the intent that staff consult professional assistance and solicit public input. Councilmember Bertschy asked about the adoption of the weed ordinance. Ms. Blackwell stated that the weed ordinance was properly adopted. Councilmember Bertschy asked about ways to resolve issues in the neighborhood. City Manager Fischbach suggested that a neighborhood mediation could be done if the Hortons and their neighbors are willing. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Byrne, Kastein, Martinez, Mason, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Bertschy, to modify the decision of the hearing officer because he incorrectly found that the program was a valid regulation. Ms. Blackwell stated that the impact of the motion would be that the current appeal would be held in abeyance until such time as a new program is adopted or until the City determines that a new program will not be adopted. If a new program is adopted, the application would be evaluated under the criteria of the new program. Mr. Horton asked for clarification of the impact of the motion on his application. Ms. Blackwell stated that the application would be held in abeyance as above stated. 300 May 2, 2000 The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Byrne, Kastein, Martinez, Mason, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED City Manager Fischbach stated that a Resolution will be brought back in two weeks setting forth the Council's findings. Helen Freeman Lane, 421 South Howes, spoke in support of xeriscape landscaping. Items Relating to the City's Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Community Development Block Grant and Home Investment Partnerships Programs, Adopted on First Reading The following is staffs memorandum on this item. "Executive Summary A. Public Hearing and Resolution 2000-66 Approving the FY 2000-2001 Community Development Block Grant Program for the City of Fort Collins. B. Public Hearing and Resolution 2000-67 Approving the FY 2000 Home Investment Partnerships Program for the City of Fort Collins. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 52, 2000, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Projects in the Community Development Block Grant Fund. D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 53, 2000, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Projects in the Home Investment Partnerships Fund. The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and the Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program provide Federal funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to the City of Fort Collins which can be allocated to housing and community development related programs and projects, thereby, reducing the demand on the City's General Fund Budget to address such needs. The City Council is being asked to consider the adoption of two resolutions and two ordinances. The first resolution establishes which programs and projects will receive funding with CDBG funds for the FY 2000-2001 Program year, which starts on October 1, 2000. The CDBG Commission presents a list of recommendations as to which programs and projects should receive funding. The second resolution establishes only the majorfunding categories within the HOME Program for the FY 2000-2001 Program year. Specific projects for the use of HOME funds will be determined in November as a result of the fall funding cycle of the competitive process 301 May 2, 2000 for the allocation of the City's financial resources to affordable housing programs/projects and community development activities. The ordinances appropriate funds to be received for the CDBG and HOME programs, and transfer into the federa12000-2001 fiscal year programs unexpended program funds from prior year CDBG programs. BACKGROUND: The City Council is being asked to consider the adoption of two resolutions. The first resolution establishes which programs and projects will receive funding with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for the FY2000-2001 Program year, which starts on October], 2000. The second resolution establishes only the major funding categories within the Home Investment Partnership (HOME) Program for the FY2000-2001 Program year. Specific projects for the use of HOME funds will be determined in November as a result of the fall funding cycle of the competitive process for the allocation of the City's financial resources to affordable housing programs/projects and community development activities. Additional background material about the competitive process is included in Attachment "A ". Since early January of this year, the CDBG Commission and members of the City staffs Affordable Housing Team have conducted public hearings to assess community development and housing needs in Fort Collins, conducted technical assistance training workshops for applicants, and solicited applications for CDBG funding. The City's Affordable Housing Board reviewed the written applications for affordable housing projects and forwarded a priority ranking ofproposals, as well as comments, to the CDBG Commission. See Attachment "B "for copies of the Board's materials sent to the CDBG Commission. The CDBG Commission, in addition to reviewing the written applications, personally interviewed each applicant, analyzed the applications, and formulated a list of recommendations to the City Council as to which programs and projects should receive funding. The competitive process established refined criteria to determine priorities between proposals received by the City. The ranking criteria are divided into five major categories. Each category is given a total number ofpoints that has been weighed according to their importance with respect to local and federal priorities. The five major categories are: 1. Impact/Benefit 2. Need/Priority 3. Feasibility 4. Leveraging Resources S. Capacity and History The Impact/Benefit criteria provide greater rewards to proposals that target lower income groups. The Need/priority criteria help assure the proposal meets adopted City goals and priorities. The Feasibility criteria reward projects for timelines and documented additional funding. The leveraging resources criteria reward proposals which will return funds to the City (loans) and for 302 May 2, 2000 their ability to leverage other resources. And, the Capacity and History criteria help gauge an applicant's ability to do the project and reward applicants that have completed successful projects in the past (have good track records). The ranking sheet used to assist the CDBG Commission and the Affordable Housing Board is presented in Attachment "A ". The Commission also considered the funding guidelines contained in the Priority Affordable Housing Needs and Strategies report adopted by the Council on February 2, 1999. These guidelines include: o CDBG funds should generally be allocated as follows: 65%for Housing projects; 10%for Program Administration; 10% for Public Facilities; and 15% for Public Services; o funds allocated to housing should generally be divided as follows: 70% for rental projects and 30%for homeownership opportunities; and o the average subsidy should be $5,000 per unit, with relatively more funding to projects producing housing for lower income families. The CDBG Program is an ongoing grant administration program funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The City of Fort Collins has received CDBG Program funds since 1975. In 1975 and FY 1976-77 the City received HUD CDBG discretionary grants. Since FY 1977-78, the City has been an Entitlement Grant recipient of CDBG funds, meaning the City is guaranteed a certain level of funding each year. The level of funding is dependent on the total amount offunds allocated to the program by Congress and on a formula developed by HUD, which includes data on total population, minorities as a percentage ofpopulation, income levels, housing stock conditions, etc. Additional background information on the City's Community Development Block Grant Program is presented in Attachment "C". AVAILABLE FUNDS The amount ofthe City's CDBG Entitlement GrantforFY2000-2001 is$1,175,000. The Entitlement Grant will be combined with $34,358 of CDBG Program Income and $93,544 of Reprogrammed funds to create a total of $1,302, 902 of CDBG funds available forprograms and projects during the next CDBG Program year. CDBG Program Income includes funds returned to the City through the Payment of past housing rehabilitation loans. CDBG Reprogrammed funds include funds not expended in previously approved projects. 303 May 2, 2000 The following summarizes the amount and sources of available funds: CDBG Program "ift/ZIm SOURCE $1,175, 000 FY 2000 CDBG Entitlement Grant 34,358 CDBG Program Income 93,544 CDBG Reprogrammed Funds $1,302,902 CDBG Total Below is a summary ofrecent CDBG funding levels allocated from HUD to the City ofFort Collins: Entitlement Reprogrammed Program Year Grant Funds Income ----------------- Total Funds 1990 645,000 50,000 30,000 725,000 1991 728,000 160,000 30,000 918,000 1992 802,000 30,000 50,000 882,000 1993 1,091,000 50,000 90,000 1,231,000 1994 1,187,000 30,000 50,000 1,267,000 1995 1,231,000 0 40,000 1,271,000 1996 1,202,000 0 40,000 1,242,000 1997 1,188,000 181,273 50,000 1,419,273 1998 1,162, 000 216,875 50,000 1,428,875 1999 1,169,000 0 50,000 1,219,000 SELECTION PROCESS The selection process for the City's FY 2000-2001 CDBG Program began on January 13, 2000, when the CDBG Commission held a public hearing to obtain citizen input on community development and housing needs. The CDBG Program office placed legal advertisements in local and regional newspapers starting in January to solicit requests for CDBG funded programs and projects for FY2000-2001. The application deadline was Thursday February 24. At the close ofthe deadline the City received 28 applications requesting a total of approximately $2.5 million. Copies of all applications were forwarded through the City Manager's office to the City Council on March 2 and placed in the Council Office for review. Also on March 2 copies of the housing applications were distributed to the Affordable Housing Board and copies of all applications were distributed to the CDBG Commission. 304 May 2, 2000 On Thursday March 23, the Affordable Housing Board conducted a special meeting to review the housing proposals and prepare a priority listing of applications to the CDBG Commission. On Wednesday April lZ and Thursday April 13, the Commission met to hear presentations and ask clarification questions from each applicant. The Commission then met on Wednesday April 19, for the purpose ofpreparing a recommendation to the City Council as to which programs and projects should be funded for the FY 2000-2001 program year. At this meeting the Commission reviewed the written applications, the applicant's verbal presentation, the information provided during the question and answer session, and reviewed the performance ofagencies who received FY1999-2000 CDBG funds or funding in other previous years. The Commission then worked on the formulation of their list of recommendations. CDBG COMMISSION'S LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS HUD CDBG regulations limit the amount of available funds which can be allocated to various generic categories. Fundsfor Planning and Adininistrativepurposes are limited to 20% ofthe total of the Entitlement Grant and any anticipated Program Income. This means the 20% limitation for Planning and Administrative purposes is $260, 580. CDBG funds for Public Services are limited to 15% of the total of the Entitlement Grant and anticipated Program Income, making the amount $181,403. The Commission, thus, not only had to decide which applicants presented programs and projects which best fit into the City's CDBG Program, but also had to insure funding allocations were kept within HUD regulations and follow the funding guidelines contained in the Priority Affordable Housing Needs and Strategies report. Listed below is a summary of each applicant's initial request for funding and the Commission's list of recommendations. PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION— Maximum 2 0 % of CDBG Funds - $260,580 City of Fort Collins CDBG Administration Proposal covers the administrative costs of the FY2000-2001 CDBG Program Administration including salary, benefits and operating expenses for 2 staff positions. Request: $139,687 Recommendation: $139,687 City of Fort Collins — BA VA Subarea (Neighborhood) Plan Request for matching funds for a subarea (neighborhood) plan for the Buckingham, Andersonville, and Alta Vista neighborhoods. The plan will cover topics such as land use, redevelopment, transportation, rehabilitation, storm drainage, etc. 305 Request: $100,000 Recommendation: $ 80,000 May 2, 2000 Paradigm Development and Consulting, Inc. —planning, Capacity Building and Admin Project This project will identify undeveloped properties in the urban growth area for future affordable housing development. The properties will be protected for affordable housing development by using means such as land banking, deed restrictions, land trusts, etc. Request: $70,900 Recommendation: $ 0 Acquisition Habitat for Humanity Request for funding for the purchase of three lots. Request: $150,000 Recommendation: $75,000 Subsidy to be provided as deferred zero -interest loans, due -on -sale for three housing units. FM Fort Collins, L.P. — Fox Meadows Apartments Request is for funding for land acquisition, however, the applicant already owns the property and CDBG funds can not be used for reimbursement payments. Request: $250,000 The proposal was withdrawn by the applicant. Neighbor to Neighbor, Inc. Request for a grant to help acquire an existing apartment complex consisting of 24 units located at 233 N. Meldrum Street. Request: $300, 000 The proposal was withdrawn by the applicant. Brisben Companies — Park South Apartments Request for assistance in the payment of City Development Impact Fees. Request. $220,000 Recommendation: $ 0 306 May 2, 2000 Housing Elizabeth Street Senior Apartments Request by Kaufman and Broad for funds to pay City Development Impact/Building Permit Fees to help construct 50 senior apartments on West Elizabeth Street. Request: $250,000 Recommendation: $250,000 Subsidy to be provided as a 30 year loan at 3% interest with a 10 year balloon. CSUHabitat for Humanity — CSUHouse Project Grant request to help construct a single-family home in northeast Fort Collins. Request: $4,200 Recommendation: $ 10,512 Increased funding as a grant to be used to pay City Development Impact Fees. Homeownership Assistance City of Fort Collins CDBG Program — Homebuyer Assistance CDBG funds are anticipated to be combined with and HOME ($136,950) funds to continue to provide home ownership opportunities through the Homebuyer & Closing Cost Assistance Program. Approximately $5, 000 per unit would be available to families earning less than 80% of AMI. Request: $189,000 Recommendation: $492,939 In special circumstances, increase assistance to $10, 000 for families below 50% of"I. Public Facilities Respite Care Remodel Project Grant request to remove current food storage area, add shelving, and change lighting in the administrative area of the Respite Care facility. 307 Request: $12, 000 Food Bank for Latimer County Recommendation: $ 12,000 May 2, 2000 Grant request to help renovate the food cooler floor and add additional pallet racks and shelving. Request: $19,300 Crossroads Safehouse, Inc. Recommendation: $19,300 Grant request to replace door locks at the Crossroads Safehouse Shelter. Request: $6,296 Recommendation: $5,900 Fullana Learning Center — Renovation Project Phase H Grant request to help develop an infant playground and support space renovations to relocate employees. Request: $36,161 Buarcaire Youth Services Recommendation: $36,161 Forgivable 10 year grant with reverter clause if building is not used for low-income day-care. Grant request to help purchase a facility (total cost $650,000) to operate a halfway house for 25 youthful offenders. Request: $200,000 Recommendation: $0 Public Service Maximum 15% of CDBG funds $181,403 Education and Life Training Center — Adult Literacy Services Grant request to provide operating expenses for the Adult Literacy Services Program which provides tutor training for literacy volunteers, maintaining the READ -UP collection, responding to inquires, and coordinating other related adult literacy services. c 1:3 May 2, 2000 Request. $12,000 Recommendation: $10,000 Disabled Resource Services - Supported Youth Employment Program Grant request to help provide funds for the Supported Youth Employment Program that helps disabled youth participate in summer job training experiences. Request: $18,000 Project SelfSufficiency Recommendation: $15,000 Grant request to provide funds for the Supportive Services for Single Parent Families Program which assists participants in outlining steps towards accomplishment of both career and personal family goals. Request: $25,000 Food Bank for Larimer County Recommendation: $20,000 Grant request to provide a dock leveler and electric pallet jacks. Request. $4,500 Neighbor to Neighbor, Inc. Recommendation: $0 Grant request to provide partial f unds for the operation of the HUD certified Comprehensive Housing Counseling and Case Management Program which provides assistance to people along all points of the housing continuum from homelessness to home ownership to options for older adults. Request. $25, 000 Child Care Collaborative Project Recommendation: $22,000 Grant request to help provide f nds for the Sliding Scale Child Care Tuition Assistance Program. Eligibility requirements are based on income and requires adults to be working towards economic self-sufficiency. Request: $60,335 Recommendation: $60,335 Northern Colorado Health Network db.a. Northern Colorado Aids Project 309 May 2, 2000 Grant request to provide partial funding for the Northern Colorado Aids Project which attempts to decrease the incidence of HIV in the community and ensure those living with HIV are in appropriate medical care. Request: $20,000 Recommendation: $18,000 New Bridges, Inc. Grant request to help provide operational expenses of a daytime shelter and service referral center for the homeless. Request. $35,000 Recommendation: $0 Mercy Housing - Community Residential Initiatives — Springfield Court Apts. Grant request to provide partial funding for a variety of on -site resident services including childcare, job training, life development, parenting education, and children's activities. Request. $44, 550 Recommendation: $0 Elderhaus Adult Day Care Programs Grant request to provide partial funding for three new programs, a Multi -Cultural Day Program, a Community Group, and a Life Transitions Program. Request: $16,640 Lutheran Family Services Recommendation: $8,568 Grant request to provide partial funding for the Fostering Family Strengths: Prevention of Child Abuse Program which is designed to prevent child abuse and neglect by helping families learn to interact in healthy non-violent ways. Request: $8, 000 Recommendation: $7,500 310 May 2, 2000 Catholic Charities Northern - Services for Seniors Request for funds to provide services for seniors and frail and homebound elderly who are unable to access community resources because of lack of knowledge or other barriers such as cultural or language. Request. $6,500 Recommendation: $0 Catholic Charities Northern — The Mission Grant request to help provide operational expenses of a shelter (The Mission) and supportive services (Hope Job Bank) for the homeless. Request: $25, 000 Recommendation: $20,000 Total amount of CDBG funding requested = $2,468,069.00 A summary of the Commission's CDBG funding recommendations by category for the total amount offunds available is as follows: RECOMMENDED % of FUNDING TOTAL CATEGORY $ 219,687 16.9 PLANNING and ADMINISTRATION (Maximum $260,580 based on 20% of Entitlement Grant and Program Income) 828,451 63.6 HOUSING 73,361 5.6 PUBLIC FACILITIES 181,403 13.9 PUBLIC SERVICES (Maximum $181,403 based on 15% of Entitlement Grant and Program Income) $1,302,902 100.0 TOTAL The total amount of CDBG funding requests considered by the CDBG Commission was approximately $2.5 million, however, only $1.3 million of CDBG funds are available. With the amount of total requests far exceeding available funding, obviously not all applications could be funded. Due to HUD funding limitations, some Public Service applications received no funds or less funds than requested in order to keep the generic category within program maximums. The CDBG Commission has recommended full funding for five (5) proposals. In the Commission's opinion, the five applications recommended for full funding best fit CDBG Program national objectives, the selection criteria, and the funding guidelines. 311 May 2, 2000 The Commission also has recommended increased funding, over what was initially requested, for two (2) proposals, the CSU Habitatfor Humanity and the City's Homebuyer Assistance Program proposals. The Homebuyers Assistance Program is recommended for increased funding because, in the Commission's opinion, there were no other proposals worthy of funding over what the Commission has recommended. Proposals, which did not receive full funding, were deemed of a lower priority and, in some cases, a lack offends, program category limitations (especially in the Public Services category), orfunding guidelines prohibited their full funding. The Commission has recommended no funding for seven (7) proposals. The Commission's reasons for either increased funding, full funding, partial funding, or no funding are presented in Attachment "D ". " Ken Waido, Chief Planner, presented background information regarding the agenda item and described the four actions to be taken. Lynnette McClain, Beaucare Youth Services, 155 North College Avenue, spoke on behalf of her organization's request for $200,000 in funding for start up costs. She asked for consideration of an alternative request for $40,000 in funding for a different site. Mara Melton, acting director of Northern Colorado AIDS Project, thanked the CDBG Commission and Council for funding support. Kathy Smith Basey, President of the board of Northern Colorado AIDS Project, spoke regarding the Project and the increasing need for local funding support. Shelly Stephens, New Bridges Board President, requested that the Council reevaluate the CDBG Commission's recommendation to deny the $35,000 funding request of New Bridges. Joyce Whitten, Executive Director New Bridges, introduced New Bridges' client Johnny Marx. Johnny Marx, New Bridges client', spoke regarding his experiences as a New Bridges' client. Councilmember Byrne asked about the Beaucare application and limitations on funding in the public facilities category. Waido spoke regarding funding guidelines adopted by Council. Councilmember Byrne asked about the rationale for denial of funding for Beaucare. Waido spoke regarding the new verbal request of Beaucare for $40,000 for an alternative site. 312 May 2, 2000 Phil Majerus, CDBG Commission chair, stated that the Commission could address onlythe original funding proposal. He stated that the amount requested was high per individual served, the building appeared to be in disrepair, and that there was no assurance that the program would be serving Fort Collins youth. Councilmember Byrne asked about traditional funding for New Bridges. Mr. Majerus spoke regarding previous funding for New Bridges and the issues of escalating rent rates, the number of people served directly, whether Fort Collins residents are being served, the appropriateness of the location, and funding for other homeless programs. Councilmember Byrne asked if New Bridges will continue operations if this funding is not received. Chuck Seele, New Bridges Boardmember, spoke regarding the loss of other funding sources and the impact on staffing and hours. Councilmember Kastein asked about limitations in the public services category. Waido stated that 15% is the maximum available. Councilmember Bertschy asked if partial funding was considered for New Bridges. Bill Steffes, CDBG Commission member, stated that the competitive process means that some programs could not be funded in the public services area. He stated that the increase in rent costs for New Bridges was a major concern to the Commission. Mayor Martinez asked about funding for other homeless programs and whether alternative locations for New Bridges are being studies. Waido outlined the homeless projects funded. City Manager Fischbach spoke regarding efforts to work with New Bridges to find a better location. Mr. Seele spoke regarding meetings held with City staff regarding moving New Bridges out of the downtown and expressed a concern that the facility needs to be at a location accessible to clients. Councilmember Weitkunat asked about the application process, itemization of how dollars would be used and the prioritization process. Waido stated that each application must specify the intended use of dollars and that the Commission reviews the total package for each application. Mayor Martinez asked about the record of complaints regarding the location of New Bridges. Waido stated that this was not an issue considered by the Commission. Councilmember Bertschy asked if the public services category could be sent back to the Commission for reconsideration. Waido spoke regarding the July deadline. Alfred Flores, CDBG Commission Vice -chair, stated that the issues were carefully debated by the Commission and that no decision was made lightly. Vi Guthrie, CDBG Commission Boardmember, spoke regarding the difficulty of the allocation process for a group of volunteers in light of limited funds and stated that one homeless program was 313 May 2, 2000 recommended for funding. She noted that there was discussion regarding duplication of services between New Bridges and Catholic Community Services Northern. Councilmember Byme made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Bertschy, to adopt Resolution 2000-66. Councilmember Mason spoke regarding the difficulty of the decision -making process because of funding limitations and commended the CDBG Commission for their work. Councilmember Kastein expressed appreciation for the work of the Commission and stated that no new information has been presented that would lead him to change the recommendations. Councilmember Wanner thanked the Commission for its work. Councilmember Weitkunat expressed appreciation for the work of the Commission in making fair recommendations. Councilmember Bertschy spoke regarding the importance of the work done by the Commission and the fairness of the process. Councilmember Mason asked about reductions in County funding for New Bridges. Waido stated that the County is reassessing its human service grant program. City Manager Fischbach spoke regarding the County's human service discussions. Mayor Martinez spoke regarding the difficult work of the Commission and encouraged New Bridges to continue discussions with the City regarding location. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Byme, Kastein, Martinez, Mason, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Bertschy made amotion, seconded byCouncilmemberKastein, to adopt Resolution 2000-67. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Byrne, Kastein, Martinez, Mason, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: None. Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Bertschy, to adopt Ordinance No. 52, 2000 on First Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Byrne, Kastein, Martinez, Mason, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED 314 May 2, 2000 Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt Ordinance No. 53, 2000 on First Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Byrne, Kastein, Martinez, Mason, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Ordinance No. 40, 2000, Authorizing Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Easements Necessary for the Locust Street Outfall Storm Drainage Improvements. Adopted on Second Reading The following is staffs memorandum on this item. "Executive Summary Construction of the proposed improvements will require the acquisition of a permanent utility easement and a temporary construction easement from two properties. Staff has initiated the easement acquisition process —discussing the project with the property owners, obtaining appraisals, preparing offers and negotiating for the required easements. Staff will continue good faith negotiations; however, to ensure that the City can secure all of the easements in time to begin construction of the project, it is necessary to initiate the first step of the eminent domain process, Ordinance No. 40, 2000, was adopted 6-0 on First Reading on April 18, 2000 and authorizes acquisition by eminent domain. Councilmember Weitkunant withdrew from discussion due to a perceived conflict of interest." Councilmember Weitkunat withdrew from discussion and voting on this item due to a perceived conflict of interest. ("Secretary's Note: Councilmember Weitkunat left the room at this point.) Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt Ordinance No. 40, 2000 on Second Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Byrne, Kastein, Martinez, Mason, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED 315 May 2, 2000 Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. ATTEST: 1 1 � `&City Clerk !� UP Mayor