Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-10/19/2004-RegularOctober 19, 2004 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council -Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m. A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, October 19, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Councilmembers Absent: Bertschy. Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Harris, Roy. Citizen Participation Reginald Aaron, Vice Chairman of the Senior Advisory Board, spoke in support of Building on Basics capital funding for the Senior Center expansion. Kelly Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, spoke regarding the "complete change in character" of some neighborhoods due to rental housing. He stated there was often "de facto rezoning" in single-family neighborhoods and that a new "three unrelated" ordinance was needed to address neighborhood issues for most parts of town. He stated such an ordinance must be enforced and that there should be no exceptions or appeals in most areas. He stated there could be exceptions to the "three unrelated" ordinance and an appeal process in some neighborhoods that met certain criteria. He stated this issue was much larger than occasional "loud parties." Pete Seel, 1837 Scarborough Drive, Rolland Moore Neighborhood Network, spoke regarding neighborhood issues with rental properties. He stated allowing homes with more than three unrelated people without a license in the R-L and N-C-L single-family zones was an "upzoning without due process." He encouraged Council action on this issue soon. Greg Snyder, 619 Bear Creek Drive, stated the Fort Collins economy was "dying of self-inflicted wounds" and gave a "state -of -small-business" report. He stated the reported 5% increase in tax revenues was a "real decline in economic activity" due to rising costs for businesses. He stated many small businesses were closing their doors and that large businesses such as Agilent were cutting jobs. He stated there needed to be a focus on retaining primary jobs. Brian Schumm, 5948 Colby Street, spoke regarding the Whitman rezoning matter. He stated he had been told that the City would not revoke its position on the matter. He stated the County Commissioners had indicated that they did not understand the City's letter on the matter and would 158 October 19, 2004 not follow any guidance or request from the City. He stated the City Structure Plan called for U-E zoning on the subject property and that staff's letter indicated they would stick with that; that the County had no intention of following that recommendation; and that the County was requesting that a City representative attend the November 1 hearing to represent the City's position. He questioned why the staff would suggest a `legalization of illegal uses that would not be compliant with the overall Structure Plan." He stated he believed that staff did not support the Structure Plan and the U-E designation for this property. He stated there had never been an "honest debate" about this issue. He asked that Council direct staff to consider his recommendations to either inform the County that the City would not allow the rezoning to take place in the County and that it would be processed by the City under the ongoing enclave annexation, or the City would invoke its rights under the intergovernmental agreement to bring the rezoning request in the City with the understanding that the property would not be annexed until the zoning violations were eliminated or legalized. Dennis Parkhurst, 312 Locust Street, spoke regarding the continuing failure of Comcast to meet the franchise requirements for public access. Doug Brobst, 1625 Independence Road, spoke regarding rental licensing and stated the five - component package presented to Council at the study session did not reflect the views of the community relating to health and safety issues, the "three unrelated" ordinance and the application of rental licensing to single-family homes. He stated the package presented to Council addressed some of the issues and costs of rental licensing and would be a good start. Ray Czaplewski, 2012 Huntington Circle, spoke regarding the importance of enforcing the existing "three unrelated" ordinance. He stated staff and Council appeared to be interested in changing the penalty for violation of the ordinance from a misdemeanor to a civil infraction. He urged consideration of this option to make the "three unrelated" ordinance more enforceable. David Davies, 1909 Prairie Hill Drive, stated "problem properties" were a small part of a larger problem of "destruction of neighborhoods" due to putting too many people into low density housing areas, too many vehicles on streets and landlords and tenants with no vested interest in the well being of neighborhoods. He stated his biggest concern was safety for his children. He supported making the "three unrelated" ordinance more enforceable and stronger. He stated there could still be negative impacts on neighborhoods even with three unrelated individuals living in a house. He asked that the "three unrelated" ordinance be strengthened, that the owner -occupied exemption be eliminated and that exceptions not be allowed based on "trivial requirements" such as square footage and off-street parking. 159 October 19, 2004 Citizen Participation Follow-up Councilmember Tharp stated the Council was in agreement on making violations of the "three unrelated" ordinance civil rather than criminal offenses. She stated she would like to see the Council move forward on that issue ahead of the remainder of the rental licensing package. She stated she would be asking if at least three Councilmembers support moving ahead with the change in penalties. She stated a recommendation was made at the study session that the Council consider looking at an exception process and that Council would continue to look at all aspects of the issue. Councilmember Hamrick asked about the time line for consideration by Council of rental licensing. Interim City Manager Atteberry stated staff was recommending that an additional study session be scheduled for Council consideration of various draft ordinances. City Attorney Roy stated staff believed that the three areas in which there was the most consensus had to do with the language and enforcement of the "three unrelated" ordinance, amendments to the Public Nuisance Ordinance with regard to remedies, and an "unruly gathering" ordinance. He stated if the Council moved ahead on those components that there would remain significant issues relating to licensing versus registration and whether or not there should be any mechanism for allowing more than "three unrelated" in certain areas of the City. Councilmember Hamrick stated he supported moving ahead with some of the issues on which there was consensus. He stated there might be a need to schedule an extra study session on these issues because there were "immediate needs." Councilmember Hamrick asked if the City tracked large, medium and small sized businesses in Fort Collins. Interim City Manager Atteberry stated he would get some information for the Council. Councilmember Hamrick asked that staff follow-up on the complaint regarding Comcast's public access sound quality. Interim City Manager Atteberry stated staff would follow-up on the sound quality issue, that staff did not believe that Comcast was in violation of the franchise agreement and that such complaints would be discussed during the ongoing negotiations with Comcast. Councilmember Hamrick asked about information that had been previously requested regarding public access in other communities. Interim City Manager Atteberry stated he had provided information to Council. Councilmember Kastein requested information about how the Senior Center expansion was evaluated with other capital projects for the Building on Basics funding. He also commented on the loss of primary jobs and stated the economic development plan needed to include a plan for developing primary employers in the City. He noted in the last report, the City's sales tax revenue was down and the financial situation would have been much worse if not for the issuance of building 160 October 19, 2004 permits. He stated the current Council was planning to stop building permits after a number of years and that there needed to be a plan to replace that lost revenue with revenue from elsewhere. Councilmember Roy stated the Senior Center was "underbuilt" and that it was important to address the needs of the growing senior population. He stated there were two separate issues being discussed with regard to rental properties i.e. nuisance problems created by "bad behavior" and health and safety issues. He stated with regard to public access issues, Comcast might be meeting the "letter" but not the "spirit" of the law. He stated there was no reason for Fort Collins to have a "substandard" public access program. Mayor Martinez stated he was concerned about the future of the Senior Center and how to best address the needs of the growing senior population. AEenda Review Interim City Manager Atteberry stated the agenda would stand as published. Councilmember Kastein withdrew Item #11, First Reading of Ordinance No. 164, 2004, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance Relating to the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2005; Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year Beginning January 1, 2005, and Ending December 31, 2005; and Fixing the Mill Levy for Fiscal Year 2005, from the Consent Calendar. CONSENT CALENDAR Consideration and approval of the Council meeting minutes of September 7 and September 21, 2004. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 161, 2004, Appropriating, Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in Various Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts Between Funds. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 5, 2004, appropriates prior year reserves and unanticipated revenue in various City funds, and authorizes the transfer of appropriated amounts between funds. The City Charter permits the City Council to provide by ordinance for payment of any expense from prior year reserves. The Charter also permits the City Council to appropriate unanticipated revenue received as a result of rate or fee increases or new revenue sources. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 162, 2004, Amending Section 2-140 of the City Code Concerning the Citizen Review Board's Review of Police Internal Investigations. 161 October 19, 2004 Under Chapter 2, Division 8 of the City Code, the City's Citizen Review Board is authorized to review certain kinds of internal investigations conducted by Police Services. In several subsections of Section 2.140, the Code states that: "upon completion of its review, the board shall concurrently convey any recommendations concerning the sufficiency and accuracy of the administrative investigation as conducted by Police Services and any other observations about the investigation to the City Manger and the Chief of Police. The review shall be completed and any recommendations conveyed before the Chief of Police makes a decision regarding the merits of the administrative investigation or the complaint". The Citizen Review Board recommends that this language be changed to the following: "Upon completion of its review, the board shall concurrently convey any observations or recommendations regarding the administrative investigation conducted by Police Services, and the findings reached by the investigating and reviewing officers(s), to the City Manager and the Chief of Police." Ordinance No. 162, 2004, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 5, 2004. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 163, 2004, Authorizing the Execution of an Administrative Order on Consent By the United States Environmental Protection Agency and a Related Environmental Covenant in Connection With Environmental Contamination and Remediation in the Cache La Poudre River Near the Northside Aztlan Community Center Property. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 5, 2004, authorizes the execution of an Administrative Order on Consent by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in connection with environmental contamination and remediation in the Cache La Poudre River Near the Northside Aztlan Community Center Property. 11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 164, 2004, Being_ the Annual Appropriation Ordinance Relating to the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2005: Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year Beginning January anuary 1.2005, and Ending December 31, 2005: and Fixing the Mill Levy for Fiscal Year 2005. This Ordinance amends the adopted 2005 Budget and sets the amount of $462,762,068 to be appropriated for fiscal year 2005. The Net City Budget, which excludes internal transfers between City funds is $363,200,943 for 2005. This Ordinance also sets the 2005 City mill levy at 9.797 mills, unchanged since 1991. 162 October 19, 2004 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 165, 2004, Amending Section 7.5-61 of the City Code by Modifying the 'Pavement Impact Fee" and Adding a "Utility Locate Coring Fee". This is a fee adjustment that is necessary in order to catch up with the increased costs of street construction (inflation) that have occurred since the fee was created five years ago. The proceeds from the Pavement Impact Fee and the proposed "Utility Locate Coring Fee" accrue to the Pavement Management Program. These fees are calculated to offset the adverse impacts of street cuts to the life of the pavement. It is estimated the City will issue approximately 500 excavation permits in 2005. These fee increases will generate approximately $15,000 of additional revenue in 2005. 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 166, 2004, Appropriating Prior Year Use Tax Carryover Reserves for the Manufacturing_ ui ment Use Tax Rebate Prop -ram. In March 1996, Council approved a temporary rebate program for use taxes paid on manufacturing equipment. The goal of the program is to maintain the local economic base by providing modest tax relief to manufacturing concerns in Fort Collins. The program has provided rebates to manufacturers for use taxes paid during the calendar years 1996 through 2001. The rebate program was discontinued for calendar year 2002 due to challenging economic conditions. Council reinstated the program in January of 2004 for a two-year period. Under the rebate program, the payments are made in arrears. This is a rebate of taxes paid in 2003 and not a tax exemption. Six companies have filed applications this year for a total of $265,000 in rebates. The source of funding for the rebate program is the sales and use tax fund, specifically the use tax carry-over reserve. 14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 167, 2004, Adopting a Proposed District -Precinct Map, This Ordinance adopts the District -Precinct Map for the 2005 regular municipal election for the purposes of (1) determining the eligibility for District Council offices for the April 2005 election; (2) determining eligibility for any interim appointments to fill any District Council vacancies which may occur after November 26, 2004; and (3) determining residency for voting in any special municipal election conducted after November 26, 2004. 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 168, 2004, Authorizing the Lease of the Natural Area Located South of Fort Collins Jointly Owned by the City of Fort Collins and the City of Loveland for Dryland Wheat Farming for up to Five Years. This natural area was purchased in March of 2000. The City of Loveland, Larimer County, GOCO Funds and the City of Fort Collins participated in the purchase. An Intergovernmental Agreement about this property was entered into on March 22, 2000. As per this Intergovernmental Agreement, the purchasing participants designated that the City 163 October 19, 2004 of Loveland has a 75% interest in the Property and the City of Fort Collins has the remaining 25% interest in the Property. Further, the Intergovernmental Agreement specifies that the City of Loveland is the managing entity for this property. Since the purchase of this property, the property has been used for dryland farming. Of the total 785 acres, only 550 acres of land are being used for rotational wheat crops, with 275 acres in crop production annually and the remaining land being fallow. The terms of the lease will require payment of $10 per acre for the acreage planted. The lease can be automatically renewed each year on July 31 with a final termination date of July 31, 2008. 16. Items Pertaining to the College and Trilby Annexation. A. Resolution 2004-122 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the College and Trilby Annexation. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 169, 2004, Annexing 5.76 Acres, Known as the College and Trilby Annexation. C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 170, 2004, Zoning 5.76 Acres, Known as the College and Trilby Annexation, into the NC — Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District. This is a request to annex and zone 5.76 acres located at the northwest corner of State Highway 287 (South College Avenue) and Trilby Road. The property is partially developed, containing one vacant building and parking. There is an undeveloped building pad site on the property. It is in the C — Commercial Zoning District in Latimer County. The requested zoning for this annexation is NC — Neighborhood Commercial. The surrounding properties are currently zoned C - Commercial in Latimer County to the south and east and NC — Neighborhood Commercial in the City to the west and the north. This is a 100% voluntary annexation. Staff is recommending that this property be excluded from the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. 17. Resolution 2004-123FindingSubstantial Compliance andInitiatingAnnexation Proceedings for the Liebl Annexation. The Liebl Annexation is a request to annex and zone 2.8 acres of land located along the east side of Timberline Road, south of Kechter Road. The site contains an existing single family residence and detached garage. The parcel is designated UE — Urban Estate on the Fort Collins Structure Plan and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. The anticipated land use 164 October 19, 2004 is abed and breakfast consistent with the design standards in the UE zone district. The parcel is currently zoned FAI - Farming in Latimer County. The proposed Resolution states it is the City's intent to annex this property and directs that the notice required by State Statutes be given of the Council's hearing to consider the annexation ordinance. The public hearing for the annexation ordinance must occur no less than 30 days and no greater than 60 days from adoption of the Resolution finding compliance with State Statutes. 18. Resolution 2004-124 Adopting a Revenue Allocation Formula to Define the City of Fort Collins' Contribution to the Poudre Fire Authority Budget for the Year 2005 for Operations and Maintenance. In December 1981, the Council entered into an agreement with the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District, creating the Poudre Fire Authority ("PFA"). According to the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Fort Collins and the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District, the City will contribute funding for maintenance and operating costs to the Authority based on a Revenue Allocation Formula ("RAF"). The RAF is to be set annually based upon a percentage of sales and use tax revenues (excluding dedicated sales and use tax revenues that must be spent on specific projects) and a portion of the operating mill levy of the City's property tax. Article X, Section 20 of the State Constitution ("TABOR") limits the rate of growth to a combination of the Denver -Boulder - Greeley Consumer Price Index and additions to the local property tax base primarily due to construction and annexation. Although voters passed a ballot measure in November, 1997 allowing the City to retain excess revenues over the growth limits imposed by TABOR, the RAF is still reviewed annually and proportionately reduced, when necessary, if City revenues exceed the estimated annual percentage increase in revenues that the City would be permitted to retain under TABOR. 19. Resolution 2004-125 Supporting the City's Entry into the Great American Main Street Awards Competition. This Resolution states City Council's endorsement of the City's entry into the Main Street Awards competition sponsored by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Chief Deputy City Clerk Harris. 165 October 19, 2004 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 161, 2004, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in Various Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts Between Funds. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 162, 2004, Amending Section 2-140 of the City Code Concerning the Citizen Review Board's Review of Police Internal Investigations. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 163, 2004, Authorizing the Execution of an Administrative Order on Consent By the United States Environmental Protection Agency and a Related Environmental Covenant in Connection With Environmental Contamination and Remediation in the Cache La Poudre River Near the Northside Aztlan Community Center Property. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Chief Deputy City Clerk Harris. 11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 164, 2004, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance Relating to the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2005; Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year BeginningJanuary 1, 2005, and Ending December 31, 2005; and Fixing the Mill Levy for Fiscal Year 2005. 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 165, 2004, Amending Section 7.5-61 of the City Code by Modifying the "Pavement Impact Fee" and Adding a "Utility Locate Coring Fee 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 166, 2004, Appropriating Prior Year Use Tax Carryover Reserves for the Manufacturing Eouiyment Use Tax Rebate Pro rg am. 14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 167, 2004, Adopting a Proposed District -Precinct Map. 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 168, 2004, Authorizing the Lease of the Natural Area Located South of Fort Collins Jointly Owned by the City of Fort Collins and the City of Loveland for Dryland Wheat Farming for up to Five Years. 16. Items Pertaining to the College and Trilby Annexation. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 169, 2004, Annexing 5.76 Acres, Known as the College and Trilby Annexation. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 170, 2004, Zoning 5.76 Acres, Known as the College and Trilby Annexation, into the NC — Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District. 24. First Reading of Ordinance No. 171, 2004, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the 221 October 19, 2004 West Prospect Road Rezoning. 25. Items Relating to Utility Rates and Charges for 2005. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 172, 2004, Amending Chapter 26, Article IV, Division 4 of the City Code Relating to Wastewater Fees. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 173, 2004, Amending Chapter 26, Article VI, Division 4 of the City Code Relating to Electric Rates and Charges. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 174, 2004, Amending Chapter 26, Article VII, Division 2 of the City Code Relating to Stormwater Fees. D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 175, 2004, Amending Chapter 26, Article III, Division 5, of the City Code Relating to the Raw Water Requirement for Nonresidential Service. E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 176, 2004, Amending Chapter 26, Article XII of the City Code Relating to Budget Billing. Councilmember Tharp made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt and approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Consent Calendar Follow-uu Councilmember Weitkunat spoke regarding item #19 Resolution 2004-125 Supporting the City's Entry into the Great American Main Street Awards Competition. Councilmember Reports Mayor Martinez reported that Senator Wayne Allard, Regional Director of HUD, John Carson and Assistant Secretary Liu had held a press conference and presented the City with approximately $2 million for CDBG allocations. Councilmember Tharp reported on the discussions of the I-25 Policy Committee relating to the I-25 corridor plan review and update process. She also reported on the I-25 Environmental Impact Statement Committee discussions relating to options for improving transportation on the I-25 corridor. She stated there would be a public meeting on October 26, 2004 to hear the view of area 167 October 19, 2004 citizens about transportation alternatives. She reported on the topics discussed at last Friday's CSU economic meeting. She stated she had attended the Health District's information gathering session about issues affecting the County and Health District and that one of the foremost issues was the need for a detox center. Councilmember Weitkunat reported on the Poudre Health District meeting at which the detox center was a primary issue due to the near crisis situation relating to methamphetamine use. She also reported on the public policy seminar that bridged CSU public policy with the community. She stated the Poudre School District/Larimer County /City liaison meeting discussed ballot issues and tax issues and cooperation on transportation and other issues. Mayor Martinez stated the Poudre School DistricuLarimer County /City Liaison Committee also discussed public access issues relating to Comcast. Councilmember Kastein reported that the North Front Range Air Quality and Transportation Planning Council adopted the 2030 regional transportation plan and the air quality (carbon monoxide) conformity determination within that plan, approved a weighted vote, and approved uses for federal funding for air quality. Mayor Martinez reported on a leadership meeting with the CSU President and legislators. Appeal of the August 26, 2004, Determination of the Planning and Zoning Board to Disapprove the CDOT Poudre River Rest Area Site Plan Advisory Review: Board Decision Overturned. The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On August 26, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously denied the CDOT Poudre River Rest Area Site Plan Advisory Review request to construct a 3,300 gross square foot rest area immediately south of the Colorado Welcome Center, near the intersection of Prospect Road and the I-25 frontage road, 114 mile west of the I-25/Prospect interchange. The property lies within two zone districts: RC —River Conservation and POL—Public Open Lands. BACKGROUND The Planning and Zoning Board considered the CDOT Poudre River Rest Area pursuant to Section October 19, 2004 31-23-209 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. Under the statutory provision, it is the duty of the Planning and Zoning Board to review the proposed CDOT Poudre River Rest Area Site Plan within sixty (60) days after receiving the Plan. Accordingly, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the Plan based upon its "location, character, and extent" as described within the statute. Under the statute, the Planning and Zoning Board must communicate its reasons for disapproval to the Colorado Transportation Commission, which has the power to overrule such disapproval by a recorded vote of not less than two-thirds. The issues were communicated to the Transportation Commission through a letter from the Secretary to the Planning and Zoning Board (Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss) dated August 31, 2004. Alternatively, Colorado Department of Transportation has elected to appeal the Board's denial to City Council as provided under Section 2-47 of the City Code. On September 9, 2004, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's office regarding the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. In the Notice of Appeal from the Appellant Karla Harding, CDOT Region 4 Transportation Director, it is alleged that: "The Planning and Zoning Board (the "Board") failed to properly interpret and apply relevant law and failed to conduct a fair hearing. " The grounds for the appeal, as stated in CDOT's appeal notice, are included below. To differentiate the text taken from the appeal notice, it is shown in a different font. The purpose of the Board's review was to evaluate the Poudre Rest Area project based upon its "location, character, and extent" pursuant to C.R.S. 31-23-209. CDOT believes the Board has misapplied the criteria in the evaluation of the project merits. CDOT believes that critical data was not taken into consideration in the Board's decision to disapprove the project. CDOT presented traffic data and analysis that was prepared by a Professional Engineer utilizing accepted methods. This study was reviewed and validated by the City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineer. By failing to thoroughly review and accept this data, CDOT contends that the Board's recommendation is not an accurate representation of the merits of this project. The Board also erroneously concluded that floodplain issues would not allow the buildings to be located at this site even though the City Stormwater Department reviewed and approved the plans. On August 31, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Board submitted a letter to the Colorado Department of Transportation that listed several concerns that led to its decision to disapprove the project. The following italicized bullets list the Board's comments and CDOT's response follows immediately after each bullet. • Increased truck traffic at the Prospect and I-25 interchange will increase 169 October 19, 2004 congestion and create conflicts with vehicular movements, particularly during peak hours. Existing Conditions The current congestion at the Prospect Road interchange is substantial. The northbound off ramp at Prospect in the AM peak is a Level of Service (LOS) " F" with the off ramp queues extending more than 500 ft from the intersection. This is impacting main line I-25 traffic, with stopped ramp terminal traffic directly adjacent to high-speed interstate traffic. The intersection meets multiple signal warrants. The current Western Frontage Road intersection has a southbound approach leg with LOS "F" in the PM peak hour. The average vehicle waits more than 1 minute to find a gap to enter Prospect Road. The intersection meets multiple signal warrants. Amount of rest area traffic at the interchange Adding rest area traffic to the interchange will add 2-3% to the volumes in the AM peak, and 7-8% to the volumes in the PM peak (a relatively low percentage). The peak hour of usage for the rest area is 11 am and 3 pm, and does not coincide with peak interchange hours (7 am and 5 pm). In the peak hours, it is estimated that a truck bound for the rest area will arrive on an average of one every 4 minutes in the AM peak, and one every 6 minutes in the PM peak. Specific numbers of trucks were calculated for each turning movement and the volumes (and lengths) are included and accounted for in the analysis. Resultant Improvements With the rest area relocation complete and proposed signals in place, the LOS of the northbound ramp terminal is improved from an LOS "F" to an LOS "B". The western frontage road intersection will now have a southbound approach LOS "B" instead of "F". The ramp terminal intersections will accommodate large tractor -trailer trucks. The current design vehicle is a WB-67. In all cases, the proposed signals provide an important and substantial capacity, function and safety enhancement to the intersections. The current "congestion" is greatly improved with the installation of the signals. The improvements from the signals far outweigh the minor additional traffic that the rest area presents. Travel lanes on the East Prospect and I-25 overpass are of an insufficient width to accommodate large trucks simultaneously crossing the overpass; 170 October 19, 2004 It is a very remote possibility that two oversize loads would meet on the Prospect Road bridge and there are no cases documented where this has been an issue to date. The existing Prospect Road bridge over the interstate is 28 feet wide. Most of the trucks on public roadways are of standard size, that is, 8'-6" wide. The bridge will easily accommodate two standard size trucks passing across it at the same time. East Prospect is a city street and as such, an over width permit is required by the City of Fort Collins for vehicles over 10' wide to legally access Prospect. The bridge will easily accommodate two "City Legal" 10' wide trucks. In the rare event an oversize load exits from I-25 onto Prospect illegally, that is, without a City permit, we offer the following discussion. A State of Colorado over- width permit is required for all vehicles over 8'-6" wide. Permits maybe issued for onetime trips or they maybe annual permits. At the time a permit is issued, the trucker is informed of the conditions of the permit for travel on state highways, and he (she) is advised about the need for city permits off of the State system. The State of Colorado permit for any truck over 17' wide requires the use of a pilot car in the front of the wide load. Before a load this width or wider would enter the Prospect Roadway, the pilot car would hold oncoming traffic to allow the truck to cross the bridge, thus avoiding conflicts. Discussions with the Colorado Port of Entry indicate that in August, about 3 to 4 % of trucks (50 — 60 vehicles) are extralegal (predominantly wide loads). According to the POE, because of permit restrictions such as daylight limitations, most of these will make few stops in order to deliver their load during the required daylight hours. It is unlikely that these trucks would exit to use the rest area, and most rest time occurs at truck stops. Although it is possible some trucks will leave the highway illegally, the chances are extremely remote that two illegal oversize loads will encounter each other on the bridge. • The 20% projected increase in traffic from the month of April to the month of August cited in the Traffic Impact Study was too low relative to the higher traffic volumes perceived by some members of the Board. Actual counts completed: All counts were completed by WL Contractors (now All Traffic Data). This is a company that specializes in traffic data collection and is a pre -qualified consultant for CDOT. They have collected traffic data throughout Colorado for hundreds of projects, including all the interstate and interchange data collection for the current I-25 north EIS project. Eric Bracke, the City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineer also reviewed the raw data, and fully accepted its legitimacy. Raw data taken at the existing interchange was compared with other counts completed for neighboring 171 October 19, 2004 proposed developments — and all are very similar. The Board improperly considered anecdotal information provided by Board members while disregarding actual traffic data. Truck percentages: Discussions with the on -site caretaker at the rest area indicated that there is no substantial difference in truck traffic at the rest area throughout the year. Car traffic is slower in the winter, picks up in March and lasts through October. Heaviest car traffic months appear to be June - August. The CDOT Region 4 Traffic Engineer has stated that the peak day of the week for rest area traffic is Friday and that the number of trucks remains constant throughout week and year. CDOT's consultant in addition to providing the traffic analysis for CDOT, performed on foranother rest area project for the Wyoming DOT along 1-80. The conclusion for the WyDOT traffic analysis was that truck percentages along 1-80 vary substantially not because the number of trucks vary, but rather because the number of cars vary. The number of trucks remains constant throughout the year. All three of these sources concurred with the conclusion that the number of trucks remains constant throughout the year, and that the number of trucks counted at the existing Poudre Rest Area on that Friday in April (the day of the week with highest truck volumes) would be reflective of the truck volumes any other time during the year. Why 20% increase in car volumes? The rest area traffic counts were completed in April. The rest area traffic is reflective of the current volumes along the interstate — i.e. higher interstate usage becomes higher rest area usage as well. There is an automatic traffic recorder (ATR) located along 1-25 at milepost 229, near SH 7. This was the closest functioning ATR information available at the time. All traffic was downloaded for the previous 12 months, and completing a review, the following conclusions were drawn: The peak day of the week is Friday, which is typically more than 20% higher than average days. By counting existing rest area traffic on Fridays, we were encompassing the peak day of the week. AF The peak month is August. Our counts were completed in April, and by using the data from the ATR, the actual volume factor from April to August is 1.17 northbound, and 1.18 southbound. We utilized a factor 1.2 (20% higher) for all rest area car volumes. Most traffic studies do not take seasonal peaks into account. The Rest Area caretaker, Tim Tweedy, thought that April car volumes 172 October 19, 2004 did not reflect the highest possible volumes using the interstate. Our analysis takes this observation of increasing traffic volumes from April to August into account. The proposed design violates the City's adopted stormwater regulations affecting the Boxelder floodway. In particular, a portion of the proposed building and parking area will be located within the floodway boundary. The impacts of the building and the floatable materials, such as trucks and vehicles within the parking areas, may cause negative impacts downstream from the site: The proposed improvements do not violate the City' adopted stormwater regulations. As published by the City of Fort Collins, fill within the floodway is allowed as stated, "New non-residential development allowed as lone as applicant can show no -rise and must meet freeboard requirements". From the beginning of the project the CDOT design team has been aware of both the City of Fort Collins floodplain and floodway and the FEMA mapped floodplain. The CDOT design team has met with the City stormwater staff on numerous occasions throughout the project to obtain clarification and direction from the stormwater department to ensure that the proposed building and fill shown within floodway and floodplain limits meet City and FEMA requirements. The City is about to embark on a review process with FEMA termed the "Map Modernization Program" which allows the City of Fort Collins to update its floodplain and floodway mapping within the Cityfor FEMA review. As a result of the map modernization program the existing floodplain and floodway through the project limits have been established. FEMA will allow CDOT to submit a CLOMR (Conditional Letter of Map Revision) based upon the City of Fort Collin's newly designated existing floodplain and floodway. A CLOMR is a pre -construction submittal to FEMA showing the proposed conditions and grading and how their mapped floodplain and floodway will change as a result. Development is allowed within the floodplain fringe (the area between the limits of the floodplain and floodway) and although it is common practice to avoid building within the floodway, FEMA as well as the City of Fort Collins allows development within the floodway. To build within the floodway, no rise is in water surface elevation is allowed upstream or downstream ofthe developer's property where the development will be taking place. This condition is met by doing one or both of the following: a. by allowing the floodplain to increase only on the developer's property b. if fill is placed, the flow area lost due to the fill is compensated for on an elevationlvolume basis 173 October 19, 2004 By meeting the above conditions, building within the floodway is considered acceptable by FEMA and the City of Fort Collins. As part of the CLOMR submittal, the City staff will review the proposed project and its effect on the floodplain and floodway prior to submittal to FEMA. Once the CLOMR is accepted construction would be allowed to commence. After construction CDOT will submit a LOMR (Letter of Map Revision) to the City and FEMA to show that what was built actually meets the same criteria discussed above. If a non-residential developer, in this case CDOT, were to build within the floodplain fringe/floodway it is a requirement to have 18" between the 100-year water surface elevation and the lowest opening (windows, doors, vents). The City of Fort Collins Stormwater Department has reviewed the proposal and concurs with CDOT's proposed site layout and conditions. • The State is not providing its fair share of financial contribution to needed improvements at the I-25 / Prospect interchange. This comment is outside the scope of the review considerations. The State is providing more than $500,000 in interchange improvements for a development (rest area) that will only increase traffic volumes by 2-8% in the peak hours. (In the City of Fort Collins, developments whose impacts are 2% or less are not required to complete any improvements, regardless of how badly an intersection is failing). The estimated traffic due to the rest area is 5-10 times less than other developments proposed in the area. For a minor increase in traffic, these are substantial and significant improvements from which the entire community will benefit. As far as planned improvements for the interchange, CDOT is presently conducting an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) on I-25 in which all interchanges are evaluated for safety, capacity and mobility. When the final EIS is complete, it will make specific recommendations for interchange improvements, including the interchange at Prospect Road. Presently there is no Federal or State funding available for any improvements north of SH 66. With the completion of the EIS in 2006, Prospect Road will be then ranked in importance by various transportation agencies. Funding for all these projects, including the Prospect Interchange, will be eligible for federal funding, as they become a priority according to their ranking. " Mayor Martinez introduced the agenda item. City Attorney Roy explained the appeal process, the procedure for hearing the appeal, and the options available to the Council at the conclusion of the appeal hearing. He stated in this particular 174 October 19, 2004 appeal there was a State statute involved that specified that the decision of the City represented an advisory recommendation to the State Transportation Commission about this proposal and that a two-thirds vote of that Commission could override the City's decision. He stated the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board was still appealable to the City Council and that CDOT had chosen to file the appeal. Greg Byrne, CPES Director, presented background information relating to the appeal. He stated CDOT would present information to the Council. He stated the heart of the issue was a "land swap" between the City and CDOT. He stated the land transaction had been approved by the City Council and would facilitate the relocation of the rest area currently on two separate locations on I-25 near Harmony Road to a single location co -located with the Colorado Visitor's Center on Prospect Road near the I-25 interchange. He stated City staff had reviewed the application and recommended approval after finding conformance with City standards. He stated on August 26 the Planning and Zoning Board, in its advisory role, unanimously voted not to approve the location, character and extent of the project. He stated the Board cited concerns about transportation, traffic and stormwater design. He stated the Board chair commended the State on the character of the proposal (architecture, site design and landscaping). He stated Council had a copy of the staff report and a verbatim transcript of the Planning and Zoning Board proceedings as well as the appeal statement from the State. Mayor Martinez stated the appellants would have 20 minutes to give a presentation. Karla Harding, Colorado Department of Transportation Region Director for Northeast Colorado, stated CDOT was appealing the Planning and Zoning Board decision. She stated CDOT had planned to move the rest areas on I-25. She stated in 1997 the Transportation Commission approved funding for the rest area program to refurbish and improve rest areas along the Interstate system. She stated Region 4 (Northeast Colorado) had constructed two new rest areas along I-76. She stated the Poudre rest area was the last one to be improved. She stated the proposal was to move that rest area to the Prospect interchange next to the Welcome Center. She stated CDOT wanted to relocate the rest area because two sites cost more to build and maintain than one site. She stated the Federal Highway Administration preferred that direct access to the interstate from rest areas be eliminated. She stated the ramps onto the Interstate from the two current rest areas were substandard in length and that there was limited room for truck parking at the rest areas. She stated the current rest areas were constrained and that parking could not be improved very much. She stated the current southbound rest area often had to be closed during Poudre River flooding. She stated the Prospect Road site was chosen because of the existing Welcome Center. She stated the land (owned by the City of Fort Collins) was available and the site would be consistent with the design of other rest areas along I-76. She stated it would be technically feasible to build a rest area at the Prospect Road site. She stated the benefits of this would include interchange improvements and traffic signals that would improve the level of service from level F (at peak hours) to level B; the addition frontage road turn lanes; synergy with the Welcome Center that would mean efficiencies and more dollars available for 175 October 19, 2004 architecture; the use of 16 acres of barren property (formerly owned by the City) that had been exchanged for 22 acres of riverfront property that could be used for natural area purposes; and a good fit with adjoining open space property owned by the City. She stated CDOT had worked with staff to make this a win/win situation for everyone. Harry Morrow, First Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Transportation for the State of Colorado, stated the appeal letter indicated the basis for the appeal. He stated the appellant was withdrawing the failure to conduct a fair hearing as a basis for the appeal. He stated the appellant would rely solely on the Planning and Zoning Board's failure to properly interpret and apply relevant law as the basis for the appeal. He stated there was a State statute that would apply and that it required consideration of the location, character and extent of the proposed public improvement. He noted that there was a memo in Council's package from Planning and Zoning staff dated August 26, 2004 that noted that in staff's view, all three of those criteria had been established; that the location was appropriate and consistent with the City's plan and zoning; that the character of the project was in keeping with the character of the area, particularly in the use of natural materials in the design and native landscaping; and that the extent of the project criterion was met with the installation of traffic signals, additional paving, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities that would meet any project impacts. He stated CDOT chose to bring this to City Council rather than just taking it to the Transportation Commission because CDOT was trying to work with the City to make sure that any of its issues were addressed. He urged the City Council to substitute its judgement for that of the Planning and Zoning Board with respect to the facts and law. He reviewed the five criteria noted in the Planning and Zoning Board letter to CDOT relating to the Board's denial of the relocation. He stated the first was that increased truck traffic at Prospect and the I-25 interchange would increase congestion and create conflicts with vehicular movements, particularly during peak hours. He stated CDOT had a traffic study done by a professional engineer and that the traffic study was reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer. He stated the study established that the level of service was currently failing at peak hours at the interchange, that the level of service would be improved to level B, and that traffic signal improvements would address the existing traffic and future traffic for at least 10 years. He stated the traffic signals would greatly enhance traffic safety and operations at the interchange. He stated there was no basis for the Planning and Zoning Board's determination that there would be a problem with the relocation. He stated the second finding of the Board was that travel lanes on the Prospect bridge were too narrow. He stated the bridge was 26 feet wide and that standard vehicle width on State highways was 8 feet 6 inches and that the limit was 10 feet with a permit. He stated CDOT did not believe that there would be problems with trucks passing on the Prospect bridge to use the rest area. He stated if the City was concerned that CDOT would consider signage for the rest area to limit over width vehicles. He stated the third finding of the Planning and Zoning Board was that the traffic study did not properly adjust for seasonal traffic. He stated CDOT hired a traffic engineer to look at that issue and that the traffic study showed that, if anything, CDOT overestimated the amount of traffic. He stated the Board's insistence that there should have been a greater seasonal adjustment was not supported by the evidence. He stated the Board also had an issue with stormwater and stated that City stormwater staff concurred that the CDOT design would 176 October 19, 2004 not cause a rise in water elevations upstream or downstream, that all necessary clearances would be obtained from FEMA, and that the design met all City requirements for stormwater. He stated the final finding of the Board was that the State was not providing its fair share of an ultimate interchange improvement at this location. He stated CDOT felt that this was outside of the scope of the matters that should have been considered by the Board. He stated CDOT was investing more than $500,000 in traffic signals and other interchange improvements to accommodate the rest area relocation. He stated absent any significant new development at the interchange, the traffic signals would make the interchange function at an acceptable level for the next 10 years. He urged the Council to reverse the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board and determine that the rest area relocation met the statutory criteria of location, character and extent. Ms. Harding stated CDOT always "tried to be a good neighbor" and asked that the Council take that into consideration in making its decision. Councilmember Kastein asked requested clarification regarding the current rest area location. Ms. Harding stated the rest area was currently located between Harmony Road and Prospect Road near the river. She stated the State Patrol office would remain at the current location. Councilmember Kastein asked how long the rest area had been there. Ms. Harding stated it had probably been there since the 1960s. Councilmember Kastein asked if the drawbacks of the current location had been recently determined. Ms. Harding stated the drawbacks had been known fora long time and that the primary consideration was the need to expand the parking. Councilmember Kastein asked how CDOT prioritized funding for rest areas with funding for other transportation needs and what percentage of funding was allocated for rest area improvements. Ms. Harding stated it had been a six -year process to refurbish the rest areas and that the Commission allocated money for such purposes before giving money to the regions. She stated the cost for this rest area would be $5 to $6 million. Councilmember Kastein asked what the local benefit would be for a rest area. Ms. Harding stated rest areas provided an opportunity for local communities to advertise their attractions. Councilmember Kastein stated he believed that the argument from CDOT was "sound" and asked the appellant to "characterize the disagreement" with the Planning and Zoning Board that led to the appeal. He asked if the Board's decision was based largely on "personal opinion" regarding the traffic study or if there was other data that contributed to the Board's decision. Byrne stated CDOT presented its evidence from a professional traffic engineer and that the Board still had "nagging concerns" relating to oversized loads on the relatively narrow bridge, accident data, and traffic counts. He stated Ron Phillips, Transportation Services Director, had indicated after the Board 177 October 19. 2004 hearing, that staff remained satisfied with the information presented by the applicant. Councilmember Kastein stated it was an "appropriate role" for the Planning and Zoning Board to question the data. He stated his question was whether there was data that would contradict the data presented by CDOT. Byrne stated Transportation Services felt that the data presented by CDOT was "compelling." Councilmember Weitkunat stated based on C.R.S. 31-23-209, it appeared that the Council should be looking at this appeal from the perspective of the Board's interpretation of the location, character and extent of the project. She asked staff to address those three statutory criteria and how they should have been applied by the Planning and Zoning Board. Byrne stated one question (relating to location) was whether the land use and the building would conform to the City's concept of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated staff found that it did conform, especially in light of Council's approval of the land swap knowing the intended use. He stated (with regard to the character of the buildings) CDOT had conducted design charettes over a period of a year that involved City staff and other interested parties. He stated staff was very satisfied with the character of the proposed development. He stated (with regard to the extent of the criterion) the question was whether the impacts on neighborhoods were being adequately addressed. He stated the State was not required to conform to all of the City's criteria but that the City had the opportunity to comment. He stated the City's standards for stormwater, traffic, etc. were used as the basis for that comment. He stated staff had recommended approval upon finding that all of the City's standards had been adequately addressed. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if issues such as traffic impacts and stormwater issues were therefore addressed under the "extent of the project" criterion. Byrne replied in the affirmative and stated such issues were also partially covered under the "location" criterion. He stated there was a broad ranging review based on interpretation of the three words (location, character and extent). Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the criteria were reviewed in isolation or in combination. Byrne stated they were reviewed in combination. He stated staff tended to treat such applications as they would a standard application under the Land Use Code. Councilmember Weitkunat asked for confirmation that at least one of the Board members complimented the State on the character of the project. Byrne replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Roy asked about how traffic signalization and traffic stopping would impact the area. Ms. Harding stated currently the ramps were located close to the bridge and that visibility was limited. She stated signalization would allow traffic to get off of the ramps more quickly and more safely. Councilmember Roy asked how far traffic would extend to the highway when traffic was stopped 178 October 19, 2004 at the signals. Ms. Harding stated sensors could be placed to indicate traffic buildup on the ramp and to allow more green time on the signals. Councilmember Roy asked how far out traffic would backup out to the highway during peak seasons. Ms. Harding stated rest area traffic was at its peak at different times than rush hour traffic. Councilmember Roy expressed a concern that there could be traffic backed up out to the highway. Ms. Harding stated traffic currently backed up about 600 feet and with the signals, the expected backups would be 200 feet. Councilmember Tharp asked how the location of this rest area would fit into the regional plan for I-25 and northern Colorado and if the location was decided upon in relation to the rest of the highway plan. Ms. Harding stated the Commission's direction to CDOT was to improve the rest areas to bring them up to standard. She stated the rest area did not fit into any major plan except that the rest area must be relocated to allow the improvements to be made. Councilmember Tharp asked if additional truck traffic could come into the City as a result of relocating the rest area off of the highway. Ms. Harding stated the trucks would typically stop at the rest area and then go back to the Interstate. She stated trucks going toward Laramie would typically go back to the Interstate and take the Highway 14 exit. Councilmember Tharp asked about large trucks making a left turn off of Prospect into the rest area. Ms. Harding stated the road would be engineered to allow trucks to make the turn easily. Councilmember Tharp asked if there was any concern about building in the floodway. Ms. Harding stated rest areas could be closed when travelers could not use the rest area due to flooding. Councilmember Hamrick asked about the adequate public facilities requirements in this area. He noted that the current level of service was F and it would go to B. He asked if development was restricted in that area because of the current level of service rating. Byrne replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Hamrick asked if the level of service went to B, if additional land would be freed for development. Byrne stated that was possible. Councilmember Hamrick noted that the report indicated that a 20% increase in volume was expected from April to August and asked if the same volume would travel to the new rest area location. Ms. Harding stated the new rest area would be 1,000 feet from the interchange. She stated trucks may choose not to use the new rest area because of the proximity of the truck stop. Councilmember Hamrick asked if the distance to the rest area and the number of turns were factored into the determination of anticipated volume. He asked if there would be any operations and 179 October 19. 2004 maintenance money proposed to be paid to the City due to the increased traffic and increased City maintenance costs on Prospect Road. Ms. Harding stated this could be negotiated with the City. She stated the increased traffic should only be on the 1,000 feet of roadway and that this was in the "envelope" maintained by CDOT. Councilmember Roy asked about the planned update to the floodplain and floodway and how that modernization would change the perspective on this project. Bob Smith, Stormwater Planning Manager, stated the City was in the process of updating the floodplain and floodway maps with FEMA to reflect the new rainfall standards. He stated to comply with the wider floodplains that were proposed FEMA and CDOT had agreed to comply with the new standards. Councilmember Roy asked how CDOT would stay in compliance with the floodway standard given the construction in that floodway. Smith stated the current regulations and the regulations under review allowed the floodway to be modified and allowed nonresidential structures in the floodway as long as they showed a "no rise." He stated the proposed floodway standard would prohibit new residential building in the floodway. He stated the main review criteria would be the impact on off - site properties. He stated this would be in the Boxelder floodplain and there would be fewer restrictions than building in the Poudre River floodplain. Councilmember Kastein asked about the anticipated increase in traffic and what the trigger would be to evaluate the adequate public facilities requirements. Eric Bracke, Traffic Engineer, stated under the adequate public facilities ordinance, if the development did not increase the amount of delay at the intersection by more than 2%, it would be exempt. He stated in this case there were safety and delay problems due to the F level of service. He noted the signal solution was automatic and the 2% measure did not have to be used. Councilmember Kastein asked if the Traffic Engineer agreed with the expected improvement in backup from 600 feet to 200 feet. Bracke replied in the affirmative and stated at times the backup at that interchange extended into the through lane on I-25. He stated the signals would reduce the backup problem. Councilmember Kastein asked what the options would be to solve that problem if the signals were not installed. Bracke stated the City would work with CDOT to address the problem (which was a CDOT problem) at the time of a development. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to overturn the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board and to find that the Board failed to properly interpret and apply CRS Section 31-23-209. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she believed that the evidence justified approval of the plan under the three criteria (location, character and extent). She stated a rest area was compatible with the "I October 19, 2004 Welcome Center. She stated she had no reason to doubt the figures relating to traffic volume and improvements due to signalization. She stated concerns relating to the floodway had been addressed. Councilmember Roy thanked the Planning and Zoning Board, City staff and CDOT for their work on this issue. He stated he agreed with CDOT on this issue. He stated there would be safety improvements due to reductions in traffic backed up onto I-25, that the floodplain issues had been addressed forthrightly, and that this would be a "good deal" for the City. He stated he would support the motion rather than the decision of the Board. Councilmember Kastein stated the Planning and Zoning Board did not have all of the data relating to the floodplain issue. He stated the Board also appeared to "get stuck" on the issue of funding for a rest area when the interchange was not getting approved. He stated the funding issued would "need to be tackled at a different level." Mayor Martinez stated he believed that this was a clear decision. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED ("Secretary's Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point.) Ordinance No. 171, 2004, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the 221 West Prospect Road Rezoning Adopted on First Reading The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is a request to rezone Lot 10 of the Grim Subdivision, which is located at the southeast corner of West Prospect Road and Tamasag Drive and known as 221 West Prospect Road. This parcel is 26,800 sq. ft. in size (0.62 acres) and is currently zoned E —Employment. The proposed rezoning would rezone the property into the CC — Community Commercial zone district. The parcel is designated as part of the Mason Street Transportation Corridor and is identified as part of the Campus District on the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan Map. The 221 West Prospect Road rezoning was presented to the Planning and Zoning Board on 181 October 19, 2004 September 16, 2004. The Planning and Zoning Board recommended denial of the rezoning request. Issues expressed by the Planning and Zoning Board supporting its recommendation of denial include: 1. While some of the permitted uses within the CC zone district will be of the appropriate type and intensity to serve the transit corridor, others are incompatible. Some examples were auto -oriented uses like fast food restaurants and retailers. While the Board acknowledged that the list of permitted uses within the E-Employment district was much more restrictive, and likely less marketable, their perspective was that there is less risk that incompatible uses will be introduced. 2. Some members were concerned about "commercial creep" whereby redevelopable properties further away from the Mason Corridor could use the same rationale for rezoning their property to CC. 3. A continued concern was raised about the E-Employment land supply. 4. One member who participated on the Mason Corridor Transportation Team didn't perceive the change to be consistent with the adopted Corridor Plan. The rezoning request is consistent with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan designation as "Campus District. " This designation promotes the education, research and employment needs of the campus, but also includes internal and/or surrounding retail and residential areas which support the campus. The site is on the south side of Prospect Road, one block south of Lake Street, which is generally considered the southern boundary of the Colorado State University main campus. This site is also included within the Mason Street Transportation Corridor. This plan promotes the use of Mason Street and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Tracks as an enhanced pedestrian, bicycle and transit corridor. The Mason Street Transportation Corridor provides opportunities for transit -oriented development along this transit route, by increasing the residential density and providing additional employment, retail and entertainment needs along the corridor. The proposed Community Commercial (CC) zone district permits a variety of uses and includes design standards which are consistent with the Campus District designation of the Structure Plan and the goals of the Mason Street Corridor Plan. This site is adjacent to a proposed transit stop (north of Prospect Road, east of the railroad tracks). In order to support the transit stop, high density residential is recommended to be located within a relatively short walking distance to station. The zone district includes single and multi family residential, mixed -use dwellings, churches, restaurants (including fast food, without a drive through), grocery stores, retail establishments, bars and taverns, gasoline stations, vehicle minor repair and day shelters. The maximum building height is 5 stories. 182 October 19, 2004 FINDINGS and ANALYSIS Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: CC; Multi family residential, fast food restaurant S: E; undeveloped E: C; retail center W: E; offices The property was annexed as part of the Pat Griffin Second Annexation in October, 1968. Quasi -Judicial Rezoning This rezoning proposal is considered a quasi-judicial rezoning. In order for the Planning and Zoning Board to recommend approval of such a rezoning to the City Council, the following criteria must be met: A. Consistent with the Ci 's Comprehensive Plan: This parcel is designated as Campus District on the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan. The existing Employment zoning and the proposed Community Commercial zoning are consistent with this designation on the Structure Plan. The site is included within the Mason Street Transportation Corridor. This plan has been adopted as an element of City Plan, and is designated as an enhanced travel corridor. This plan encourages the implementation of safe, convenient and comfortable access to high frequency transit services and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The enhance travel corridor should integrate features of adjacent land uses to encourage transit ridership and the ability to walk or ride a bicycle. The proposed community commercial zone district will permit the integration of residential, retail and other uses which will support the transit corridor. B. Warranted by change in the neighborhood surrounding and including the subiect property The property was originally developed as a gas station. This station has since closed, and is being used as a check cashing establishment. The property owner has indicated that this is only a temporary use of the site, and that ultimately the property should be redeveloped to fulfill its potential. The current Employment zoning will certainly permit uses that can support both the Campus District designation and the Mason Street Corridor Plan. Where 183 October 19, 2004 the current zoning falls short is in achieving the ideal mix of residential, retail, entertainment and other supporting uses for the CSU campus and higher densities and land use intensities envisioned as part of the Mason Street Corridor. These uses are all secondary uses within the Employment district, and would require modification to permit a project that encompassed a mix of housing, retail and other supporting uses. This site is part of a larger subdivision that includes an additional 10 lots. Two of these lots are developed with an office building (Griffin Building to the west), the remainder are undeveloped. The undeveloped lots front along Tamasag Drive, which is a circular drive south of the site. These lots are owned by Colorado State University. While CSU has no plans for the development of these lots, it is likely they will develop as student housing or administrative offices. As CSU continues to grow and expand to the south of the main campus, surrounding properties will redevelop to continue to meet the needs of supporting the university. C. Additional Consideration for Quasi -Judicial Rezonings In determining whether to recommend approval of any such proposed zoning amendment, the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council may also consider the following additional factors: 1. Whether and the extent to which the Proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subiect land and is the appropriate zone district for the land: This area includes a variety ofexisting uses, including retail, restaurants, residential and office. The uses permitted within the CC zone district will be compatible with these surrounding uses. The most undesirable land use which may conceivably be permitted on the site under the CC zone district would be a gas station, which is what the site was previously used for. Compatibility with existing and anticipated future uses would be better achieved with the redevelopment of the site. 10, October 19, 2004 2. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to water, noise air, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment. The parcels are not included within a mapped natural area, nor does it appear they contain any wetlands or other environmentally sensitive areas which would be impacted by future development of the site. There are some existing trees on the site, which may need to be incorporated into a future site plan. 3. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. The land to the north of the site across Prospect Road is currently zoned Community Commercial. This district would be extended south to include this lot. The surrounding properties would remain E — Employment to the west and south and C - Commercial to the east. Request for CC — Community Commercial District Zoning The applicant initially filed a rezoning petition with the City on July 9, 2004. The current request is to rezone 221 West Prospect Road from E — Employment to CC — Community Commercial. The lot is about. 62 acres in size. The purpose of the CC Zoning District is to provide a "combination of retail, offices, services, cultural facilities, civic uses and higher density housing. Multi -story buildings are encouraged to provide a mix of residential and non-residential uses. Offices and dwellings are encouraged to locate above ground floor retail. " FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS After reviewing the 221 West Prospect Road Rezoning, File #25-04, staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions as explained above: A. The subject property for the 221 West Prospect Rezoning is designated on the City Structure Plan as Campus District. The rezoning request to Community Commercial is consistent with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan map. B. The subject property for the 221 West Prospect Rezoning is included within the Mason Street Transportation Corridor Plan, which recommends the use of higher density residential and greater commercial intensities along the corridor. The rezoning request to Community IM October 19, 2004 Commercial is consistent with this plan. C. The subject property has undergone change, the existing zoning is no longer consistent with the principles of City Plan and is inconsistent with the purpose of the Campus District and the Mason Street Transportation Corridor Plan. " Interim City Manager Atteberry introduced the agenda item. Bob Barkeen, City Planner, presented background information regarding the proposed rezoning. He stated this was a request to rezone Lot 10 of the Griffin Subdivision from E-Employment to CC - Community Commercial zoning. He stated the lot was about two-thirds of an acre located at the southeast corner of West Prospect Road and Tamasag Drive. He stated the current use was for check cashing and that it had previously been a gas station. He stated the Planning and Zoning Board recommended denial of the rezoning request by a 4-2 vote and that staff was recommending approval. He stated the site was adjacent to the Mason Street Transportation Corridor. He presented visual information regarding the site and its surroundings. He stated the Board had a concern that other nearby properties zoned E might also request rezoning to CC zoning. He presented visual information depicting the Mason Street Transportation Corridor in relation to the rezoning site and areas within a 500 foot radius of the planned transit stop. He stated the corner of Prospect and Tamasag was identified as one of the areas that would have a direct impact on the transit stop and could be considered for a more intense land use to support the transit stop. He stated staff believed that this information could help alleviate some of the Board's concerns. He stated this site was the only one envisioned by staff to be zoned CC and that other lots in the area would have less intensive land use designations. He noted that the Corridor project was on hold due to funding. He stated the E-Employment zone district was for light industrial uses, research facilities, offices, or institutions situated on large campus -like settings. He stated these uses were usually base employment and associated with product production. He stated in the context of this lot that it would be unlikely that such uses could be situated on this small a lot. He stated CC -Community Commercial zoning proposed by the application would provide for a mix of land uses, including retail, offices, services, cultural facilities, civic uses and higher density retail (a key component of the Mason Street Transportation Corridor). He stated the Framework Plan for the Mason Street Transportation Corridor indicated that an implementation strategy would be to incorporate a greater number of higher density residential and a greater mix of retail and other uses around the transit stops. He stated offices were permitted in both E and CC zone districts and that the type of offices that would be likely on this type of site would be professional offices rather than base employment or product production. He stated retail was one of the base uses in the CC zone district and that there were severe limitations in the E zone district with regard to retail. He stated multifamily residential was permitted in both the E and CC zones and that restaurants would be permitted in the CC zone but would have limitations in the E zone as a secondary use. He stated when the Planning and Zoning Board considered the rezoning the discussion was that Employment zoning would do as well in implementing the goals of the Mason Street Transportation Corridor as the Community Commercial [M October 19, 2004 zone district would do. He presented visual information regarding the proposed transit stop, the Mason Street Transportation Corridor, the lot and existing building, and the railroad tracks. Troy Jones, former City Planner, stated from January 1999 through February 2004, he worked for the Current Planning Department of the City and that during that time he worked on the Mason Street Transportation Corridor project. He stated the Mason Street Transportation Corridor Plan was adopted in October of 2000 and that the Plan outlined an implementation strategy. He stated there was an "enhanced development area" near the transit station designated in the Plan. He stated the land use framework effort was intended to encourage a variety of activities around the transit stops, including more residential development, potential zoning changes, and a review of consistency of City policies. He stated in order to encourage ridership, it was desired to have people coming for a variety of reasons at various times of the day and to have both points of origin and destinations at the transit station. He stated the Plan encouraged larger buildings and a mixture of land uses at the stations. He stated it was important to encourage a mixture of uses, larger buildings and getting people to and from the station area for a variety of reasons. He stated there would be less intense uses further away from the stations and that it was important to maximize utilization of land closer to the stations. He stated the CC zone was more appropriate for this location than the E zone. He stated the maximum building height in the CC zone was five stories and in the E zone was four stories; that retail establishments as a permitted use were allowed in the CC zone and not allowed in the E zone; that the only type of retail permitted in the E zone would be convenience shopping centers; and that secondary uses would have to be applied in the E zone to allow restaurants and other desired uses at the transit station. Mikel Torgerson, 223 North College Avenue, stated he was speaking as a private citizen. He stated he still believed in the Mason Street Corridor vision. He stated the zoning surrounding proposed transit stops was critically important to the success of a transit route. He stated the Employment zone district was inappropriate for transit -oriented development type areas. He stated limited retail was allowed only as a secondary use in the Employment zone district and that it could comprise only 25% of a project. He stated the higher height allowance of the CC zone would allow more intensity and would be appropriate to promote the success of the Mason Street Corridor. He encouraged the Council to vote to rezone the property CC. He noted that he had no personal or professional interest in the property and that he came to speak because he was concerned. Ron Ibsen, applicant, stated the applicant was attempting to do a redevelopment project adjacent to a Mason Street Corridor station location. He stated the plan addressed orienting new development and redevelopment to improve access to the Corridor and increase transit use in the Corridor; the need for higher density development; the appropriateness of rezoning to achieve intensification to yield higher tax revenues; and the need for transit oriented commercial, retail, office and residential development to sustain business. He stated the Mason Street Corridor could foster a resurgence of redevelopment. He stated the Planning Department supported the zoning change and noted he believed the Planning and Zoning Board did not "embrace" the approved Mason Street Corridor 187 October 19, 2004 Plan. He asked Council to follow the adopted Plan. He stated the applicant envisioned a multi -use project providing retail on the ground floor of a mixed use building. He stated this was a small site and that about 18% of the site would be lost for future roadway. He stated the CC zone gave more transit friendly options for the development than the E zone. He stated the applicant wanted a development that was more compatible with the Corridor than a development that would be allowed under the E zone. He requested Council approval of the rezoning. Councilmember Hamrick noted that a consultant had told the City that the downtown needed a mix of residential, retail, business, employment, etc. to make the downtown successful. He stated one of the goals with Mason Street was mixed use development. He noted that one of the concerns of the Planning and Zoning Board was that the mixed use development would be lost around the Corridor. He asked whether rezoning of this site to allow commercial would contribute to the whole strip becoming another retail area without the desired mix. Barkeen stated the intent was not to develop around any of the transit stops solely with commercial or any other singular use. He stated the CC zone district would provide the options for a true mix of land uses as envisioned adjacent to the transit stops. He stated other zone districts would limit the amount of residential or retail development and that this would mean a risk that only certain uses would be located in these areas. He stated the goal was to allow the zoning to be in place to allow future projects that would achieve the right mix. Councilmember Hamrick noted that Commercial zoning would allow many of those uses but would not dictate limitations on retail as the Employment zoning would. He stated there was a fear that only commercial developments would come forward. He stated some of the uses allowed would be secondary uses under the E zone and would have to be consciously approved. He stated the E zone would support mixed use development in these areas and that CC zoning would allow all kinds of activities. Councilmember Roy asked how many acres on the six -mile Mason Street Corridor were zoned Employment. Kathleen Reavis, Transportation Services, stated information was not available and that the enhanced development areas around the proposed stations were developed in 2000 based on the potential for the future. She stated the goal was to work with the landowners over time to facilitate that type of transit oriented development. She stated staff believed that this proposal was compatible with the Mason Street Corridor goals. She stated rezoning for this particular site did not mean a change for the areas around all of the stations. She stated decisions would be made separately for other sites. Barkeen stated there was Employment zoned land south of the site. Councilmember Roy requested that Mr. Jones respond to his question. Mr. Jones presented visual information regarding the surrounding zoning and uses. Councilmember Tharp asked if the essential difference was that E zoning would allow commercial development in 25% of the property. Barkeen stated if the property was zoned E, retail development Im. October 19, 2004 would be allowed only within a convenience retail center that would have four separate retail users with separate entrances within 25% of the building area. Councilmember Tharp asked if the space was too small for that kind of development. Barkeen stated such development would not be functional on this small a site. Councilmember Tharp asked if there was an underlying concern that had not been voiced relating to having a restaurant and bar that close to CSU. Barkeen stated bars would be allowed within the zone district. He stated the Planning and Zoning Board did make a reference to the ability to have a bar and tavern on this site as zoned, provided it was limited to 25% of the use. Councilmember Tharp expressed a concern that this site was so close to the University that the use needed to be compatible with the University more than it needed to be appropriate to the Mason Street Corridor. She asked what would be the most appropriate use of the property given the proximity to the University. Barkeen stated this site was also within the Campus District of the City Structure Plan. He stated that district was intended for educational uses and supporting uses, including retail, entertainment, shopping and residential uses that would all function to help support the University and its associated functions. He stated the goals of the Mason Street Corridor and the Campus District were very similar. Councilmember Weitkunat stated the issue before Council was a rezoning and that there were certain criteria that must be met. She asked staff to reiterate those criteria and how they would be met. Barkeen stated there were two primary findings that the Council would need to make: first, that the rezoning would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. He stated since this site was in the Campus District as well as within part of the Mason Street Transportation Corridor Plan that staff believed that a finding that the rezoning would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan would be justified. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if staff believed that the Campus District would be supported by the CC zoning because it would provide for a mix of uses. Barkeen replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Weitkunat asked how the Mason Street Corridor Plan fit with this. Barkeen stated it was part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. He stated the second finding to be made was whether the rezoning was warranted by changes in the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. He stated the property was originally developed as a gas station and since then the Mason Street Transportation Corridor Plan had been adopted. He stated that based on that, staff thought there had been changes occurring in the neighborhood itself. He stated that was evidenced by the fact that the applicant said it was time to redevelop the property based on changes that had happened within the surrounding properties as well as within the Mason Street Transportation Corridor. am October 19, 2004 Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Ordinance No. 171, 2004 on First Reading. Councilmember Weitkunat stated an important element to her was the Mason Street Corridor. She stated if policies were going to be put into place to build an "ideal and appropriate plan for the community" that "small pieces" would have to be done to make it work. She stated this would become a half acre site that would have some impacts on the Mason Street Corridor. She stated the rezoning seemed to be totally appropriate. Councilmember Hamrick stated he would not support the motion because he was concerned about the loss of diversity along the Corridor where it was needed. He stated the City could "piecemeal" itself into a "retail haven" that would not support higher densities or the Mason Street Corridor Plan. Councilmember Tharp stated she often pushed for maintaining the City's Employment land because there was not a lot of it. She stated this site was right next to the University and that there was a concern that development of the property as a bar and restaurant would add a different kind of neighborhood mix into the area. She stated she understood the arguments being made with regard to more intense development along the Mason Street Corridor. She stated there were good arguments on both sides. She stated once the property was zoned Commercial that the City would have little control over whether there might be a restaurant and bar use at the site. She stated "reluctantly" she would support the motion for Commercial zoning. She stated she would be watching how the proposed development would relate to the community to the west and the university to the north. She stated there could be significant impacts depending on the type of development. Councilmember Kastein stated he would support the motion. He stated the loss of a half acre of Employment land was of "no consequence in terms of the bigger picture." He stated the Employment District was intended for large employers and that a half acre was not suitable for large employers. He stated the rezoning was warranted by the change in the neighborhood due to the advent of the Mason Street Corridor. He stated commercial use tied nicely into transit oriented development in the Mason Street Corridor. He stated some of the uses around the Corridor would be changing and would be driven by the market. He stated he did have a concern with more liquor licensed establishments around CSU. He stated was a topic that the Council should address. Councilmember Roy stated he would support the motion with "enthusiasm" because the Mason Street Transportation Corridor was a "bigger vision" to create a community connection that would provide opportunities in development, employment, retail and lifestyle. He stated the competing elements of this particular proposal were preservation of Employment versus supporting the Mason Street Transportation Corridor. He stated the loss of Employment land would be "paid back many times over" by a successful transition to a fully functioning Mason Street Transportation Corridor. 190 October 19, 2004 The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Hamrick. THE MOTION CARRIED Items Relating to Utility Rates and Charges for 2005, Adopted on First Reading The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "FINANCIAL IMPACT These Ordinances are projected to increase annual Wastewater Fund operating revenues by 5%, Light and Power Fund revenues by 4.35% and Storm Drainage Fund operating revenues by 7%. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 172, 2004, Amending Chapter 26, Article IV, Division 4 of the City Code Relating to Wastewater Rates and Charges. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 173, 2004, Amending Chapter 26, Article VI, Division 4 of the City Code Relating to Electric Rates and Charges. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 174, 2004, Amending Chapter 26, Article VII, Division 2 of the City Code Relating to Stormwater Fees. D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 175, 2004, Amending Chapter 26, Article III, Division 5, of the City Code Relating to the Raw Water Requirement for Nonresidential Service. E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 176, 2004, Amending Chapter 26, Article XII of the City Code Relating to Budget Billing. This item consists of five Ordinances establishing the Utilities rates for 2005. Overall, rates for utility services are proposed to increase as follows: 191 October 19, 2004 Cost Per Avg % Increase Household/Month Wastewater 5.00% $ .85 Electric 4.35% $1.85 Stormwater 7.00% $1.00 The wastewater and stormwater increases will be "across the board" and do not vary by customer class. The electric rates increases, a pass through of higher costs from the City's energy supplier, will vary by customer class (residential, commercial, industrial) andfor individual customers within the class. In total, a "typical" residential customer's utility bill will increase $3.70 per month. There are no rate changes for water at this time; however, a clarification to the raw water requirement for meters greater than 3-inches is proposed. The housekeeping change is to clarify that the 1.92 multiplier (which is applied to residential and non-residential meters 3-inches or less in order to provide adequate raw water in a 1-50 drought year) also applies to services with larger meters. The Utilities and customers will be allowed more operational flexibility under the proposed change to the budget billing procedure. Currently the customer is required to pay the settle up amount for the year during the last month of the twelve month contract. The proposed Ordinance will eliminate the specific terms of the budget billing program from the Code and thus permit the Utility additional operational flexibility in administering the program. BACKGROUND Wastewater This Ordinance increases the City's wastewater rates by 5%. The increase is applied "across the board" for all customers. With the proposed rate, atypical single family residential customer's monthly bill will increase from $17.02 to $17.87 or 85 cents per month. This is based on a system average 5,200 gallons per month winter quarter water use. The wastewater rate Ordinance retains the minimum winter quarter usage for single family residential customers of 3,000 gallons (4,000 for duplexes). The wastewater rate increase is needed to fund the operations and maintenance of the City's wastewater system and to meet debt service coverage requirements. Wastewater revenues have 192 October 19, 2004 lagged projections. The wastewater rates are based on metered water consumption and over the last two years water consumption has been reduced considerably through voluntary conservation, watering restrictions and most recently the mild weather. Since the vast majority of wastewater expenses are fired and are unrelated to the amount of wastewater processed the rate increase is necessary to generate sufficient revenue to meet the utilities obligations for debt and operations. Electric Electric rates are proposed to increase an average of 4.35%. The increase is solely due to a 5.9% rate increase from Platte River Power Authority, the City's wholesale electric supplier. The wholesale increase equates to an over all 4.35% increase to Fort Collins customers. The rate increase is required by Platte River due to the following drivers: • Increased purchase power costs (hydropower and market purchases) • Decreased availability of inexpensive hydropower (due to drought conditions) • Increased capital investment requirements (transmission and 4th peaking unit) • Decreasing surplus sales revenue • Decreasing investment income • Increased debt service (payments on new financing for peaking units) The energy and demand component ofeach retail rate schedule will increase 5.9%. The distribution and fired charges are not increasing. Large industrial and large commercial customers will experience greater increases than residential and smaller commercial customers since purchase power energy and demand components make up a greater percentage of the larger customers' electric bills. The proposed rate increases vary by customer class and are shown in the following table. Individual customers within these rate classes will varyfrom the class average. With the proposed rates, a typical single family residential customer's monthly bill will increase 4.0% from $46.58 to $48.43 or $1.85 cents per month. This is based on a system average far residential customers of 700 kWh per month. Proposed Electric Increases by Customer Rate Class Residential Energy Service 3.9% Residential Demand Service 4.3% General Service (Small Commercial) 4.3% General Service 50 (Medium Commercial) 4.5% General Service 750 (Large Commercial & Industrial) 5.0% Floodli h ing 1.1 % Traffic Sijznals 14.2% 193 October 19, 2004 Housekeeping changes in the electric rate Ordinance include: • Increase the fixed cost by $20 per month for those large commercial and industrial customers who do not permit the utility to access their telephone lines for reading the meter. In these cases the utility must manually read the meter or use a cell phone to communicate with the meter. • Provide that customers who generate a portion of their power through parallel generation (or distributed generation) will be served under the special servicesprovision of the rate schedule. This permits more flexibility for both the utility and customer than the requirement that parallel generation would only be provided under the standby provision. The Ordinance also updates the Platte RiverPowerAuthority tariff reference in this code provision. Further, the term "qualifying facility" referenced in the Code language for parallel generation has been revised to eliminate the reference to the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act of 1978. Instead, the Utilities will inspect the facility for compliance with interconnection requirements to ensure the safety of the Utilities' workers and the public and then issue a permit to operate under an interconnection agreement. • Revise the standby service charges provisions to permit the Utilities to pass through to the customer those generation and transmission charges accessed to the Utilities by Platte River through its tariffs. These standby generation and transmission charges only apply to customers with standby loads of one megawatt or greater. Stormwater The City's stormwater rates will increase 7% "across the board" for all customers if adopted by City Council. The 7% increase is consistent with the 2001 Stormwater Financing Plan adopted by City Council Resolution 2001-93. The increase is necessary to fund the operations and maintenance of the City's stormwater system, to pay debt service and to continue the acceleration of the citywide capital improvements program. A typical single family residential customer's monthly bill will increase from $14.26 to $15.26 or $1.00 per month. The typical bill is based on an 8,600 square foot lot with light run off. In addition, the Ordinance provides for the Utilities General Manager to adjust the area utilized in calculating the monthly stormwater fee for large residential lots that are one-half acre or greater andforpropertiesusedforagriculturalpurposes. Theseparcels may have lesser stormwater runoff than typical developments and the proposed provision would permit the General Manager the flexibility to recognize this difference. 194 October 19, 2004 Water There are no rate changes for water at this time; however, a clarification to the raw water requirement for meters greater than 3-inches is proposed. The housekeeping change is to clarify that the 1.92 multiplier (which is applied to residential and non-residential meters 3-inches or less in order to provide adequate raw water in a 1-50 drought year) also applies to services with larger meters. Although no water rate changes are recommended to be effective January 1, 2005, it should be noted that water consumption has dropped through the first eight months of2004, despite expectations that water use would increase slightly after mandatory water restrictions were eliminated. Ifthe revenue trend continues, the Utilities may have to reconsider the need for a rate adjustment at some later point in 2005 in order to meet debt service requirements and the fixed costs of operation. Budget Billing Budget billing is a service offered to single family residential customers in order to average out seasonal variances in their utility bills. The budget billing terms are specified in the code. Currently, the Code requires that customers who sign up for the program pay eleven equal monthly utility payments based on past historyfor the account. In the twelfth month the customer pays the outstanding balance or receives a credit for the difference between the 11 payments they have made and their actual costs during the period. The proposed Ordinance will eliminate the specific terms of the budget billing program from the Code and thus permit the Utilities additional operational flexibility in administering the program. In particular it may be desirable to roll the annual settle up balance into the following year's budget amount. This change facilitates the administration of the budget billing process and provides customers with a better payment option in cases where there is a large settle up amount due. The Ordinance also provides for mid -contract budget billing adjustments when the variance falls outside of acceptable ranges, and termination of budget billing when circumstances make that billing mechanism problematic. Impact on Typical Residential Customer The following table summarizes the impact ofthe proposed electric, wastewater and stormwater rate adjustments on a typical single family residential customer's monthly utility bill. In total, this "typical" customer's utility bill will increase $3.70 per month. 195 October 19, 2004 Typical Residential Customer— Monthiv Utilit Bill Current Proposed $ % 2004 2005 Increase Increase Electric $46.58 $48.43 $1.85 4.00% 700 kWh Per month Wastewater $17.02 $17.87 $0.85 5.00% 5,200 gallons/month winter quarter use Stormwater $14.26 $15.26 $1.00 7.00 8,600 sq ft lot light runoff Water January S,OOOgallons $21.62 $21.62 $0.00 0.00% July 15, 000 gallons $43.16 $43.16 $0.00 0.00 Total Monthly Utility Bill Jan Water Use $99.48 $103.18 $3.70 3.72% July Water Use $121.02 124.72 3.70 3.06%] Note: July water use reflects reduced average usages in 2003-2004. Board Recommendations: The Electric Board passed a motion recommending that City Council approve adoption of the electric rates at its September 15, 2004, Electric Board meeting. The Water Board passed a similar motion recommending Council approval of the wastewater and stormwater rates and the clarification to the raw water requirement for meters greater than 3-inches at the September 23, 2004, Water Board meeting. The Board minutes are attached. 196 October 19, 2004 Single Family Utility Cost Comparison — 2004 Rates $120 January Water Use $100 O0 $80 7 $60 t $40 c 0 $20 $0 V y $ x K u N j S V Q$ § § K S LL o a FpElecWc-700MgWater-5,000galpWW-5200WQA SW-6600agk July Water Use $160 $140 m $120 ? $100 $so t $60 $40 $20 $0 E d c �qrr c$ p np y$ W p 0 J M m 9 x N 0 0 N C 57 C X LL LL a p Electric - 700 Who WATER-15,000 galp W W - 5200 WQA N SW - 6600 aq ft Sources: Electric Rates: Colorado Association of Municipal Utilities Survey dated July 1, 2004 Survey; Water, Wastewater and Stormwater. various city web sites. Note: Loveland and Longmont will also experience a 5.9% increase in their wholesale power purchases from Platte River Power Authority in January 2005. It is anticipated that their retail electric rates will also have to increase in 2005. " 197 October 19, 2004 Interim City Manager Atteberry introduced the agenda item and stated five ordinances were being brought forward for Council consideration. He stated this item was recommended for approval by staff and was unanimously recommended for approval by the Water Board and the Electric Board. Mike Smith, Utilities General Manager, stated the proposed rate increases, with the exception of the electric rates, were consistent with what was present a year ago during consideration of the two-year budget. He stated the wastewater rates would increase 5%, the stormwater rates would increase 7% and that water rates would increase 0%. He stated the electric rates would increase a bit more because last year Platte River Power Authority projected a lower increase than the actual implemented increase. Tern Bryant, Utilities Finance and Budget Manager, stated the proposed 2005 utility rates were as follows: 5% for wastewater, an average of 4.35% for electric, 7% for stormwater and 0% for water. She stated the rate change ordinances were in accordance with the 2004-2005 Budget plan and were to fund operations and maintenance. She stated these were fixed utility costs and that the rate changes would also enable the Utilities to meet debt service requirements. She stated there would be no staffing increases with these rates. She stated the ordinances also made some minor Code clarifications. She stated the wastewater rate represented a 5% across the board increase. She stated because wastewater rates were based on metered water consumption that the reduced water use had significantly impacted wastewater revenues. She stated the impact to atypical residential customer's monthly bill for wastewater would be an increase of 850 based on a winter quarter average of 5,200 gallons. She stated the electric rate increase would be an average of 4.35% due to a 5.9% rate increase from the wholesale energy supplier Platte River Power Authority. She stated the last electric rate increase was in January 2004 and that the last increase prior to that was in 1992. She stated electric rates varied by customer class and that the larger the customer the larger the increase would be. She stated a typical residential customer's monthly electric bill would increase by $1.85 based on usage of 700 kilowatts. She stated the stormwater rate would increase by 7% across the board. She stated this would be consistent with the stormwater pay-as-you-go financing plan adopted by City Council in 2001. She stated the rate increase would fund operations and maintenance and would continue the acceleration of the City-wide capital improvement program for storm drainage. She stated a typical residential customer's monthly bill would increase by $1.00 based on an 8,600 square foot lot with a light runoff coefficient. She presented a table that illustrated a typical total bill for a residential customer compared to the 2004 bill. She stated in 2004 a typical residential customer's bill would have been $121.48 and that in 2005 a typical bill would be $124.72 (a total increase of $3.70 or 3%). She stated historically the City's utility rates had been less than inflation and that this would still hold true with the rate increases. She stated Utilities provided some assistance programs for customers having difficulty paying their bills. She stated the programs included the payment assistance fund that was funded by customer donations. She stated the program had served 165 customers and that approximately $13,700 had been collected for that program. She stated the REACH program provided free weatherization for customers that met income guidelines and that there were 17 customers on the waiting list. She stated there was a fund IM October 19, 2004 balance of about $49,000. She stated the City also offered utilities and sales tax rebates to seniors and disabled customers. She stated the ZILCH program provided interest free loans to customers to purchase energy improvements. She presented a 2004-2005 cost comparison with other Front Range cities. She stated the proposed ordinances also included some minor housekeeping changes to facilitate flexibility toward customers and ease administration. She stated language changes were recommended for the budget billing program to allow the settle up amount to be spread over the 11 months of the subsequent billing period. She stated changes were recommended to clarify that the 1.92 multiplier for raw water requirements would also be applied to meters in excess of three inches. She stated staff was recommending in the electric ordinance an increase from $20 to $40 in the cost to large customers who did not allow the City to use the phone line to read their meters to pay for equipment and labor. She stated clarifications were recommended in the electric ordinance relating to parallel generation and standby service to provide that customers generating a portion of their own power would be served under the special services provision of the rate schedule and to permit the Utilities to pass through to the customers (with greater than one megawatt) the generation and transmission charges assessed by Platte River Power Authority through its tariffs. She stated the stormwater clarification would allow the Utilities General Manager to adjust the area used to calculate the monthly stormwater fee for large residential or agricultural lots greater than a half acre. Mayor Martinez asked why the City could not use phone lines for large customers to read meters. Smith stated the City automatically monitored metering for large customers for demand rate. He stated some customers did not allow the City to use phone lines for that monitoring because they were using the phone lines for cash data transactions. Bill Bray, Utilities Standards Engineer, stated some large customers elected not to allow the City to use their phone lines and that this required installation of a cell phone operation costing $20 and payment of the cell phone bill averaging $20 per month. He stated in some cases the meters had to be read manually. Mayor Martinez asked if the City had talked with those large customers about why they would not allow the City to use the phone lines. Bray stated the customers were concerned about data security. Mayor Martinez asked what would happen if the utility rates were not increased. Smith stated if the City could not pass the Platte River Power Authority increase on to consumers, the City would have to make it up out of the City budget. He stated there would be a significant impact on the Utilities budget if that had to be done. Mayor Martinez asked if reserves could be used instead. Smith stated reserves could be used for a year or so and that would not be a good practice. He stated if the net income dropped that bond coverage would be impacted, the bond rating would drop and the interest rate would increase. He stated if enough revenue was not generated to cover expenses and bond payments that the bond rating would go down and the interest rates for borrowing money would go up. I"M October 19, 2004 Mayor Martinez expressed a concern about the impact of rate increases on elderly and low income people. Councilmember Tharp stated she shared some of those concerns. She stated she understood the pass through from Platte River Power Authority and that the City had little or no control over the pass through. She stated she also understood that the increases were put into the two-year budget. She stated the Council had made a conscious decision on stormwater to pay-as-you-go for a very large stormwater improvement project throughout the entire City following the flood in 1997. She stated this was a long term commitment. She stated she shared the Mayor's concern about constantly raising fees but understood that the City did not have much control over the electric supplier and that a commitment had been made on the stormwater expense policy. She stated the only other option would be to place the stormwater projects on long term "hold" and that was not the policy accepted by the Council. She stated she had some concerns about the wastewater rates. She stated people would be charged more for wastewater to cover fixed expenses because they consumed less water. She stated was a "Catch-22" that penalized people for doing a good job with conservation. She asked why some of the basic wastewater costs could not be decreased if there was less wastewater to treat. Smith stated there were high fixed costs regardless of how much was treated or delivered. He stated fixed costs were 90% or more. He stated reducing the amount of wastewater treated did not mean a comparable reduction in those costs. Councilmember Tharp asked why that was the case. Smith stated regardless of the amount of wastewater treated, it took the same number of people to run the plant, the same amount of energy to run the plant, the same bond payments, the same utility billing people to send out the bill, etc. He stated there were few variable costs that could be reduced if the amount treated was reduced. He stated variable costs were in chemicals and that was a small portion of the cost. He stated when less water was used, the unit costs must go up to cover the fixed costs. He stated Utilities managers were concerned about costs and were always looking at ways to cut costs. He stated over the last 10-12 years that there had been significant cuts in personnel due to automation and that had helped to keep costs down. He stated the Utilities had cut back on raises, training and conferences, and in other areas. He stated costs did not go down just because consumption went down. He stated revenues were down because of the wetter year and the tiered rate structure and that low water use months were ahead. He noted that staff might be coming back to Council in the months ahead for approval of a water rate increase to meet expenses. He stated the Council had adopted a demand management policy last year and that 1 % was added for each 2% increase. He stated such a policy meant higher rates. He stated if the Council wanted to cut rates that such policies would have to be reexamined. Councilmember Tharp noted that the City's rates appeared to be higher than Loveland, Longmont, Colorado Springs, Boulder and Greeley. Smith stated part of this was because of the aggressive stormwater program. He stated if the stormwater program was dropped off that the City's rates would be lower than many of those other communities. 200 October 19, 2004 Councilmember Hamrick stated he appreciated the explanation about fixed costs. He stated additional capacity was expensive to add and asked if there was any way to express those deferred capacity costs as cost savings. Smith stated water and wastewater capacity costs were captured up front through development and plant investment fees. He stated it was different for electricity since that was bought from Platte River Power Authority and PRPA included capacity costs in their charges. He stated one reason the PRPA rates went up this year was because the cities used less electricity. Councilmember Hamrick asked if the capacity costs could be stated in cost avoidance terms. Smith stated the electric energy supply policy touched on reducing the demand to avoid future costs for expanding generation. He stated the water supply and demand management policy was also intended to help stretch capacity for additional years. He stated staff would look at a way to quantify capacity cost avoidance. Councilmember Hamrick stated he had voted against proposed stormwater and floodplain projects in 2001 because he believed those projects were overengineered and based on a property cost benefit analysis. He asked how much developed and undeveloped property had been removed from the floodplain as a result of the 2001 Council action. Smith stated staff could provide that information to the Council. Councilmember Roy asked for an explanation of Section C of Ordinance No.175, 2004 dealing with raw water requirements for nonresidential service. He asked how this section clarified raw water requirements. Smith stated for smaller meter sizes there was a 1.92 factor to ensure that each acre- foot of water received would be enough to yield an acre-foot of water. He stated the actual requirement was negotiated for larger meter sizes. Councilmember Roy asked if the 1.92 factor would apply to all meters over 3 inches. Smith replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Roy asked about the language relating to approval of the estimate by the General Manager. Smith stated the estimated water use must be determined by the General Manager to be accurate before the raw water requirement was determined and that the 1.92 factor would then be applied to that raw water requirement. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she had a problem with the stormwater fee. She stated Council had set the direct policy that affected the stormwater fees and that this might be an area that needed to be reexamined by the Council. She stated the policy was acceleration of the City-wide capital improvements projects for stormwater. She stated 7% translated across the board was $1.00 for a residential account. She noted that with this 7% increase the stormwater fee for her small business would be $210 per month. She stated in 2002 her small business paid $1,944 into the stormwater fund and that in 2005 that amount would be $2,560 to support the stormwater improvement 201 October 19, 2004 escalation. She stated she was only one of many small commercial properties that was carrying a burden for the improvements. She stated given the current economic conditions that the Council may need to examine the impact of the policy on the bottom line for small businesses. She stated the escalated program may need to be diminished. She stated the costs had become disproportionate to the benefit. She noted that she had supported the policy and stated she had one of countless small businesses sharing this burden. She stated this was a "tremendous burden based on a Council policy decision." She stated 7% was nominal for residential customers but was a burden for commercial users. Mayor Martinez asked if the economic advisory group had measured the impact of such fees on businesses. Interim City Manager Atteberry stated a staff meeting had been arranged to discuss the total costs of development fees. He stated he would have a report for the Council on that overall perspective. Mayor Martinez stated he would like to see the City's economic advisor included in those staff discussions. Councilmember Kastein asked if it would be possible to decelerate the stormwater increase and what the ramifications would be. Smith stated the stormwater program approved by the Council was very aggressive and that there had been remarkable improvements in the last five years due to the dollars collected. He stated it would be possible to look at slowing the program down. He stated staff could provide Council with some options. Councilmember Tharp stated she would like to know how bond commitments would relate to slowing the program. Councilmember Kastein asked how the wastewater rates were calculated. Smith stated the rates for residential customers were based on winter quarter water use and that the rates for most commercial customers were based on total annual water use. Councilmember Kastein asked if the rates were therefore individualized. Smith replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Kastein asked what percentage the rate increase would be. Smith stated the total rate would be raised 5% across the board. Councilmember Kastein asked if the proposed revenues generated from the rate increases would exactly match projected costs. Smith stated the rate analysis looked at revenue requirements and rates to meet those requirements. 202 October 19, 2004 Councilmember Kastein asked how reserves were obtained. Smith stated reserves were generated by receipt of more revenues than projected. He stated part of the revenue was designated for reserves that would be needed for capital projects. Councilmember Kastein asked if reserves were banked for future costs. Smith replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Kastein asked if businesses used more water next year, whether wastewater rates would be lowered because there was more revenue than projected. Smith replied in the affirmative. He stated an analysis would be done to determine the reason for the excess revenue. Councilmember Kastein asked if it was an option for the Council to postpone the stormwater rate increase. Smith stated there were projects being designed for 2005 that would be impacted if the percentage increase was changed significantly. He stated staff would do an analysis of the impacts. Interim City Manager Atteberry stated such an analysis could be done fairly quickly. He stated the ordinance could be delayed pending the receipt of the analysis. Smith stated an analysis could be done regarding the impacts on operations and capital projects of changing the percentage of the increase. Mayor Martinez stated he would like to see that analysis prior to Second Reading. He asked how the money set aside for rebates was calculated. Smith stated the actual amount donated was placed in the fund. Mayor Martinez asked if the Utilities set aside any money for that fund. Smith replied in the negative and stated there had been a previous analysis regarding the legalities of the City funding such a program. City Attorney Roy stated the concern was that the Utilities revenues needed to be used for the benefit of the ratepayers and that any kind of General Fund purpose would need to come from some other funds. Interim City Manager Atteberry stated staff could provide Council with options regarding the stormwater fees prior to Second Reading. Mayor Martinez stated he would also like to see options on the rebate program. He asked if anyone's electricity was ever shut off. Smith stated customers were offered many options such as payment programs before power was shut off. Mayor Martinez asked about the time period for shutting off power. Smith stated there was a lengthy notification process. Mayor Martinez requested information on the shutoff process and stated he had concerns about shutting off power during the winter months. Interim City Manager Atteberry stated there were two alternatives: (1) to try to increase private donations through further marketing, or (2) using General Fund dollars to help with the program. 203 October 19, 2004 Mayor Martinez asked if Utility dollars could be used to market to get people to donate. City Attorney Roy stated could be done if some benefit to the ratepayers could be shown. He stated staff could look at that issue. Smith stated his understanding was that staff would provide Council with options relating to the stormwater fees and would try to generate ideas on payment assistance. Mayor Martinez stated he did not understand why there could not be a check off block on the monthly bills for people to donate money. Smith stated staff would provide Council with information on why that was not recommended. He stated it would cost more money to manually enter the information than would be generated. Mayor Martinez asked if it would be cheaper to send an envelope every month rather than creating a form like that. Smith stated sending an envelope every month was a possibility. He stated an analysis could be done on the current rate of return versus that method. Patty Bigner, Interim Utilities Administrative Services Director, stated there would be additional postage costs amounting to $9,000 to $12,000 per month for including additional material in the mailing. She stated it was anticipated that about $18,000 would be received for the payment assistance fund. Mayor Martinez asked that staff take a look at the possibility of inserting an additional envelope for payment assistance donations. Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Ordinance No. 172, 2004 on First Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Ordinance No. 173, 2004 on First Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Ordinance No. 175, 2004 on First Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED 204 October 19, 2004 Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Ordinance No. 176, 2004 on First Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Kastein stated he would like to see a stormwater fee analysis as soon as possible. He stated there was a long range plan for stormwater that had been in place for years and that it was "disconcerting" to make a decision on this with short notice. He stated the fee increases represented an opportunity for the Council to think about the policies that had been put into place. He stated he would support a delay to provide an opportunity to look at the staff analysis. Councilmember Tharp stated the staff analysis would give Council a chance to look at the issue for the next budget cycle. Councilmember Weitkunat stated her intent in bringing the matter forward for discussion was to have Council understand the impacts of the policies they adopt. She stated a 7% rate increase was sizable and that it should be put into the perspective of the community at large. She stated she was part of the process in which the Council set the policy and that it was a "jolt of reality" to realize the impact of that policy. She stated she would like an opportunity to take a look at the policy again. She stated the Council might determine that it would be appropriate to wait until the budget cycle to consider the matter. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to postpone Ordinance No. 174, 2004 on First Reading to November 16, 2004 to allow additional information to be provided to Council. Councilmember Hamrick stated development fees provided the City with a good revenue source for capacity and infrastructure. He stated he was skeptical about whether every project needed to be "supersized." Smith stated staff analyses had looked at using the one in 50 year and one in 100 year storms. He stated staff would provide Council with as much information as possible on the options. Mayor Martinez stated it was important to receive the answers to the questions that had been asked. He stated it was necessary to give the public a better answer when they asked why these rate increases were needed. He expressed a concern about the impact on people with fixed incomes. The vote on the motion to postpone was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED 205 October 19, 2004 Ordinance No. 164, 2004, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance Relating to the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2005; Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year Beginning January 1, 2005, and Ending December 31, 2005; and Fixing the Mill Levy for Fiscal Year 2005, Adopted on First Reading_ The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "FINANCIAL IMPACT This Ordinance amends the City Budget for fiscal year 2005 and represents the annual appropriation for fiscal year 2005 in the amount of $462,762,068. The Ordinance also sets the City mill levy at 9.797 mill, unchanged since 1991. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance amends the adopted 2005 Budget and sets the amount of $462,762,068 to be appropriated for fiscal year 2005. The Net City Budget, which excludes internal transfers between City funds, is $363,200,943 for 2005. The Net City Budget, as amended, is allocated to: Adopted Amended 2005 2005 Operations $300,187,477 $305,471,957 Debt Service 22,256,106 25,877,809 Capital 31,851,177 31,851,177 This Ordinance also sets the 2005 City mill levy at 9.797 mills, unchanged since 1991. BACKGROUND City Council adopted the 2004-2005 Biennial Budget and appropriated monies far expenditure in fiscal year 2004. State statutes and the City Charter both require an annual appropriation to cover expenses for the ensuing year (2005) based upon the adopted budget. The Second Reading must be done before the last day of November and is currently scheduled for November 16, 2004. 206 October 19, 2004 2005 Revenue Update Available Ongoing Revenue $ 417,000 Available One-time Monies $3.5 Million The original 2005 budget projection for sales tax (2.25%) available to the General Fund anticipated collections to be approximately $47.1 million. Based on more recent data released by the Office of State Planning and Budget ("OSPB ") that is the foundation for our projection model, the sales tax projection for 2005 collections has been revised. Revised projections call for collections to be approximately $47.3 million or an increase of approximately $200,000. The 2005 projection for use tax available to the General Fund remains unchanged from the originally adopted "ceiling" amount of $7.9 million, up from the $7.8 million used for 2004. Use tax is very volatile and to mitigate this volatility, the Council has, since the early 1990s, established a "ceiling" amount for use tax collections that the City is reasonably assured of meeting. Collections within the "ceiling" are used for ongoing operations and any collections over the "ceiling" fall into reserves and are available for one-time use. General Fund revenues other than sales and use tax have been revised slightly upward by approximately $200,000 based on recent projections received from departments. Other revenue includes collections from sources such as property tax, licenses and permits, intergovernmental, charges for services, fines, earnings on investments, and miscellaneous revenues. Available One -Time General Fund Monies Approximately $3.5 million is available for General Fund one-time use. Of the $3.5 million, approximately $2.4 million is a result of 2003 revenues received over the TABOR limit. While current projections indicate that the City will have a surplus of revenues over expenditures for 2004, it cannot count on the use of that surplus until the 2004 audit is completed in the spring of2005. Any 2004 surplus will be available for use in the 2006-2007 biennial budget. Qly October 19, 2004 2005 Additions in Originally Adopted Budget Council adopted the 2005 budget with several planned reinstatements and expansion of a few services. a. Expand Police staffing ....................................... $ 799,763 ongoing $ 261,998 one-time b. Resume Police Building set -aside .............................. $ 320,000 ongoing c. Resume Street Maintenance expanded funding .................... $ 200,000 ongoing d. Resume full amount of PFA allocation .......................... $ 594,000 ongoing Recommended 2005 Budget Additions/Change The recommendation for 2005 budget adjustments requiring General Fund monies comes with a caveat. If voters approve the repeal of the City's sales tax on grocery food in April 2005, new recommendations will be presented to Council that will require ongoing service cuts of approximately $2.0 million in order to balance the budget. After reviewing all the requests, the Interim City Manager presented recommended adjustments to the 2005 budget plan to Council during Study Sessions held on September 28 and October 12, 2004. The recommended adjustments to the 2005 budget plan based on the direction received from Council at those Study Sessions are as follows: General Fund: Onroinn One-time A. Cultural, Library & Recreational Services 1. Maintenance of new medians $ 33,000 2. Reinstating 2004 Median Maint. Cuts 30,000 3. Old Town Square Maintenance 44,000 $ 75,000 B. Executive, Legislative, & Judicial Services 1. Police Bargaining 78,250 C. Poudre Fire Authority 1. Station #14 182,000 818,000 2. South Ladder Truck 245,000 D. Police 1. Pilot Party Project 22,000 E. Transportation Services M October 19, 2004 1. Pavement Management 2,152,949 2. Additional Code Enforcement Inspector 64,049 F. Non -Departmental 1. Humane Society 64,479 69,636 2. Island Grove Regional Treatment Center, Inc. 18,633 3. Health District of Northern Larimer County 50.810 Total General Fund Adjustments $ 417,528 $ 3,530,278 Non -General Fund: Ongoine A. Community Planning & Environmental Services 1. Recycling Drop-off Facility Operations 2. Housing Compliance Officer 72,000 Cultural, Library & Recreational Services 1. Recreation - Facility Infrastructure Improvements, etc. Executive, Legislative, & Judicial Services 1. Addition of Attorney 2. Economic Vitality and Sustainability Transportation Services 1. De-icing Facility Bond Payment 2. Youth Fares from Bohemian Grant 3. Loveland Services Total Non -General Fund Adjustments Productivity Savings & Equipment Replacement: Communication & Technology Services I. Infrastructure Replacement & Maintenance Community Planning & Environmental Services I. Affordable Housing Land Bank Trust 2. Recycling Drop-off Facility Operations 209 l/l $1,054,000 Ongoing One-time 11,750 50,000 120,000 240,000 108,438 50,000 One-time $ 14,000 16,300 1,321 Executive, Legislative, & Judicial Services City Attorney's Office 1. Telephone Costs 2. On-line Computerized Research 3. CML Conference 4. Training 5. Colorado Bar Association Licensing Fees & Dues 6. Periodicals & Books 7. Costs Related to Request for New Attorney Total Productivity Or Equipment Replacement Adjustments $ Miscellaneous: Cultural, Library & Recreational Services 1. Golf - Reduction of Budget 2. Parks - Reduction of Budget 3. Parks - Transfer Position from Recreation to Parks 4. Recreation - Transfer Position from Recreation to Parks Transportation Services 1. Reclassify Transportation Maintenance Worker Total Miscellaneous Adjustments 210 Ongoing October 19, 2004 500 650 5,000 500 1,500 1,500 3.450 0 $ 44,721 One-time ($203, 797) (30, 000) 78,172 (78,172) ($ 30,000) ($203,797) October 19, 2004 Budget Advisory Committee Recommendations A Budget Advisory Committee ("BAC") was used for the first time by the City to develop recommendations for adjustments to the 2005 budget plan and present those recommendations to Council. The recommended adjustments were in line with those of staff in almost all areas. In addition to the recommended 2005 budget adjustments, the BAC made some general recommendations involving a critical evaluation of all City services and the financial plan (budget) related to the services. The following are examples of the areas that the BAC believes should be carefully reviewed. • Fire Services - Poudre Fire Authority ("PFA") — fire operations is a critical service to the Fort Collins' community. The BAC recommends that City Council request the PFA Board to conduct an in-depth examination of how fire services are delivered. A sample of questions to address includes: Is the current shift structure the most effective and cost-efficient approach to fire suppression? What are the station/apparatus staffing levels and what are the options to make this more cost effective? Are PFA requirements and responses changing from fire service to emergency service? If so, what is the impact on future fire operations and services? Is it necessary for large fire apparatus to respond to all routine emergency medical calls? • Recreation Fee Policy —is the existing policy still appropriate? Should fees cover a greater percentage of the costs? • All City Services — conduct a re-examination of all City services — the mix and the level that is currently provided. Are all existing services still warranted? Are there services that should be eliminated, scaled back, enhanced? Are there services that are not now being provided that should be provided? As new service requests and requirements are identified, the revenues and expenditures need to be reviewed for the effect on the overall budget. For the services that we do and should provide, are we delivering those in the most cost effective manner possible? • Employee Compensation — the City should continue to examine and determine the appropriate array of public and private sector agencies and businesses against which it compares and benchmarks the compensation (salary and benefits) for employees. Similar to national trends, the City must find ways to minimize rising health care costs. Overtime costs should also be examined in relation to: what is driving the costs; are overtime costs rising and if so, why; what can be done to reduce or minimize overtime costs? 211 October 19, 2004 • Outsourcing — what City services are outsourced to the private sector? Are there other services that can or should be outsourced? What is the method by which internal services vs. outsourcing is evaluated? • Revenue Policies and Proiections — expenditures are one side of the equation. How does Fort Collins compare with other cities related to the array or mix of revenue sources. What is the outlook for the current revenue mix in Fort Collins — which ones are likely to diminish, remain about the same, and/or increase? What actions must the City consider to ensure a healthy revenue base to support the services desired by the community? Council has recommended that the BAC continue and be involved with evaluation of City services. Staff agrees. Needless to say however, the recommended areas of study by the BAC cannot be done in one year with any justice. Staff would recommend that the evaluation of services be done over several years due to personnel resources as well as the more detailed and extended budget process in 2005 required for the 2006-2007 biennial budget. " Interim City Manager Atteberry stated this was First Reading of the Annual Appropriation Ordinance for fiscal year 2005. He stated the appropriation was for $462,762,068. He stated the Ordinance also set the City's mill levy at 9.797 and that this had not been changed since 1991. He stated staff would be available to answer questions. Councilmember Kastein stated he wanted to discuss the pavement management that Council had decided not to fund. He stated he supported the addition of $245,000 for a south ladder truck and the opening of Fire Station #14. He stated money was being taken from pavement management to fund the south ladder truck. He stated both were primary services and were important. He stated he would like to explore the possibility of taking the $245,000 from somewhere besides pavement management. He stated he also wanted to know what the cost would be in the future if that money was not used for pavement management. Interim City Manager stated the $245,000 represented a reduction of about 3.1 % of the total pavement management program budget expected for 2005 and that the total amount was $7.9 million. He stated this represented about 10 blocks or one mile of major maintenance and repair (including concrete repairs, patching and asphalt overlay) for residential streets. He stated the expectation for 2005 was to maintain about 25 miles and that this would affect about 10 blocks of those miles. He stated this action would defer maintenance to subsequent years. He stated in making his recommendation to the Council he considered the impact on pavement management. He stated it would have a greater impact to fund the south ladder truck. He stated there were options available for 2005 assuming certain revenue sources. He stated the decision meant balancing needs. He stated the alternative in the 2005 budget would be to eliminate other recommendations that had been discussed. He stated the least impact would be to take the $245,000 from pavement management. 212 October 19, 2004 Councilmember Kastein asked what the other options would be for that funding. Interim City Manager Atteberry stated one option would be to take it from existing transportation reserves (estimated to be about $1.4 million) and that he would not recommend that option. He stated in 2005 it was anticipated that there would be Building Community Choices dollars in excess of the amount projected (amounting to about $400,000). He stated he could report back to Council by second quarter regarding whether there were sufficient BCC dollars to cover the $245,000. He stated the money could possibly betaken from transportation capital (which amounted to about $1 million). He stated this would mean that other scheduled projects would not be done. Mayor Martinez asked what other needs would be funded from reserves. Interim City Manager Atteberry stated staff was not recommending the use of transportation reserves. Doug Smith, Budget Director, stated there was $1.4 million set aside in reserves and that this was used for any snow removal or equipment purchases. He stated the reserves could be depleted quickly if there was a heavy snowstorm. Mayor Martinez asked if there were other reserves that could be used for that purpose. Interim City Manager Atteberry stated General Fund reserves were not available for that purpose. Smith stated the funds available for one-time monies from reserves would be totally depleted. He stated there were no leftover reserves from 2003. Interim City Manager Attebeny stated taking this money from General Fund reserves would take the City below the amount specified in the current financial management policies. He stated he would not advise going below that level. Mayor Martinez asked if there were other reserves available. Smith stated the ballot language relating to the streets and transportation package specified that any surplus money would be used for street maintenance. Interim City Manager Attebeny stated he was optimistic about the possibility of using excess BCC dollars. He stated those dollars could not be committed yet because they were not yet available. He stated he would be able to report back to Council at the end of first quarter. Mayor Martinez asked if there were other reserves. Smith stated there was a reserve set aside for financial uncertainty amounting to 3.5% of the operating budget (approximately $3.2 million). He stated reducing that amount would mean that in order to comply with Council policy, money would have to be found to refill that reserve. He stated there were no other reserves in the General Fund that could be used for discretionary purposes. Interim City Manager Atteberry stated he could provide the Council with a status report on the reserve funds, fund balances and how the funds related to current City policy or statutory requirements. Councilmember Tharp stated it was her understanding that there were a number of committed reserves and few uncommitted reserves. She stated she believed that the 3% reduction in pavement management was realistic considering the reductions that had been made in other areas. She stated she did not believe that there was any reason to be particularly concerned about the pavement 213 October 19, 2004 management reduction in light of reduced revenues. She stated she would support the recommendation made by the Interim City Manager. Mayor Martinez stated he would like to see an analysis of what the impacts would be on the pavement management efforts. Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adopt Ordinance No. 164, 2004 on First Reading. Councilmember Kastein stated he was uncomfortable with not funding pavement management to that extent. He stated the real impact would not be noticed until streets started to fail. He stated he would like to know if and when money became available from BCC revenue. He strongly recommended that this money be targeted for pavement management. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Other Business Councilmember Hamrick asked about the EVSAG appointment process and the deadline for applications. Councilmember Tharp stated the original deadline to indicate an interest was October 15 and that she and Councilmember Weitkunat were meeting on Friday to do a "first cut." She stated they would obtain "buy -in" from Council before asking anyone whether they would serve and were still available. Councilmember Hamrick asked if the appointment process was still open to the public. Councilmember Tharp stated she and Councilmember Weitkunat would accept comments until they met at 3:00 p.m. on Friday. Councilmember Roy stated he was certain that Councilmembers Tharp and Weitkunat would be looking at people representing both economic and sustainability sectors. Councilmember Weitkunat asked that Council consider the goals of EVSAG and the community to bring both economic vitality and sustainability through measures first initiated through the original EVSAG. 214 October 19, 2004 November 2, 2004 Council Meeting Canceled Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to cancel the November 2, 2004 regular City Council meeting. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Roy. THE MOTION CARRIED Adiournment Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adjourn the meeting to October 26, 2004 at 6:00 p.m. to allow the Council to consider any business that might come before the Council. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. ayor ATTEST: 215