Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-03/21/2000-RegularMarch 21, 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, March 21, 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, Byme, Kastein, Martinez, Mason, Wanner and Weitkunat. Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Krajicek, Roy. Agenda Review City Manager Fischbach stated that item #8 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 199, 1999, Authorizing the Lease of Portions of the Resource Recovery Farm to Western Mobile Northern, Inc. for Gravel Mining is being withdrawn from the Consent Calendar for discussion. CONSENT CALENDAR 7. Consideration and adoption of the Council meeting minutes of January 18 February February 15 and March 7, 2000. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 199, 1999, Authorizing the Lease of Portions of the Resource Recovery Farm to Western Mobile Northern. Inc. for Gravel Minine Ordinance No. 199, 1999, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 7, 1999, authorizes the conveyance of a mining lease to Western Mobile Northern, Inc. for mining of sand and gravel at the Resource Recovery Farm. Since that time, negotiations regarding the 40-acre parcel along the Poudre River on which the City had expected to acquire a conservation easement have changed course. Staff is now negotiating a contingent purchase of property totaling approximately100 acres, and the owner of the property is not willing to grant a conservation easement given the ongoing negotiations for the sale of the property. The Owner is however, postponing additional mining on the property pending the City's purchase of the property. The Ordinance has been revised to reflect this change in the negotiations. Although the City's conveyance of the mining lease is no longer made contingent upon the owner's grant of a conservation easement, City staff believes that proceeding with the mining lease is advisable, because the mining lease will result in the payment of market rate royalties to the City for the sand and gravel on the Resource Recovery Farm, which will be reclaimed for valuable wetlands habitat post -mining. In addition, if Western Mobile is not able to mine at the Resource Recovery Farm, the chances 212 March 21, 2000 are greatly increased that Western Mobile would instead mine the 40-acre parcel the City seeks to preserve. Consequently, staff recommends that the conveyance of the mining lease proceed at this time. The Ordinance has also been changed to reflect a more accurate reference to Western Mobile Northern, Inc., a corporate affiliate of LaFarge, as the mining lessee, rather than LaFarge. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 24 2000 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for the Northern Colorado Regional Communities I-25 Corridor Plan. In 1999, eight jurisdictions in Northern Colorado agreed to prepare a plan for the I-25 corridor between Berthoud and Fort Collins. Seven jurisdictions agreed to share in the cost of preparing the plan, based upon population, as has been the case in the past for other regional projects. The Plan, when completed, will address design, local transportation networks, and protection of important natural areas and open lands. The planning effort is underway and is expected to be completed in 2001. Ordinance No. 24, 2000, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 7, 2000, appropriates the funds needed to complete the project. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 25, 2000, Designating the Sondburg House Garage and Chicken Coon, 237 West Street, as a Historic Landmark Pursuant to Chanter 14 of the City Code. The owner of the property, John Litschert, is initiating this request for Local Landmark designation for the Sondburg House, Garage, and Chicken Coop. The house and garage are significant for their architectural importance to Fort Collins as locally rare examples of residential Art Moderne architecture. The chicken coop has architectural importance for its representation of the property's early history. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 7, 2000. 11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 26, 2000, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund and Unanticipated Revenue in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the Franz - Smith Cabin Relocation Project. In October of 1999, a small homestead cabin, the Franz -Smith Cabin, came to the attention of staff at the Fort Collins Museum as a significant structure of Fort Collins' past that is in danger of being lost. The circa 1882 Franz -Smith Cabin represents 70 years of agricultural tradition in the southern communities of Fort Collins. The cabin stood adjacent to South Shields near Harmony Road until it was displaced in 1987 with the development of a new subdivision at that location. The Larimer County Historic Alliance (LCHA) relocated the cabin to Livermore in an attempt to save it from demolition, but the LCHA's dream of an 213 March 21, 2000 architectural park was never realized. The cabin currently sits on blocks behind the Forks Restaurant on Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) land, where it can no longer stay. The Museum is requesting City Council appropriate the $35,370 towards this relocation project. Because $7,000 of the matching contribution will be from in -kind contributions, it is not necessary to appropriate funds for that portion of the project. 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 27, 2000, Authorizine the Conveyance of Temporary Construction Easement and Non -Exclusive Easement for Storm Drainage for Registry Ridge P.U.D. in the Colina Mariposa Natural Area. This Ordinance grants to DALCO Land Limited Liability Company ("DALCO") a temporary access and construction easement on 3.933 acres and a permanent drainage easement on 9.320 acres of land previously donated by DALCO to the City of Fort Collins as part of the Colina Mariposa Natural Area. The location and design of the easements and associated storm drainage facility has been approved by the City of Fort Collins as part of the final review process for the Registry Ridge P.U.D. 13. Resolution 2000-47 Establishing Rental Rates to be Charged for the City's Surplus Raw Water for the 2000 Season. This Resolution approves rates for the rental of the City's surplus raw water. Each year prior to the irrigation season, the City's Water Board ("the Board") makes a recommendation to the Council on the rental rates to be charged for the City's surplus raw water. The surplus water rental program was discussed at the February 24, 2000 meeting of the Board. The proposed rental rates for each type of water are based on several factors including past rental rates, assessment rates, and anticipated supply and demand conditions. 14. Resolution 2000-48 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter Into a Grant Agreement with the State Board of the Great Outdoor Colorado Trust Fund For The Development by Fort Collins Soccer Club Of a Soccer Complex Northeast of Fort Collins. Only local governments may apply for and receive Great Outdoors Colorado ("GOCO") Local Government grants, which are for local government parks, outdoor recreation and environmental education facility projects. Local governments may also sponsor grants for others (such as School Districts, recreational groups, etc.) who have projects that support the mission of the local government. The City, as the grant applicant/recipient, must enter into a grant agreement with GOCO, but has negotiated an agreement with the Fort Collins Soccer Club that will require the Soccer Club to provide required matching funds and comply with the grant requirements, and will give the City oversight power in order to ensure that the grant requirements are being met. 214 March 21, 2000 15. Resolution 2000-49 Authorizing the Purchasing Aaent to Purchase Animal Control Services from the Humane Society of Larimer County for 2000 and 2001, as an Exception to Competitive Purchasing Procedures. The City of Fort Collins has contracted with the Humane Society for Larimer County for animal control services for the past eighteen years. The contract requires a wide variety of equipment and services including: public education; maintaining and equipping a shelter facility; veterinary care; humane and modem vehicles equipped for transporting animals; radios; uniforms; administration of the pet licensing program; furnishing humane traps as appropriate; maintaining adequate liability insurance; quarterly reports to our Director of Finance; pick-up and disposal of dead animals, and generally respond to animal -related calls for services within the City. There is no other known organization, entity or individual capable of performing these services. 16. Resolution 2000-50 Authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Loveland and Larimer County for the Purchase and Management of Approximately Seven Hundred and Eighty-five Acres of Onen Lands Between Fort Collins and Loveland. The Resolution authorizes execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Loveland and Larimer County for the purchase, ownership, and management of a large tract of open land located in the corridor between Fort Collins and Loveland, west of Taft Hill Road (Wilson Avenue in Loveland). This acquisition represents the last major land conservation project needed to complete the vision for the corridor west of Highway 287 established in the Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland. The City ofFort Collins, City of Loveland, and Larimer County have been collaborating on the implementation of this plan since its adoption in 1995. 17. Routine Deeds and Easements. A. Easement for construction and maintenance of electric utilities from Mark A. Archuleta, located at 215 East Elizabeth, to underground existing overhead electric services. Monetary consideration: $10. B. Easement for construction and maintenance of electric utilities from Arthur P. and Sandra A. Gies, located at 219 East Elizabeth, to underground existing overhead electric services. Monetary consideration: $10. C. Easement for construction and maintenance of electric utilities from Cathy Ann Semerad, 221 Smith Street, to underground existing overhead electric services. Monetary consideration: $100. 215 March 21, 2000 D. Permanent right-of-way dedication for public street purposes from Steven G. Fobes (A-Z Party Rental), located northeast of Riverside Avenue. Monetary consideration: $0. E. Drainage easement from Steven G. Fobes (A-Z Party Rental), located northeast of Riverside Avenue. Monetary consideration: $10. F. Utility easement from Steven G. Fobes (A-Z Party Rental), located northeast of Riverside Avenue. Monetary consideration: $0. G. Construction and maintenance easement to underground electric system from Kristie M. Rempfer and Sally Juday, located at 223 East Elizabeth. Monetary consideration: $87.50 Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 199, 1999, Authorizing the Lease of Portions of the Resource Recovery Farm to Western Mobile Northern, Inc. for Gravel Mining, 9. Second Reading of OrdinanceNo.24.2000, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue andPrior Year Reserves in the General Fund for the Northern Colorado Regional Communities I-25 Corridor Plan. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 25, 2000, Designating the Sondburg House Garage and Chicken Coon. 237 West Street, as a Historic Landmark Pursuant to Chanter 14 of the City Code. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek. 11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 26, 2000. Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund and Unanticipated Revenue in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the Franz - Smith Cabin Relocation Project. 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 27, 2000 Authorizing the Conveyance of Temporary Construction Easement and Non -Exclusive Easement for Storm Drainage for Registry Ridge P.U.D. in the Colina Mariposa Natural Area. 21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 28, 2000 Amending Chanter 20 of the City Code Relating to Public Nuisance Violations. 22. First Reading of Ordinance No. 29, 2000, Authorizing the Transfer of Funds from the Northeast Truck Route Project Account into a New Account Entitled the Truck Route 216 March 21. 2000 Relocation Project Account and Appropriating the Expenditure of Funds from Said Account to Meet the Requirements of Ballot Issue 200. Councilmember Mason made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adopt and approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Byrne, Kastein, Martinez, Mason, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: None. IlllWMISTtll ORKOYAN i Consent Calendar Follow-up CouncilmemberBertschy commented regarding item #9 Second Reading of 0rdinanceNo. 24, 2000, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for the Northern Colorado Regional Communities I-25 Corridor Plan and item #16 Resolution 2000-50 Authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement with the City ofLoveland and Larimer County for the Purchase and Management of Approximately Seven Hundred and Eighty-five Acres of Open Lands Between Fort Collins and Loveland. Councilmember Reports Councilmember Wanner reported on Health and Safety Committee discussions relating to the proposed pawnbrokers and secondhand dealers ordinance. She also reported on Growth Management Committee discussions relating to floodway regulations, population increase impacts on City Plan, parking regulation Code changes, impact fees on mobile homes, and the Mason Street Corridor. Councilmember Weitkunat reported on Legislative Review Committee discussions relating to the defeat in committee of HB1223 relating to growth, HB197 relating to utility line locations, and HB180 relating to preferential treatment of veterans in employment. Councilmember Mason reported on Finance Committee discussions relating to neighborhood and community parkland fee increases to reflect new cost categories, a proposed outreach program on the fee increases, General Accounting Standards Board changes in requirements for fund reporting, the actuarial valuation of the fire pension plan and a proposed cost of living adjustment, and proposed state legislation that proposes reductions in the state income tax and sales tax. Ordinance No. 28, 2000, Amending Chapter 20 of the City Code Relating to Public Nuisance Violations. Adopted on First Reading The following is staffs memorandum on this item. 217 March 21, 2000 "Executive Summary The Council Health and Safety Committee has worked with staff and the community over the past nine months to develop and refine a proposed public nuisance ordinance. Input has been received from more than 500 people via community meetings, e-mail, letters and phone calls. Several revisions to the ordinance have been made to respond to feedback from the community. Staff believes that the current draft of the ordinance achieves the goals of the Health and Safety Committee while addressing many of the concerns expressed by members of the public. However, the issue remains controversial, and concerns exist around the fundamental question of whether property owners should be held responsible for the behavior of tenants and visitors to their property. BACKGROUND: Over the past few years, many people have contacted the City because of nuisance properties in their neighborhoods. These houses are usually described as chronic problems, creating an eyesore and, in many cases, disturbing the peace ofothers who live nearby. The public nuisance ordinance would add a tool to the City's resources for dealing with these problems. Though the City has existing laws to deal with many of the individual issues which neighbors complain about, it currently has no effective way of dealing with these chronic problems if the occupants of the properties fail to respond to enforcement efforts. In order to address these problems, the City Council included this issue as a priority in its Policy Agenda over the past four years. The Council Health and Safety Committee and staff have considered a number of alternatives during that time and staff has implemented a wide variety of programs to attempt to resolve the issue. This ordinance would add another important tool to this overall effort which targets the most difficult chronic problem properties where enforcement of existing codes has not been effective. Some of the other projects that staff has undertaken during the past 4 years include the following: ♦ Education and cooperative efforts with CSU regarding students who live off campus ("Duh " advertising campaign, CSU Student Housing Fair, etc) ♦ Publication of the "Across the Fence" brochure to provide residents with simple, concise information about ordinances which affect neighborhoods, and what to do when problems arise. ♦ Amendments to the Rubbish Ordinance, i.e. the "Funky Couches" ordinance prohibiting the use of indoor furniture on lawns, roofs and in other exposed areas. ♦ Implementation of a Landlord Education Program to provide property management seminars to rental property owners and managers regarding best practices in managing rental properties. 218 March 21, 2000 ♦ Neighborhood Resources Program: On -going program to bring neighbors together to improve their neighborhoods by knowing each other and talking about problems when they come up. ♦ Increased enforcement of Health and Safety codes, including increased ticketing of offenders by deputizing officers. ♦ Analysis of violation data through a pilot project to evaluate problem and possible solutions. Significant findings included realizing that property owners didn't always know about problems, and that there are some properties that repeatedly violate all types ofcodes. ♦ Commitment from the Police Department to review its enforcement practices on parry and noise calls and to look for ways to improve its effectiveness. ♦ Approval ofan additionalposition in the Health and Safetydivision to work on coordinating enforcement around the chronic problem properties, to act as a resource to neighbors and property owners to deal with problems proactively, and if the ordinance is passed, to coordinate the enforcement. ♦ Expansion of Community Mediation Program to include landlord -tenant disputes. SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM: In order to evaluate the scope of the problem of chronic problem properties, staff has conducted research into the number of violations involving cases of the type which tend to "annoy or disturb neighbors. " Statistics were gathered from the Health and Safety Division which enforces the City's rubbish, weeds, snow and inoperable motor vehicle ordinances, and from Police Services, which enforces the City's ordinances dealing with parties and noise. Though there are other types of violations that may "annoy or disturb neighbors, " these categories are the most frequent types of violations that contribute to a chronic problem property. Health and Safety Code Enforcement Statistics (City-wide) 1997 1998 1999 Percent Increase Properties Notified 4,291 5,279 5,201 21 Properties Abated 592 747 760 28% 219 March 21, 2000 1997 1998 1999 Percent Increase Tickets Issued 2 41 82 4100% Police Citations Issued for Noise/Parties 1997 1998 1999 Percent Increase Noise Citations 1538 1539 1590 3.4% Issued Though the data regarding the number of violations shows a significant problem community -wide, it does not illustrate the extent of the problem of chronic problem properties (those with multiple violations of a variety of City codes.) In order to better understand the extent of the problem, in September 1998 the City and CSUbegan a pilot project to experiment with a stepped up education and enforcement program in two neighborhoods near CSU's campus. The task force carried out projects within the pilot area to determine which actions and programs could be of the greatest benefit in improving the quality of life and appearance in the targeted neighborhoods. The two pilot areas included approximately 600 properties and included a large percentage of rental housing. The area to the north of the campus was bounded by Washington Street, Howes Street, West Mulberry Street, and Laurel Street. East Mulberry Street, Prospect Road, Remington Street, and Peterson Street bound the pilot area east of the campus. Staff found that it was difficult to have effective code enforcement for the full range of nuisance ordinances because there was not a clear picture of where chronic violations exist. Information sharing between the various enforcement arms ofthe City was needed to make enforcement efforts more effective. The data collection portion of this project was aimed at a small-scale experiment with more detailed information sharing. During the nine month pilot project, staff developed a temporary database that allowed the City to improve the process of notifying property owners and managers when violations occurred. This database combined information from the Police Department, the City's Health and Safety Inspectors, Zoningstaffand theLarimer County Humane Society. Though difficult and labor intensive to collect, the committee found that the data provided a helpful way to quantify the frustration that many neighbors feel in dealing with these problem properties in their neighborhood. When data from all of enforcement agencies was consolidated, it showed the following: 220 March 21, 2000 Pilot Project Violation Data 600 properties'monitored Violations September 1998-May 1999 Properties with Multiple Violations 2 33 3-4 18 5-7 7 8-11 2 Total 60 Nearl 1y 0% of the 600+pMperties in thepilot area had multiple violations of City codes during the nine -month data collection period, with 1.5% having five or more violations. Staff is confident of the validity of the data because of the extensive screeningprocess that was undertaken in the project to eliminate unfounded complaints. Each property owner and known property manager associated with the property received a letter from the City listing the violations that occurred and providing information about the impact on neighbors and possible consequences for repeated violations. Staffs conclusionfront the study was that there are a small number of chronic problem properties (1-2% in the study area), which had a large number of violations of various city codes. We also found that, in many cases, the property owners involved were not aware that significant problems existed at their property and that, with the information, most were willing to address the problem. In its June 1999 report to Council on the pilot project, staff made several recommendations, all of which Council accepted. Recommendations included expanding the community mediation program to include landlord/tenant disputes; continuing the cross functional staff team to work on these issues; adding a code enforcement case manager to the 2000-2001 Budget to coordinate enforcement of chronic problem properties; and developing a draft public nuisance ordinance to provide an additional tool to deal with the most difficult chronic problem properties. Beginning in January 2000 the Community Mediation Program was expanded, in February 2000 the code enforcement case manager position was filled, and now the nuisance ordinance is before Council for consideration. PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE: The proposed ordinance was developed to address two goals: To remedy chronic problems at properties where City Code violations occur that annoy or disturb others. 221 March 21, 2000 2. To hold property owners accountable for the condition and use of their properties. Under the ordinance, the City would consider filing a public nuisance action if a property had received three or more separate City Code violations within 12 months or five or more within 24 months. Violations would have to be of the type that "annoy or disturb neighbors or passers by. " In order to ensure that the violations included in a public nuisance action are valid, each violation must have resulted in the issuance ofa municipal court citation to the persons) directly responsible for the violation. By requiring that a citation must have been issued for the violation to "count" towards a public nuisance action, the City can be better assured that frivolous complaints will not become part of a nuisance action. Since an enforcement officer would have verified the complaint and citation, abuse of the system should be avoided. The ordinance would require that written notice be sent to the property owner and where applicable, tenants within 30 days of each violation except the last one, and that the last violation must have occurred at least 45 days after the last notice. This 45 day waiting period would provide the property owner with time to either resolve the problem or contact the City to begin to develop a voluntary plan to abate the problem. THE PUBLIC NUISANCE ORDINANCE MECHANICS: There would be several steps involved in enforcing the public nuisance ordinance. The process is illustrated in the flowchart, Exhibit A. First, the City would need to become aware that a property might be becoming a public nuisance. This could happen in any of several ways, including complaints from neighbors, a large number of violations which look like a pattern to a staffinember, or the police department noticing a chronic problem and calling it to the attention of the code enforcement staff. The Code Compliance Case Manager could then collect data about a potential nuisance property and look at the "big picture" to determine how serious and chronic the problem is in comparison to similar properties in the City. If the property has multiple violations, the City Attorney would also help to decide whether a public nuisance action could be proven in Court and should be filed. Any action to enforce this ordinance would be civil in nature, and could only become criminal if a court order were ignored. Notice would be sent to theproperty owner (and tenants in the case ofa rental) when the City begins the process of monitoring a property as a possible public nuisance. This would be the first official notice ofthe possibility ofa public nuisance violation. After receiving the first notice, two additional violations within 12 months (three total) or four additional violations within 24 months (Jive total) could result in the fling of a public nuisance action. As soon as the first notice was sent to the property owner, the City would encourage the owner to work with the City, any tenants and possibly neighbors to develop a plan to avoid future problems. 222 March 21, 2000 VOLUNTARYAGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITYAND PROPERTY OWNERS: The goal of the ordinance is to resolve chronic problems in the neighborhoods. The focus of the ordinance is on working with the property owner to make improvements. A voluntary action plan could be developed between the City and the owner to both resolve the problem and avoid the need for court orders under the ordinance. At any time after a notice has been sent out, a property owner could enter into a voluntary abatement plan with the City by meeting with staff and working out an agreement. If the property owner and the City reached such an agreement and the property owner did what he or she had agreed to do, no public nuisance action would be filed. REMEDIES UNDER THE ORDINANCE: The City sgoal would be to achieve compliance with City ordinances through voluntary agreements. However, ifno voluntary abatement agreement was reached, the City could ask the Municipal Court to issue an order to the parties causing the nuisance, requiring them to do whatever is necessary to put an end to the nuisance. If the owner was unwilling to resolve the problem through an abatement plan, the City would have the ability to take an owner to court under the ordinance. Remedies would then come in the form ofa municipal court order. The Court could order the owner to do whatever is appropriate to resolve the problem. This might include such things as ordering a particular tenant to be evicted, clean-up of the property, or an order that a certain person not engage in a certain kind of behavior. In order to get a temporary order, the City would have to establish, at a hearing, reasonable grounds to believe that a public nuisance exists. (In an emergency, the City could get a temporary order without a court hearing, but that order could remain in effect for no more than ten days, unless it was extended after a hearing.) If the City obtained a temporary order, the persons affected by the order could ask the Court to remove it at any time. To obtain a permanent order, the City would have to prove the existence of the public nuisance, including any underlying violations that had not already been proved in Court. 223 March 21, 2000 Even withouta voluntary abatement agreement, a notice ofviolation would bestricken (notcounted) if a landlord went to court to evict a tenant that had caused the problem, and also did everything reasonably possible to avoid more of the same kinds of problems. The only criminal penalties that could result from the ordinance would occur ifsomeone knowingly ignored or disobeyed a court order. If, for example, someone was ordered by the court to clean up a property and they did not follow the order, that person could be prosecuted for a misdemeanor violation in Municipal Court. All previous notices of violations would be stricken (would not count) if the property was sold, unless it was sold simply to avoid the public nuisance ordinance. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT AND COMMENTS: The City has received numerous written comments about the proposed ordinance, and hundreds of people attended one or more of the meetings. Staff continues to receive e-mail feedback on a daily basis. Attached is a complete set of all the feedback received. Several themes have emerged in the comments from the community. The following is a brief summary of issues that have come up frequently. For the Ordinance: ♦ Owning a rental property is a business and business owners are responsible for how their business premises are used. Therefore, property owners must be held responsible for activities at their rental properties. ♦ Property values suffer when these problem properties are allowed to exist. ♦ In the case ofrental properties it is not the responsibility ofneighbors to explain local codes to every new tenant. Property owners need to take responsibility to see that this occurs. In addition to the Ordinance, CSU also needs to take responsibility for problems that are created by students. ♦ Even when neighbors try to contact the owner, they are generally not successful in getting cooperation. This ordinance will force owners to get involved. ♦ The City also needs to be more aggressive in enforcing existing ordinances. This may make the use of a nuisance ordinance less frequent and only necessary for worst cases. 224 March 21, 2000 Opposed to the Ordinance: ♦ This ordinance is too far reaching for the small number ofproblems that may exist. ♦ The City should enforce existing ordinances instead of adding another ordinance that will be difficult to enforce. ♦ Landlords are not responsible for the actions of the people to whom they rent their property and shouldn't be held accountable for those actions. ♦ Unreasonable neighbors can create a problem for a landlord. ♦ It is difficult for landlords to evict problem tenants, yet the ordinance holds them strictly liable for their bad actions. Sometimes landlords get bad tenants, despite their best efforts to avoid problems. ♦ Property owners should always be notified about police calls at their property so that they can address the problem. Without that information, how can property owners be proactive in solving problems? ♦ Real estate professionals were not consulted in drafting the ordinance. Better solutions could have been created. ♦ Investors will need to raise rental prices and deposits to cover the risk that they will have to assume with the ordinance. ♦ The ordinance will affect housing affordability A full list of all public outreach conducted by staff and Council Members is attached. " City Manager Fischbach made a brief presentation regarding the agenda item. He stated the Ordinance is intended to provide an additional tool to deal with the growing problem of chronic nuisance properties. He stated that the purposes of the proposed Ordinance are: (1) to remedy chronic problems where City Code violations occur that annoy or disturb others; (2) to hold property owners accountable for the use of their properties; and (3) to add another tool to the City's options for dealing with these problems. He spoke regarding the process that would be followed in designating and dealing with nuisance properties. He stated that the Ordinance would provide for civil rather than criminal penalties unless a court order is ignored, that the City would not be able to close or seize a property, and that unfounded or frivolous complaints could not be the basis of a charge. He outlined community outreach efforts regarding the proposed Ordinance. Mayor Martinez established a three -minute time limit for those wishing to speak 225 March 21. 2000 The following individuals spoke in support of the proposed ordinance: 1. Don Fagerberg, 1304 Constitution Avenue. 2. Ken Crockett, 1700 Springfield Drive. 3. Frank Goss, 1621 Leesdale, Avery Park Neighborhood Association. 4. Joyce Murphy, 1929 Oakwood Drive. 5. Betty Maloney, 1309 City Park Avenue. 6. Mike O'Brien, 2537 Wood Valley Court. 7. Ken Dimick, 2404 Evergreen Drive. 8. Harold Worth, Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association representative. 9. Kathy Graybill, 1529 Whedbee. 10. Katie Lynch, 1500 Constitution Avenue. 11. John Hendrix, 3000 Tulane Drive. 12. William Volz, 1816 Orchard Place, Moore Elementary Neighborhood Association. 13. Donna Fairbank, 1712 Clearview Court. 14. Al Baccili, 520 Galaxy Court. 15. Don Heyse, 1842 Corriedale Court. 16. Nancy Duteau, 520 North Sherwood. 17. Colleen Fullbright, 1806 Marlborough Court. 18. Cassie Busch, 1715 Crestmore Place. 19. William O'Brien, 1605 Leesdale Court. 20. Sivau Lee, 939 Pioneer Avenue. 21. Greg McMaster, 1409 Skyline Drive, Avery Park Neighborhood Association. 22. Gerald Remington, 1317 South Bryan. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance: 1. Carrie Gillis, 2213 Timber Creek Drive. 2. Greg Snyder, 619 Bear Creek. Drive. 3. Bob Dabkowski, 2837 Adobe Drive. 4. Michael Duncan, 701 Wagner Drive, representing the Greek community at CSU. 5. Don Wedum, 2718 Dunbar Avenue. 6. Heath Hixson, 135 Mathews, ASCSU representative. 7. Chris Martin, 1037 Parkview Drive. 8. Kurt Faulkner, President of Fort Collins Board of Realtors. 9. Rhonda Burry, 1713 Effingham. 10. Scott Wilkinson, ASCSU representative. 11. Remi Frazier, 286 Allison Hall. 12. Dick Eshelman, 612 Prouty Court. 13. Eric Burger, ASCSU student body president. 14. Mark Bowen, 2448 Stonecrest Drive. 15. Robert Aultstock, Canon City resident, property owner at 1109 West Magnolia Street. 226 March 21, 2000 16. Chris McElroy, 5707 Sandbar Court. 17. Myron Lloyd, Loveland resident and Fort Collins property owner. 18. Marie Sanchez -Traynor, CSU student. 19. Jason Envanor, 286 Newsom Hall. 20. Bret Nolan, 1207 City Park Avenue, ASCSU representative. 21. Don Shannon, 630 Skysail Lane. 22. Greg Tarlecki, 5430 Hilldale Court, property and homeowner. 23. Mark Kukurola, Castle Rock resident and Fort Collins property owner. 24. Phil Walker, 4134 Harborwalk Drive. 25. Kent Glover, UGA resident and Fort Collins property owner. 26. Ryan Waughbach, 2250 West Elizabeth. Councilmember Mason asked about the issue of frivolous complaints. Ann Tumquist, Council Policy Manager, outlined modifications made to the ordinance that would relate to verification of complaints. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if this is a new problem and if the problems are community wide. Tess Heffernan, Neighborhood Resources Officer, stated the issue has come to the forefront in the last five years and that the problems are community wide although most serious where the housing stock is aging. Councilmember Weitkunat asked about work done nationally regarding the evolution of communities surrounding universities. Heffernan stated that information has been gathered regarding how other university communities have addressed similar problems. Councilmember Weitkunat asked when the City began to look at solutions and conduct community outreach. Heffernan spoke regarding the efforts and composition of a Neighborhood Rental Impacts Committee formed in 1995, and that the issue was placed on the Council policy agenda in 1996. Councilmember Weitkunat asked about the individuals and groups represented in task forces dealing with the issue and crafting the solution. Heffernan spoke regarding the involvement of various community groups in outreach efforts. Tumquist stated that a task force was not created to craft the public nuisance ordinance, although public input has been actively solicited from different groups on the proposed ordinance. Councilmember Bertschy read a letter received from the Homebuilder's Association in support of the ordinance as revised. Councilmember Kastein asked about increased enforcement efforts regarding health and safety violations, plans for the Police Department to increase enforcement efforts, and the hiring of Ron Pettit as the new special enforcement officer. Rich Kopp, Code Compliance Supervisor, outlined efforts in abating nuisances and ticketing repeat offenders. City Manager Fischbach stated that the 227 March 21, 2000 Police Department is scheduled to submit a report by April 1. Tumquist spoke regarding the purpose of the new enforcement position. Councilmember Mason asked for an estimate of the public cost for sending a police officer to a nuisance. City Manager Fischbach stated that this information could be made available prior to Second Reading. Councilmember Mason asked what types of actions would be included in an abatement plan Turnquist stated that each abatement plan would be tailored to the circumstances of the situation Mayor Martinez asked about current abatement options and the impact of recent increases in fines imposed by Municipal Court for nuisance violations. City Attorney Roy spoke regarding options currently available to the court and changes that would be put in place by the ordinance. Councilmember Weitkunat asked about previous attempts to resolve these types of problems. Heffernan spoke about efforts undertaken since 1995. Tumquist spoke regarding distribution of information to students preparing to move off campus. Councilmember Mason asked current mechanisms for dealing with chronic problems. Kopp spoke regarding tickets issued for chronic problems and the repeated failure of some property owners address problems. Councilmember Kastein asked what the new ordinance would do that the current ordinance will not. Kopp stated that the new ordinance would provide additional tools for dealing with problems. Mayor Martinez asked about the drafting of the proposed ordinance. City Attorney Roy stated that approximately five drafts have been done since August. Mayor Martinez asked if there is a centralized number to call to get results on complaints. Heffernan spoke regarding the different enforcement agencies involved in different types of complaints. Mayor Martinez asked about stepped up enforcement by the Police Department. City Manager Fischbach stated that a report is expected from the Police Department by April 1. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to postpone the ordinance for one year to allow information to be accumulated based on current programs, the activities of the new enforcement officer, and stepped up methods of enforcement, and that the data collected then be used to work on solutions to the problem. March 21, 2000 Councilmember Weitkunat stated that this is an ongoing problem which does not require an immediate solution and that there are now new mechanisms and a core group in place to work on good solutions when more data is available. Councilmember Bertschy stated that sufficient data has been received, that numerous studies have been undertaken, and that there has been adequate public input and discussion to warrant adoption of the ordinance. Mayor Martinez noted that there are new programs in place, including stepped up enforcement by the Police Department and the hiring of the new case manager, and that there is not enough data available to show the effectiveness of these new programs. Councilmember Kastein spoke in support of the motion to allow time for the new programs to take effect and have an impact, and stated that he would vote for the proposed ordinance if the new programs do not solve some of the problems. Mayor Martinez commended staff for its work on the issues and stated that he would like to give the new programs a chance to work. Councilmember Mason opposed the motion and stated that he would support adoption of the ordinance. Councilmember Wanner stated that he would oppose the motion and that the ordinance would require landlords to take responsibility to address patterns of behavior. Councilmember Weitkunat stated that there are workable solutions that have been put into place and that a better ordinance could be crafted if it relied upon the information gathered after these new solutions are put into place. Councilmember Bertschy spoke regarding his recent experience on the Police Ride Along program. The vote on the motion to postpone was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Bertschy, Byrne, Mason and Wanner. THE MOTION FAILED Councilmember Byrne made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Bertschy, to adopt Ordinance No. 28, 2000 on First Reading. Councilmember Weitkunat requested a friendly amendment to allow the Council to revisit the issue within 18-24 months to determine the impact of the ordinance on affordable housing. 229 March 21, 2000 Mayor Martinez requested an addition to the friendly amendment to delay the effective date to July since that is when most leases expire and are renewed. Councilmember Mason stated that he would not support an amendment to delay the effective date because the neighborhoods are asking for immediate relief for the problems. Councilmember Byrne stated that the Council could request that the ordinance be revisited at any time and that there is no need to include a review timeframe in the ordinance. Councilmember Weitkunat stated that she would not support the ordinance because it is not the answer to the problem, it is divisive and discriminatory, and mechanisms already exist to deal with these problems. Councilmember Byme spoke in support of the ordinance as a legitimate response to the problem of chronic nuisance properties which can lead to blighted neighborhoods. He stated that the ordinance is fair to all parties. Councilmember Kastein stated that he would not support the ordinance because it is not the right solution now and because there are some potentially harmful components and consequences. He noted that there are existing mechanisms for dealing with chronic nuisances, and that the new programs that have been put into operations should be given a chance to work. Councilmember Bertschy spoke in support of the ordinance and stated that it is the right solution at the right time. Councilmember Wanner stated that he would support the ordinance as a reasonable response to a substantial problem. Councilmember Mason stated that the success of any nuisance ordinance hinges upon enforcement. Mayor Martinez spoke regarding the character of the community and the risk that the ordinance could cause problems between landlords and tenants. He noted the time that would be required to take action under the new ordinance and expressed concerns that the ordinance targets students and could work against affordable housing. He expressed concern regarding some of the definitions in the ordinance. He stated that the ordinance may not accomplish what some intend and that enforcement is a key. He encouraged greater use of some of CSU's disciplinary mechanisms. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Byrne, Mason and Wanner. Nays: Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez and Weitkunat. THE MOTION CARRIED 230 March 21, 2000 Items Relating to the State Highway 14 Truck Route Relocation Project, Including Strategies for Conforming to Ballot Initiative Mandates, Preliminary Project Structure, and Projected Timelines, Ordinance Adopted on First Reading The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "Executive Summary A. Resolution 2000-51 Approving a Project Description, Process and Time Frame for Compliance with Ballot Issue 200 Pertaining to the Relocation ofthe Colorado Highway 14 Truck Route. This Resolution will approve the various planning phases of the project. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 29, 2000, Authorizing the Transfer of Funds from the Northeast Truck Route Project Account into a New Account Entitled the Truck Route Relocation Project Account and Appropriating the Expenditure of Funds from Said Account to Meet the Requirements of Ballot Issue 200. Ordinance No. 29, 2000 will transfer the funds remaining in the Building Community Choices Northeast Truck Route account to a new account earmarked for the purposes specified in the Initiated Ordinance. The next phase of the State Highway 14 Truck Route Relocation Project will need to be a highly collaborative, cooperative effort between key signatories that includes considerable levels ofpublic involvement in order to be a successful endeavor. This project is clear in its charge, as mandated by ballot initiative. City staffhasproposed aphasedplanning effort that will comply with the ballot issue language and will set the stage for a successful analysis and recommendation ofstrategies for reducing the amount of through truck traffic along State Highway 14 and US Highway 287 in the City of Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. A goal of this project is that this will be a cooperative effort between City, County, Regional, and State agencies. It is estimated that all phases of the project will be completed third quarter of 2001. Note: This project may actually have a shorter timeline than portrayed in this memo. These are preliminary estimates only and will be refined as the Scope of Work is finalized. BACKGROUND: Basic Charge As specified in Ballot Issue 200, passed by voters in the November 1999 election (the "Initiated Ordinance", see attached), this project is charged with performing the following tasks: 231 March 21, 2000 Encourage and cause by all reasonably available legal means all truck traffic without local business in the City of Fort Collins to use the existing U.S. Interstate Highway System. This includes possible pursuit of State and Federal legislation, and potential incentives and regulations designed to keep through truck traffic out of the City of Fort Collins Urban Growth Area (UGA). This effort can be done more quickly, and will have its own time frame. Pursue with all deliberate effort and speed the relocation of the Colorado Highway 14 Truck Route to a location outside the City of Fort Collins' current Urban Growth Area. Any new truck route must be located a minimum of two miles north of Douglas Road. Devise and diligently pursue the implementation ofa funding plan to cause the relocation of the Truck Route outside the City's current Urban Growth Area to be funded by a combination of City, County, State and/or Federal funding sources. Project Budget Transportation staff reports that a total estimated available balance of $3,040,390 exists for this project. These funds are available for all of the purposes stated in the Initiated Ordinance, including planning, design, rights of way/land purchase, and construction efforts. Project Timeline It is anticipated that the entire project will have an 18-month timeline, beginning first quarter of 2000. It is planned that the Request For Proposal (RFP) and preliminary scope of work will be completed late first quarter or early second quarter, so that consultant selection can begin as soon as possible. A Project Management Team kickoff meeting will also be held first quarter 2000. It is hoped that consultant selection, advisory group formation, and detailed scope of work can be completed by this Project Management Team by the end of the second quarter 2000. This leaves approximately twelve months for meeting the objectives of the following three phases. Phase I of this project will include the analysis and development of strategies intended to keep through truck traffic on the existing U.S. Interstate Highway system. Incentive and disincentive strategies as well as enforcement and regulatory strategies and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technologies will all be explored. Funding and implementation strategies will be developed as part of these efforts. This phase will have its own time line to implement strategies along the way with an estimated completion by fourth quarter of 2000 or early 2001. Phase H of this project will entail studying potential alternative truck routes as per the ballot initiative language. Previously examined routes such as County Road 58 and County Road 70/0wl Canyon will be re-examined in detail. Potential new routes will also be analyzed. Impacts, costs and issues for each respective alternative will be presented and compared in a cost-effectiveness matrix. Future transportation and land use impacts of these routes to both truck and general vehicular traffic on I-25 and the Northern Colorado roadway systemlhighway network will also be examined. 232 March 21, 2000 Phase IIIwillfocus onfunding and implementation strategiesfor an alternative truck route. Phases II & III can run somewhat in parallel with one another. Estimated completion for Phases II & III is third quarter of 2001. Key Players/Project Management Team Key signatories in this planning effort should include the following agencies: • City of Fort Collins • Larimer County • Colorado Department of Transportation, Region 4 • Upper Front Range Regional Planning Commission (UFRRPC) Staff representatives of each signatory agency will serve on a Project Management Team. It is anticipated that City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning staff will act as overall Project Manager, with budget and project team oversight responsibilities. It may be productive to form this Project Management Team first, so that the project Scope of Work and Request for Proposal can be formulated in a cooperative manner between signatory agencies. A Policy Advisory Committee will be formed with representatives from each signatory agency as well as other public agencies deemed germane to the project (e.g. FHWA, Town of Wellington, WYDOT, State and Federal Representative and Senatorial offices). In addition to these policy -level liaisons, it is anticipated that regular presentations and updates will be given to City, County, Regional, and State Boards, Councils, and Commissions. Stakeholders Group A key part of this project will be a concerted, ongoing effort to involve key stakeholders throughout the planning process. Many voices need to beat this table throughout the life of the project. Great effort will be taken to assemble a multi faceted group which represents all stakeholders potentially impacted by the relocation of the SH 14 truck route. Stakeholders invited to participate should include, but not be limited to: • Local business representatives (e.g. Chamber of Commerce, DBA, NEBA, NCBA) • Agricultural/Ranching interests • Citizens For A True Bypass • Colorado Motor Carriers Association • Representatives of local trucking firms • Rural landowners/resident's representatives • Environmental/Air Quality interests (e.g. Sierra Club) 233 March 21, 2000 • Enforcement agency representatives (e.g. Colorado State Patrol, Larimer County Sheriff, City of Fort Collins Police Department) Public Involvement Efforts Insomuch as a stakeholders group will be assembled to provide community -level insight and advice, it is also imperative that the general public be made aware of the project's purpose and progress, with regular, easy opportunities to provide comment and input. Ongoing public involvement will be paramount to this planning effort. In addition to regularly scheduled public open house -style events held throughout the study area, other avenues ofpublic involvement should include, but not be limited to: • Regularly maintained and updated project website, with ability to capture comments from viewers. Link website to participating agency sites. • Project newsletters distributed on a regular basis. • Public access television • Public service announcements to local, regional, and statewide media sources • Project updates in utility billing packets • Presentation, with Q&A, to civic groups, environmental groups, trucking/freight industry groups, and business associations Media Contacts Contacts with local, regional and state media outlets will be established early in the project. Print, radio, and television media will be included. Project overview information, schedule, and progress updates will be provided on a regular, scheduled basis. Project Goals • Work cooperatively with Larimer County, the Colorado Department of Transportation, and the Upper Front Range Regional Planning Commission to gain a clear understanding of, and to address, current and future issues and concerns related to the impacts of through truck travel in the North Front Range/Upper Front Range areas. As alternative routes and strategies are developed and analyzed, provide frequent, easy opportunities for citizens, key stakeholders and affected special interests to stay informed and provide feedback to the work being done. 234 March 21, 2000 Develop a strategy or package of strategies for reducing the amount of through truck traffic currently experienced in the Fort Collins and northern Larimer County area. Explore non -route - based strategies that serve as incentives and disincentives to dissuade truckersfrom using routes internal to the City of Fort Collins UGA when solely passing through the area. Research the use of technology (e.g. ITS) to help reinforce the use of I-25 as the primary north -south freight movement corridor along the North Front Range area. • Explore and develop potential funding sources and funding strategies to implement the strategies. Research phased implementation of strategies to arrive at the desired results in a cost-effective manner. • Explore in detail, possible alternative truck routes north of the City of Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. Identify potential land use impacts as well as transportation impacts to the County's rural road system and to Interstate Highway 25 that would result from the alternative routes. Analyze and compare each route as to impacts, costs, and potential usage. Explore and develop potential funding sources and funding strategies to design and build an alternative truck route north of the City of Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. Research phased implementation of design and construction to arrive at the desired results in a cost-effective manner." Councilmember Bertschy proposed delaying discussion on the item because some interested citizens may not be at the meeting due to uncertainty about the length of the public nuisance item. Mayor Martinez noted that some citizens have not had sufficient time to review the agenda material and that he has not had time to study the issue adequately. Councilmember Mason noted that groups in the community are interested in providing input but that postponing the item may leave room for accusations that the Council is delaying the issue. Councilmember Bertschy suggested hearing the staff presentation. Mark Jackson, Transportation Planner, presented background information regarding the agenda item. Swede Anderson, Citizens for a True Bypass, requested two -week postponement and commended staff for its work on the issue. He stated that a number of individuals have offered expertise in dealing with the issue and would be interested in presenting information to Council if they have sufficient notice that the item is on the agenda. 235 March 21, 2000 Councilmember Weitkunat asked why the transfer of funds is necessary in light of direction given by the initiative. City Attorney Roy spoke regarding the language of the initiative and the need for an appropriation ordinance. Councilmember Weitkunat asked for clarification that a Request for Proposals will be required. City Manager Fischbach stated that Council could adopt the ordinance on First Reading and postpone the Resolution and then deal with both the Second Reading of the ordinance and the Resolution in two weeks. The alternative would be to postpone the entire agenda item. Mayor Martinez stated that he would recommend adopting the ordinance on First Reading. Councilmember Byrne noted that the methodology outlined in the staff presentation is a standard approach and asked Mr. Anderson about the citizens that he believes should be specifically included in the process. Mr. Anderson stated that a number of citizens have indicated that they would like to be part of the implementation on this project, and that the individuals in question are signatories to a letter which has been submitted to the Council. Councilmember Byrne expressed a concern that some of the individuals who signed the letter represent development and banking interests. Mr. Anderson spoke regarding the unique nature of the project and the structuring of the leadership of the project. Councilmember Byrne asked about Mr. Anderson's ideas about project leadership. Mr. Anderson asked that the City consider the unique opportunity mentioned in the letter. City Manager Fischbach stated that Mr. Chamberlain was mentioned in the letter and that he would be entitled to respond to an RFP. He spoke regarding the legal requirements for an RFP. Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt Ordinance No. 29, 2000 on First Reading and to postpone Resolution 2000-51 to April 4. Councilmember Weitkunat spoke about the importance of beginning this project in the right way and focusing on the goal of productive results. Councilmember Kastein asked about the structure of the project lead team and the role of the consultant. Jackson stated that he is the project manager and has been in contact with other agencies regarding participation in the project, and that the consultant would work for the City on the project. Councilmember Mason asked about the staff opinion regarding delaying the Resolution. City Manager Fischbach stated that the motion would enable the City to begin to move forward pending approval of the Resolution. 236 March 21, 2000 Councilmember Mason expressed a concern that a group of citizens would make an unprecedented proposal concerning leadership of a project paid for by taxpayers dollars. Councilmember Wanner expressed a concern that the letter promoted the appointment of a partisan to the issue for project leadership. Councilmember Bertschy spoke in support of the staff working on the project. Mayor Martinez spoke regarding the rules that are in place regarding projects and the ability of citizens to make suggestions. Councilmember Byrne stated that the issue surrounds important public policy and that the project will be controversial from the beginning. 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. 199,1999 Authorizing the Lease of Portions of the Resource Recovery Farm to Western Mobile Northern, Inc. for Gravel Mining, Adopted on Second Reading The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "Executive Summary Ordinance No. 199, 1999, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 7, 1999, authorizes the conveyance of a mining lease to Western Mobile Northern, Inc. for mining of sand and gravel at the Resource Recovery Farm. Since that time, negotiations regarding the 40-acre parcel along the Poudre River on which the City had expected to acquire a conservation easement have changed course. Staff is now negotiating a contingent purchase of property totaling approximately100 acres, and the owner of the property is not willing to grant a conservation easement given the ongoing negotiations for the sale of the property. The Owner is however, postponing additional mining on the property pending the City's purchase of the property. The Ordinance has been revised to reflect this change in the negotiations. Although the City's conveyance of the mining lease is no longer made contingent upon the owner's grant of a conservation easement, City staff believes that proceeding with the mining lease is advisable, because the mining lease will result in the payment of market rate royalties to the City for the sand and gravel on the Resource Recovery Farm, which will be reclaimed for valuable wetlands habitat post -mining. In addition, if Western Mobile is not able to mine at the Resource Recovery Farm, the 237 March 21, 2000 chances are greatly increased that Western Mobile would instead mine the 40-acre parcel the City seeks to preserve. Consequently, staffrecommends that the conveyance ofthe mining lease proceed at this time. The Ordinance has also been changed to reflect a more accurate reference to Western Mobile Northern, Inc., a corporate affiliate of LaFarge, as the mining lessee, rather than LaFarge." City Attorney Roy read the proposed changes into the record. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Bertschy, to adopt Ordinance No. 199, 1999 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 Adjournment Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Byrne, to adjourn the meting to 6:00 p.m. on March 28, 2000 for an appeal hearing. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Byrne, Kastein, Martinez, Mason, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. ATTEST: 238 Mayor % -; 40'"'