The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES-03/15/2005-RegularMarch 15, 2005 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council -Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m. A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, March 15, 2005, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Bertschy, Kastein, Martinez and Tharp. Councilmembers Absent: Hamrick, Roy and Weitkunat. Staff Members Present: Jones, Krajicek, Roy. Citizen Participation Gary Thomas, 757 Cherokee Drive, spoke in support of ballot issue 3 relating to continuation of the sales tax to fund street maintenance. Mayor Martinez noted that this item was scheduled later on the agenda. Vicki Lutz, Crossroads Safehouse, spoke regarding the impact of the food sales tax repeal (ballot issue 1) on Crossroads Safehouse programs. Bob Fitskie spoke against fluoridation of the water supply. JoAnn Malara, Kel-Mar strip small business owner, opposed the Southwest Enclave Annexation Ray Czaplewski, 2012 Huntington Circle, stated Poudre School District statistics showed that Bauder Elementary School had 600 students in 2004 and was predicted to have 350 students next year, and that Blevins Elementary School had 800 students in 2004 and was expected to have 350 students in 2009. He stated young families were moving to the southeast, where new elementary schools were becoming overcrowded. He stated Poudre School District was facing contentious school boundary changes and school busing. He stated there was a "black market' in off -campus housing that made westside neighborhoods less appealing to young families. He stated enforcement of the "three unrelated" ordinance would make older neighborhoods more appealing to families. Robert Stansbury, 1301 Robertson Street, spoke in favor of a new police services building and opposed repeal of the grocery tax. Charlene Hayes, Kel-Mar strip business owner, opposed the Southwest Enclave Annexation John Coxson opposed the Southwest Enclave Annexation. March 15, 2005 Steve Musiel, 5846 South College Avenue, Kel-Mar strip business owner, spoke against the Southwest Enclave Annexation and the City's new plan to delay annexing the residential areas and proceeding with annexation of the businesses. Al Baccili, 520 Galaxy Court, opposed the Southwest Enclave Annexation and asked the voters to vote in favor of repealing the food sales tax. B. J. Ferrero, Kel-Mar strip business owner, spoke in opposition to the Southwest Enclave Annexation strip. Reginald (Bud) Heron, 415 South Howes, urged voters to vote against ballot issue 1 (repeal of the food sales tax). David Neals, Shields and Horsetooth area resident, opposed fluoridation of the water supply. Citizen Participation Follow-up Mayor Martinez stated the previous and current City Councils had supported a police building because of the growing need. He stated other cities that did not have a food sales tax had a higher base tax than Fort Collins. Councilmember Kastein stated the Council had discussed the Southwest Enclave Annexation at a study session and that the financial information for the residential and commercial portions were combined. He requested financial information relating to the Kel-Mar strip and stated the City was looking at what the City would gain and what it would cost the City to annex that strip. He commented on the finances of the City and stated the City was required by the Charter to propose a balance budget. He stated expenses by law must match revenues and that some expenditures could be delayed if there was insufficient revenue. Councilmember Tharp commented on the REA costs for the Southwest Enclave Annexation and noted that the Council had asked staff to explore whether those costs could be absorbed by the entire City rather than by the people being annexed. She stated much work needed to be done on the annexation before the City was ready to move ahead on it. She also commented on the shifts in population from the older part of the City to the south. She stated the Council was attempting to address the issue by trying to preserve neighborhoods for families. Councilmember Bertschy stated he believed that the City needed to work more closely with Poudre School District on neighborhood issues and shared services. He also urged voters to defeat the repeal of the food sales tax. Agenda Review Deputy City Manager Jones stated there was a minor modification to item #13 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 032, 2005, Adding Restitution Requirements to Section 1-15 of the City Code Relating to the General Penaltyfor City Code Violations and Traffic Infractions and that item #30 March 15, 2005 Resolution 2005-028 Amending the Growth Management (GMA) Boundary to Include the Fossil Creek Cooperative Planning Area (CPA) also had a change to the title of the Resolution. City Attorney Roy read the changes to Ordinance No. 032, 2005 into the record. Councilmember Tharp withdrew item #22 Resolution 2005-025 Appointing Arbitrators to the Collective Bargaining Panel Pursuant to Section 2-624 ofthe City Code from the Consent Calendar. CONSENT CALENDAR Second Reading of Ordinance No. 026, 2005, Amending Chapter 7.5 and Chanter 26 of the City Code to Establish Requirements and Procedures for Utility Service Outside the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. Chapter 26 of City Code outlines a process in which water or wastewater service can be provided outside city limits if certain conditions are met. City Plan Policy GM-5.1 discourages extension of utilities outside the City's Growth Management Area ("GMA") unless the extension is consistent with City Plan and has a community benefit. Ordinance No. 026, 2005, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 1, 2005, will clarify this ambiguity and require that the areas to be served outside the GMA must be approved by City Council. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 027, 2005, Appropriating Bond Proceeds in the Water Fund. A $4,150,781.22 non -interest bearing bond was issued to the City of Fort Collins Water Utility Enterprise to acquire from the North Poudre Irrigation Company (NPIC) the property and rights it owns that were necessary to proceed with the permitting and development of the Halligan Reservoir Enlargement Project, however, no appropriation was done at that time. The transfer and sale of the property to the City of Fort Collins closed on January 22, 2004. Because the debt consists of a non -interest bearing bond, the value of the investment in the property is calculated at the net present value of the payment streams required in the bond obligation, which results in an appropriation for $2,476,446.24 in constructive bond proceeds. The City will commit to the annual payments, which includes the principal and the interest as imputed, for the next 27 years. The Water Utility will pay the debt primarily from development fees paid to the City. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 1, 2005, appropriates the constructive bond proceeds to the Halligan Project. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 028, 2005, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Storm Drainage Fund for Projects to Reduce Peak Flows in the Siring Creek Basin. The Spring Creek Stormwater Basin Master Plan identified several capital projects to reduce the risk of flooding in the Spring Creek Basin. A $2,697,188 State of Colorado Division of March 15, 2005 Emergency Management ("CDEM") Grant has been awarded to the City for the construction of some of the stormwater projects in the Spring Creek Basin. The projects to be constructed with the grant include expansion of the Taft Hill, Rolland Moore and Southern Railroad Detention Ponds and the stabilization ofthe Burlington Northern Railroad embankment. The performance period for the grant is December 16, 2004 through December 31, 2006. This new grant was made available from the CDEM through an agreement with the Federal Emergency Management Agency for Pre -Disaster Mitigation ("PDM") projects. The Fort Collins projects were selected through a nationwide competitive process and may be the first in the nation to be awarded the PDM grant for a capital project. The Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 1, 2005, appropriates the grant proceeds to the Spring Creek PDM Capital Project. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 029, 2005, Amending Chapter 15 of the Cites Relating to the Definition of Outdoor Vendor Licensees Downtown Plan Area Concessionaires. Chapter 15, Article XIV of the City Code defines various terms used in that Article which pertain to the licensing of "outdoor vendors." This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 1, 2005, would establish a distinction between outdoor vendors and "downtown plan area concessionaires." Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance, as it was the original intent to differentiate between the two different operations when the Outdoor Vendor Ordinance was revised in 1994. The amendment to the Code would reflect what the working procedure has been sincel994. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 030, 2005, Amending the Land Use Code by Adding "Resource Recovery" Use to the Public Open Lands (P-O-L) Zoning District. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 1, 2005, would amend the Land Use Code to add "Resource Recovery" to the P-O-L zoning district. Resource recovery is defined as: "The process of obtaining materials or energy, particularly from solid waste". Resource recovery complements existing uses in the Land Use Code related to waste diversion, including recycling and composting facilities, but permits additional alternatives to landfilling. In the short-term, adding Resource Recovery to the P-O-L district will allow the Natural Resources Department (NRD) to lease existing facilities at the Resource Recovery Farm to Frontline Bioenergy for experimental research in extracting hydrogen from biomass (specifically chipped tree branches). The 150-acre Resource Recovery Farm (RRF) is located just south of East Prospect Road at I-25. n March 15, 2005 12. Second Readina of Ordinance No. 031,2005, Amending Various Sections of the Fort Collins Traffic Code. At the time of the adoption of the Traffic Code, it was the understanding of staff and Council that the Traffic Code would most likely be subject to future amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors, but also for the purpose of ensuring that the Traffic Code remains consistent with State traffic laws. The proposed amendments will: • Renumber the speeding in a construction and school zones sections for placement in the speeding section of the Traffic Code, a more logical placement for these provisions; and • Renumber the funeral procession provision for placement in a more appropriate section of the Traffic Code; and • Provide a definition for "street rod" consistent with State statute. Staff submitted the changes to Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for approval. CDOT has approved the ordinance changes as written. Ordinance No. 031, 2005 was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 1, 2005. 13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 032, 2005, Adding Restitution Requirements to Section 1-15 of the City Code Relating to the General Penalty for City Code Violations and Traffic Infractions. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 1, 2005, clarifies when restitution can be ordered as a condition of sentencing for violations of the Municipal Code. 14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 033, 2005, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non - Exclusive Easement to LaFarge West, Inc. Over, Across and Under a Portion of the Poudre Trail. The City has constructed the Poudre Trail east and west of Taft Hill Road. The latest segment was constructed west of Overland Trail on a strip of land that was donated by LaFarge West, Inc. LaFarge still owns land abutting both sides of the Trail. The property on both sides is being used for water storage and LaFarge has a need to connect between the ponds on both sides of the trail. LaFarge is requesting easements for underground pipe installation to convey water in 3 locations on the City -owned property. Each easement will be 85 feet by 100 feet. City staff has reviewed the request and has no objections to the requested easements. Ordinance No. 033, 2005, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 1, 2005. March 15, 2005 15. Second Reading of Ordinance No 034 2005. Authorizing the Lease of City -Owned Propertv at 3829 East Prospect Road Fort Collins Colorado. to Frontline BioengML Vacant buildings suitable for industrial uses are located on the Resource Recovery Farm property (RRF), which was transferred from Utilities to the Natural Areas program for use as open space in 2003. Frontline BioEnergy, which is working to develop innovative technology and integrate systems that convert biological waste materials (biomass) into useful energy products such as hydrogen through thermal or microbial processes, is interested in using certain of the buildings at RRF. Frontline BioEnergy offers proven research methods, design and manufacturing expertise, and system integration. In furtherance of the City Council adopted policy of encouraging development of and implementing hydrogen -related projects in Fort Collins, and funds have been budgeted for Utilities' use for hydrogen fuels projects. Utilities has proposed to use a portion of those funds to assist Frontline BioEnergy in acquiring this lease space from the Natural Areas program for the start-up of its operations. The lease would include the following: both levels of the office, consisting of 2,106.88 square feet, 2,450.09 square foot section of the shop, and an outside area on which the tenant would construct a temporary open front pole shed, together with a small amount of parking area. Ordinance No. 034, 2005, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 1, 2005. 16. Second Reading of Ordinance No 035, 2005, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non- exclusive Easement Interest to North Weld County Water District for an Existing Waterline Across the Vehicle Storage Building Property. The Vehicle Storage Building Property is located at 701 Wood Street. There is an existing North Weld County Water District waterline across the property that was installed in the 1960s without recorded documentation that City staff or North Weld County Water District Staff can locate. The line was in place at the time the City acquired the property, and City staff likely knew of the existence of the waterline, as it continues across a number of other properties owned by the City. Both parties acknowledge that an easement document defining and providing notice of the waterline easement needs to be executed and recorded. Ordinance No. 035, 2005, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 1, 2005. 17. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 037, 2005, Repealing and Reenacting Article II of Chapter 10 of the City Code Regarding Flood Hazard Areas. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 1, 2005, modifies the City Code to reflect changes to the floodplain regulations that balance risk with regulation for floodplains citywide, excluding the Poudre River floodplain. Regulations for the floodway (areas of the highest risk) are more restrictive than for areas in the floodplain fringe and moderate risk areas. Regulations are more restrictive for new development and 3 March 15, 2005 less restrictive for existing development. Residential development has more restrictive regulations than non-residential development. Areas of the lowest flood hazard, moderate risk floodplains, are not subject to any restrictions. Other changes to the Code include the incorporation of restrictions for erosion buffer zones, which have previously been addressed in stormwater master plans. Revisions were also made to bring the Code into compliance with current FEMA criteria. To make the City Code more user friendly and easier to understand, the entire Flood Hazard article (Article II) was rewritten and more details were added to clarify specific types of development activities and the applicable floodplain requirements. The section regarding the Poudre River floodplain has no policy changes but was changed to be in the same format. Public outreach was completed during the formulation of the floodplain regulation changes which included mailings, open houses, boards and commissions review and newspaper articles. City Council discussed this item at its January 13, 2004, and February 8, 2005, study sessions. 18. Items Related to Grant Funding for a Compressed Natural Gas Backup Compressor at the Transfort Alternative Fueling Station. A. Resolution 2005-021 Authorizing the Execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Colorado Department of Transportation for the Construction and Installation of a Compressed Natural Gas Backup Compressor at the Transfort Alternative Fueling Station. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 038, 2005, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Equipment Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Existing Appropriations in the Equipment Fund for Construction and Installation of a Compressed Natural Gas Backup Compressor at the Transfort Alternative Fueling Station. These actions are necessary to move forward with the installation of a backup Compressed Natural Gas facility which will provide additional fast fueling capability and a redundancy system in the event of a main compressor malfunction. This system will be critical in Transfort's fueling capability, as Transfort continues to acquire additional Natural Gas buses. 19. Resolution 2005-022 Establishing Rental Rates and Delivery Charges for the City's Raw Water for the 2005 Season. This Resolution approves rates for the rental and use of the City's raw water supplies. The Water Utility uses these rates to assess charges for agricultural use, for various contractual raw water obligations and for raw water deliveries to other City departments. Each year prior to the irrigation season, the City's Water Board ("the Board") makes a recommendation to the Council regarding the raw water charges. The Board discussed the proposed rental rates and charges at its February 24, 2005 meeting. The proposed rate for each type of water 7 March 15, 2005 is based on several factors including market conditions and assessments charged by irrigation companies. 20. Resolution 2005-023 Authorizing_ the One -Year Extension of a Lease of the City Ditch on City -owned Property at 2005 North Overland Trail in Larimer County. Colorado to Larimer County Canal No. 2 Irrigating Company. This Resolution authorizes the extension of a lease to Larimer County Canal No. 2 Irrigating Company of the City Ditch on the City's old Water Works Property at 2005 North Overland Trail Road. Although the original 1906 lease provided for an automatic renewal of the lease for an additional 99-year term at the Ditch Company's option, the Council's authorization at the time only authorized the lease for the initial 99 years. Pending resolution of this matter for the long term, an extension for one year will allow the continued use of the City Ditch for irrigation flows on the same terms as have been in place for the past 99 years, and will avoid disruption of the right to run those irrigation flows in the City Ditch for the 2005 irrigation season. 21. Resolution 2005-024 Extending the Term of the Ad Hoc Compensation and Benefits Committee. The Committee has recommended that the Council extend its existence in order to allow the City Manager to communicate with City employees regarding the Committee's recommendations. The extension would be through April 26, 2005. 22. Resolution 2005-025 Appointing Arbitrators to the Collective Bargaining Panel Pursuant to Section 2-624 of the City Code. Citizen -Initiated Ordinance No. 1, 2004, which was approved by City voters in April of 2004, created Section 2-624 of the City Code which provides for the establishment of a permanent panel of arbitrators whose role will be to hear requests for binding arbitration. This Resolution establishes the panel of arbitrators. 23. Resolution 2005-026 Fillin¢ a Vacancy on the Economic Vitality and Sustainability Panel. On September 21, 2004 City Council adopted Resolution 2004-113 and endorsed the establishment of an Economic Vitality and Sustainability Panel which shall: (a) serve as a forum for the continued discussion of economic vitality and sustainability issues; (b) provide information and advice to City Council, the City Manager and the Economic Advisor on a regular basis; © provide guidance in the creation and implementation of a formal action plan; (d) facilitate partnerships that lend organizational support for the implementation of economic vitality and sustainability partnership strategies; and (e) report to City Council, on an annual basis, progress achieved towards improving the economic vitality and sustainability of the Fort Collins community. Resolution 2005-026 appoints Gary Amato as a member of the Economic Vitality and March 15, 2005 Sustainability Panel. Mr. Amato replaces former member Hank Gardner, who was forced to resign his position due to schedule conflicts. 24. Routine Easements. A. Easement from construction and maintenance of public utilities from Mulhge, LLC, to install a 3 phase switch cabinet and padmount transformer to underground the overhead electric system, located at 1412 East Mulberry. Monetary consideration: $1500. B. Easement dedication from FC Timberline Development, LLC, for a new screen wall at 4502 John F. Kennedy Parkway. Monetary consideration: $0. C. Sidewalk easement from The Landings Community Association, Inc., located on Tract D, Whaler's Cove, Second Replat. Monetary consideration: $500. ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 026, 2005, Amending Chapter 7.5 and Chapter 26 of the City Code to Establish Requirements and Procedures for Utility Service Outside the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 027, 2005, Anorooriatiny Bond Proceeds in the Water Fund. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 028, 2005, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Storm Drainage Fund for Projects to Reduce Peak Flows in the Spring Creek Basin. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 029, 2005, Amending Chapter 15 of the City Code Relating to the Definition of Outdoor Vendor Licensees Downtown Plan Area Concessionaires. It. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 030, 2005, Amending the Land Use Code by Adding "Resource Recovery" Use to the Public Open Lands (P-O-L) Zoning_ District. 12. Second Reading of OrdinanceNo. 031,2005, Amending Various Sections of the Fort Collins Traffic Code. 13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 032, 2005, Adding Restitution Requirements to Section 1-15 of the City Code Relating to the General Penalty for City Code Violations and Traffic Infractions. 14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 033, 2005, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non- March 15, 2005 Exclusive Easement to LaFarge West, Inc. Over, Across and Under a Portion of the Poudre Trail. 15. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 034, 2005, Authorizing the Lease of City -Owned Property at 3829 East Prospect Road Fort Collins Colorado, to Frontline Bioenergy. 16. Second Reading_of Ordinance No. 035, 2005, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non- exclusive Easement Interest to North Weld County Water District for an Existing Waterline Across the Vehicle Storage Building Property. 17. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 037, 2005, Repealing and Reenacting Article II of Chapter 10 of the City Code Regarding Flood Hazard Areas. 28. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2005, Amending Section 2-31 of the City Code so as to Clarify That City Council Can Provide Direction to City Staff or Other Persons During Executive Sessions, Adopted on Second Reading. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 18B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 038, 2005, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Equipment Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Existing Appropriations in the Equipment Fund for Construction and Installation of a Compressed Natural Gas Backup Compressor at the Transfort Alternative Fueling Station. Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt and approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Kastein, Martinez and Tharp. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Consent Calendar Follow-up Councilmember Tharp asked about the need for a one year extension of the lease set forth in item #20 Resolution 2005-023 Authorizing the One -Year Extension of a Lease of the City Ditch on City - owned Property at 2005 North Overland Trail in Lorimer County, Colorado to Larimer County Canal No. 1 Irrigating Company. Mike Smith, Utilities General Manager, stated the City had not been monitoring a number of 99 year leases and that rather than rushing the renegotiations staff was recommending the one-year extension to allow time to give the matter more thorough consideration. Councilmember Reports Councilmember Tharp reported on the Annual Report of the Housing Authority and summarized affordable housing efforts serving approximately 1,500 families through various programs, noting that about 86% of those families had incomes in the 30% AMI range of less than $20,000 per year. She stated the City administered Section 8 vouchers to help people pay their rent and that the 10 March 15, 2005 Housing Authority administered $5.4 million in housing assistance payments to local landlords on behalf of participating families. She stated this money therefore went into the general economy. She noted that there was also a long waiting list for housing assistance. Councilmember Kastein reported on the North Front Range Transportation Air Quality Planning Council discussions relating to the idea of putting together another transportation plan in the next three years that would be corridor -specific rather than project -specific. Mayor Martinez reported that Fort Collins had received the Take Pride in America award. Ordinance No. 025, 2005, Amending Section 2-31 of the City Code so as to Clarify That City Council Can Provide Direction to City Staff or Other Persons During Executive Sessions, Adopted on Second Readin¢ The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, which was adopted as amended 6-1 (Nays: Councilmember Tharp) on First Reading, amends Section 2-31 of the City Code pertaining to executive sessions to clarify that Council can provide direction to City staff or other persons during the course of an executive session with regard to the matters that are permissible for discussion in executive session. " Deputy City Manager Jones introduced the agenda item and stated this was on the discussion agenda because it was not a unanimous decision on First Reading. Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt Ordinance No. 025, 2005 on Second Reading. Councilmember Tharp stated she would vote against the motion and that she had concerns about the use of the Executive Session. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Kastein and Martinez. Nays: Councilmember Tharp. THE MOTION CARRIED. 11 March 15, 2005 Resolution 2005-027 Expressing City Council's Support of the April 5, 2005 Ballot Measure to Renew the City's Street Maintenance Sales and Use Tax for Ten (10) Additional Years, Adopted The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "FINANCIAL IMPACT The renewal ofthe Street Maintenance Program sales and use tax would provide approximately $5.5 million per year for the program. Thisfunding, in addition to the projected $2.6 million in General Fund funding, will provide a 'full -funding " level for the Street Maintenance Program. Since a portion of the Building Community Choices revenue from the "Transportation " quarter cent was earmarked for other transportation capital projects, renewal of the tax with all the revenue dedicated to Street Maintenance will lower the need for some of the one-time General Fund resources previously committed to street maintenance. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On February 1, 2005, City Council placed a renewal of the City's Street Maintenance sales and use tax on the April 5, 2005 City election ballot. The current 114 cent sales tax has been in place since voters approved it in 1997. The taxis set to expire December 31, 2005. By seeking voter approval of the tax extension, uninterrupted funding of the program can be assured. Ballot Issue No. 3 asks for voter approval to extend the tax for 10 years, with a term running from January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2015. The Street Maintenance Program provides fundingfor the repair and renovation of the City's street system. All 475 miles of city streets are covered by the program including arterials, collectors and residential streets. Theprogram covers major maintenance andpreventative maintenance ofstreets including repairs, renovations and reconstruction when necessary. Maintenance is also performed on curbs, gutters, bridges, sidewalks, parkways, shoulders and medians. The purpose of this resolution is to express City Council's support of Ballot Issue No. 3. Renewal of the sales tax is a key component of the City's financial stability and the City's ability to maintain a high quality, efficient transportation system. BACKGROUND Two Building Community Choices capital sales taxes are set to expire December 31, 2005. The "Streets and Transportation Projects" package funded the Street Maintenance and Overlay Program, the Annual Pedestrian Improvement Program, Phases 1 and 2 of the Mason Transportation Corridor, and improvements to the North College Corridor. The "Community Enhancements" package has funded a variety of other projects including road expansions, recreationprograms and land acquisitionforfuture Cityprojects. While both taxes are set to expire this year, Council directed staff to seek renewal of the Street Maintenance Program at the April election and defer the "Community Enhancements" renewal until the November 2005 election. 12 March 15, 2005 The Street Maintenance Program The Street Maintenance Program provides fmdingfor the repair and renovation ofthe City's street system. All 475 miles of city streets are covered by the program including arterials, collectors and residential streets. Theprogram covers major maintenance andpreventative maintenance ofstreets including repairs, renovations and reconstruction when necessary. Maintenance is also performed on curbs, gutters, bridges, sidewalks, parkways, shoulders and medians. The program has been in existence since 1989 when it was funded through the Choices 95 Capital Improvement Program. Prior to that time, the City's street maintenance efforts received minimal funding and streets were in poor condition. With the funding of the Street Maintenance Program and the renewal ofthe funding stream through the Building Community Choices program, the City has been able to meet its goal of an average pavement condition rating of 75—a "Good" rating. (See attachment 1) Accomplishments of the program have included: • 263 miles of streets have been maintained since 1989; • The average pavement condition rating has been raised to 75; • Aggressive rehabilitation of arterial streets has been undertaken; • The Hot -in -Place asphalt recycling process was introduced in 2000, increasing cost effectiveness and minimizing inconvenience for citizens; and • Preventive maintenance such as slurry seals and overlays have increased. Program Funding The Street Maintenance Program is currently funded from four sources. A substantial portion of the program funding, $3.7 million (49%), is provided by the Building Community Choices Program. In 2005, the General Fund will provide $1.6 million in ongoing funds and $2.2 million in on -time fundingfor the program. An additional $128, 000from street cut fees was provided in 2004. These fees are assessed to contractors and other builders who cut into City streets as part ofa construction project. The overall budget of $7.5 million is considered to be a full funding level for the program. (See Attachment 2) If the Street Maintenance Program is renewed by voters, $5.5 million of dedicated revenue, plus a projected $2.3 million of general fund support in 2006 will provide a total of approximately $7.8 million per year for street maintenance. Though specific funding figures would not be known until the 2006-07 budget is adopted, General Fund support for the program will still be required after the dedicated revenue source is approved by voters. Ongoing funding for the Street Maintenance Program is a high priority for several reasons. It continues to be one of the City's most basic, core services with excellent past performance. It is a cost effectiveprogram because maintaining averagepavement condition rating of75 saves the City money. By providing preventative maintenance to streets, repairs can be made when inexpensive processes can be used, rather than waiting until more expensive and disruptive major maintenance or replacement is required. With limited alternative funding sources for this maintenance, this 13 March 15, 2005 program and its funding source are critical to maintaining the overall condition of the City's street system. A Dedicated Funding Source By continuing this dedicated funding source, separate from the General Fund, the City can accomplish several goals. First, by maintaining the program as a dedicated sales tax funded program, funds cannot be diverted to other uses. This ensures that the program remains funded and preventative maintenance will not be deferred. A second benefit of a dedicated sales tax is that 30 - 40% of sales tax revenue is generated from non -city residents that use our street system. Byplacing aportion ofthe burdenfor maintaining our streets on visitors, workers who commute into Fort Collins and shoppers from neighboring communities, the sales tax provides an equitable funding source. For these reasons, the City Manager recommends that Council adopt this Resolution supporting the passage of Ballot Issue No. 3 at the April 5, 2005 City election. " Deputy City Manager Jones introduced the agenda item. She stated the street maintenance and repair program included 475 miles of City streets and that maintenance was scheduled so that streets would be kept in good condition. She stated repairs were less expensive if streets were not allowed to deteriorate. She stated a dedicated quarter cent sales tax had been in place since 1989 and would expire in December. She stated Council placed a measure on the April ballot to renew the sales tax. She stated there was no other ready source of revenue for street maintenance. She stated the quarter cent tax would generate $5.5 million. She stated a dedicated tax could only be used for the designated street maintenance purposes. She stated 30-40% of the revenues would come from nonresidents who used City streets. She stated TABOR required the measure to be described as a tax increase even though it was renewal of an existing tax that had been in place for 14 years. She stated the tax would be a quarter cent on purchases except for groceries or prescription drugs. She stated the cost to citizens would be 250 for each $100 purchase. She stated the tax would be extended for another 10 years. She stated the proposed Resolution would highlight for voters the importance of funding the program and would express Council's support for the renewal of the tax and would ask voters to support ballot measure 3. Gary Thomas, 757 Cherokee Drive, spoke in support of the Resolution and stated there would be no actual increase in taxes since this would be an extension of a current tax. He noted that all of the candidates for Mayor and City Council except for one had endorsed the Resolution. He urged the Council to adopt the Resolution and voters to vote in favor of the ballot measure. Al Baccili, 520 Galaxy Court, stated he believed that 10 years was too long for the tax extension and that five years would be more appropriate. David May, Executive Director of the Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of the Resolution and the adoption of the extension of the sales tax for 10 years. 14 March 15, 2005 Councilmember Tharp made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Bertschy, to adopt Resolution 2005-027. Councilmember Bertschy stated this was an opportunity to extend a successful tax and that the Downtown Development Authority had also adopted a Resolution expressing support for ballot measure 3. He stated this tax allowed City streets to be kept in excellent condition compared with other communities. He stated this also saved the City money in the long run for capital expenses. Councilmember Kastein stated the Council had already supported this measure by placing it on the ballot. He stated the Resolution would make that Council support clear. He stated the sales tax extension would support the City's infrastructure and would help protect one of the City's major investments in a cost effective way. Councilmember Tharp stated she supported the extension of the tax for street maintenance. She stated this would address street maintenance and noted that there were still other significant long term transportation funding needs. Mayor Martinez stated he would support the Resolution. He stated the City needed to work on long term funding options so that a tax was not needed for this and other basic services. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Kastein, Martinez and Tharp. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 2005-028 Amending the Growth Management Area (GMA) Boundary to Include the Fossil Creek Cooperative Planning Area (CPA), Adopted The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is a request to amend the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA) boundary to include the Fossil Creek Cooperative Planning Area (CPA), an area of approximately 2.25 square miles. The CPA was identified as a location for a possible amendment to the GMA boundary in the recently adopted update to City Plan (May 2004) and City Structure Plan map. If approved by the City Council, the boundary amendment will be forwarded to the Board of Commissioners of Larimer Countyfor approval as amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins GMA. BACKGROUND City Plan Policy GM-1.2 indicates that GMA boundary amendments will only be considered in conjunction with comprehensive updates to City Plan. In the updatejust completed, three potential W March 15, 2005 GMA boundary amendments (the Fossil Creek CPA, the Wildflower Area, and the CSU Foothills Campus) are to be considered by the City prior to the next update. This is a request to amend the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA) boundary to include the Fossil Creek Cooperative Planning Area (CPA), an area of approximately 2 andl/4 square miles. Fossil Creek CPA Histo In March 1998, the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County concluded a joint planning effort with the adoption of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. The Plan was adopted as an element of City Plan, the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Plan contained the following chapters/topics: 1. land use framework 2. transportation 3. natural areas and open lands 4. parks schools, and other communityfacilities 5. implementation Regarding the Growth Management Area (GMA) boundary, the Plan's implementation called for two significant actions: (1) amendment of the GMA boundary to include all land north of Fossil Creek Reservoir and west ofI-25, and (2) establishment of the Fossil Creek Cooperative Planning Area (CPA) as a future GMA boundary amendment area. The GMA boundary amendment to include all land north of Fossil Creek Reservoir and west ofI-25 was approved by both the City and County in 1999 and contained approximately 5 square miles, not counting the area covered by Fossil Creek Reservoir. An additional2.5 square miles was included in the CPA. The objective of the CPA was to preserve opportunities to expand the supply of buildable land for urban purposes within the city through eventual annexation. In 1999, a series of Intergovernmental Agreements involving the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland, the Town of Windsor, and Larimer County formally extended the GMA boundary to include the area north of Fossil Creek Reservoir and west ofI-25 and established the CPA. Some key components to these agreements were the establishment of future annexation areas. Fort Collins agreed not to annex east ofI-25, Windsor agreed not to annex west ofI-25, and Loveland agreed not to annex north of County Road 30. All parties agreed to recognize the Fossil Creek CPA as being a logical extension of the Fort Collins GMA boundary and leading to eventual annexation of the area into Fort Collins. Since the establishment of the IGAs between the City, the surrounding communities, and Lorimer County, there has been increased development pressure on the properties adjacent to the I-251SH 392/Carpenter Road interchange. Also, staff understands that the South Fort Collins Sanitation District may eventually sell for development a 160 acre parcel directly south of their wastewater treatment plant on the south side of Carpenter Road. The area south of Carpenter Road is located in the County's AP, Airport Zoning District. This district could allow uses which would be incompatible with the Community Separator designation on the Structure Plan. North of Carpenter Road, adjacent to I-25, County zoning is a mix ofzones, including the C, Commercial and T, Touristzones, and the RI, Residential district. The area is, thus, primed for development. No formal applications have been made, but both the City and County 16 March 15, 2005 planning staffs believe that it is a matter ofjust a short time before someone submits a development application to the County. This adds a sense of urgency to expanding the GMA and annexing the area if the City of Fort Collins wants to have more control over these development plans along a major entry corridor into the city. GMA Amendment Criteria Policy GM-1.2 of City Plan also establishes a set of criteria to be considered in reviewing proposed GMA amendments. These criteria are presented below along with a staff analysis addressing each criterion. The proposed amendment is consistent with community goals, principles, and policies as expressed in City Plan. The initial version of City Plan (1997) contained the policy basis for establishing CPAs. The Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan's Policy FC-1-6 established the conceptfor this CPA as an area beyond the GMA which could conceivably be annexed into Fort Collins. One key principle for the CPA was to avoid "annexation wars" between Fort Collins and the other surrounding communities. Staff believes adding the Fossil Creek CPA into the GMA boundary would complete the fu�flllment of policies and intergovernmental agreements initiated in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. The CPA is designated for a mix of commercial, rural lands, public open lands, and community separators on the City's Structure Plan. Inclusion of the area in the GMA and its eventual annexation will provide the City with much greater assurance that City Plan's vision for the area is successful. The proposed amendment has a positive net fiscal benefit to the community. Staff is convinced that it is just a matter time before commercial development occurs adjacent to the I-251SH 392/Carpenter Road interchange. Since development will likely be "urban" in nature, Lorimer County staffhas indicated they would like the area to develop inside ofa cty's jurisdiction. Therefore, staff believes the main issue becomes not one of "if' development occurs, but one of "when, where, and how" such development takes place, either in Fort Collins, or in Windsor or Loveland. Amending the GMA boundary to include the CPA at this time would solidify the City's claim to and control ofthe area as initially established in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan and subsequent intergovernmental agreements. The Structure Plan's land use designations for the Fossil Creek CPA include approximately 40 acres ofEmployment District and approximately 90 acres of Commercial Corridor District adjacent to I-25. These areas would be zoned E, Employment, and C, Commercial, respectively upon annexation into the City. The balance of the area contains City and County open space/parks and a portion of the Fort Collins -Loveland Community Separator. The privately -owned properties in the separator would be placed into the RR District upon annexation. The publicly owned properties would be placed into the POL, Public Open Lands District upon annexation. Annexation of this area into the City would allow the City to apply its street standards, including 17 March 15, 2005 right-of-way dedications, as well as collecting the full range of City impact fees Staff does not have exact figures, but intuitively would expect the approximately 40 acres of Employment District and approximately 90 acres of Commercial Corridor District to generate impact fees and tax revenues to more than adequately cover the costs of necessarypublic services and facilities to those employment and commercial uses and the very low density residential development that is likely to happen in the CPA. Included in the City services to be provided to the area after annexation arepolice and road maintenance services. Water and wastewater utilities will be provided by the Loveland -Fort Collins Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District respectively. The Police Department has a standard that indicates 400 housing units generate the need for an additional police officer. Assuming all of the parcels designated as Rural Lands and Community Separator available for residential development in the CPA develop as residential clusters with a density of 1 unit per 2.29 acres, the area would produce about 160 units, or about the need for.4 of a police officer. Certain commercial uses, such as bars, create a higher demand for police services than other commercial uses. While the future commercial and employment uses will add to the need for additional police services, stafffinds they would not be of the types that would create the high demands for those services. Therefore, staff concludes the CPA GMA boundary amendment would have a positive net fiscal benefit to the community. The proposed amendment is necessary to accommodate an activity that cannot be reasonably accommodated on lands within the existing GMA boundary. There are five entry corridors into Fort Collins from I-25. From north to south they are: Mountain Vista Drive, Mulberry Street, Prospect Road, Harmony Road, and Carpenter Road. The Structure Plan designates three of them for commercial development: Mulberry, Prospect, and Carpenter. One is almost fully developed (Mulberry), leaving two (Prospect and Carpenter) remaining available for future commercial development. The I-25 Subarea Plan, an element of City Plan, identifies the Prospect interchange as an "activity center" which will be encouraged to develop with a mix of uses, including residential. While Prospect will also likely be the location for some highway oriented commercial development, outside of Mulberry, the community does not have an area that can offer location attributes to serve the regional retail market and traveling public on I- 25. Thus, staff recommends the CPA area should be added to the GMA to provide for certain types ofcommercial uses that cannot be accommodate, norperhaps should not be accommodated, in other parts of the GMA. The land proposed for inclusion in the GMA contains environmental resources or hazard constraints that make it unsuitable for its proposed use. The properties immediately surrounding Fossil CreekReservoir area very important environmental resource for the community. Maintaining a separation of the Fort Collins and Loveland urban areas is also a very high priority of the two communities and the County. The City and County have acquired, or otherwise preserved, a significant portion of the open space and natural areas within the CPA. Additional public purchases/preservations are likely in the future. There are also some important wetlands that will remain privately owned, for example, on the west end of the horse farm K March 15, 2005 property on the southwest corner of the I-25 interchange One reason for amending the GMA boundaryfor the CPA is to set the stage for eventual annexation ofproperty into Fort Collins. This would allow the City to apply to the remaining privately owned properties its specific environmental protection development regulations contained in the Land Use Code. Development will eventually happen in the CPA. Applying City regulations will protect the natural environment. There are no specific environmental or hazard constraints that would prohibit development of the area. The proposed amendment would result in a logical change to the GMA. Factors to be included in making this determination will include, but not be limited to, the following: The proposed amendment would allow for the logical, incremental extension of urban services. Water service is available throughout the CPA from the Loveland -Fort Collins Water District, and sanitary sewer service is available from the South Fort Collins Sanitation District. In fact, the sanitation district's wastewater treatment plant is located within the CPA adjacent to Fossil Creek Reservoir. The current I-251SH 392/Carpenter Road interchange has serious capacity problems; staff is not sure how the lack of capacity at the interchange would affect the County's review of future development proposals in and around the interchange. This is a significant issue for Windsor, which has annexed all properties located east of the interchange and has permitted commercial development in the area. The updates to City Plan and the Master Transportation Plan contain Policy T-1.9 that indicates that the City of Fort Collins will encourage partnerships among CDOT, the Federal Highway Administration, and private interests to improve existing interchanges (the policy does not commit the City to financially participate). Windsor is aggressively exploring ways to convince the North Front Range MPO and the Colorado Department of Highways (CDOT) to elevate the "Windsor interchange " in capital improvement program rankings for funding. CDOT is also exploring with the City and County the transfer of Carpenter Road as a Regionally Significant Corridor to the State system which may help elevate the State and regionally priority of needed improvements to both the roadway and the interchange. Carpenter Road is designated as a future 6-lane arterial on the City's Master Street Plan, but is built to 2-lane County road standards. If annexed, development along Carpenter Road will be required dedicate additional right-of-way, improve the street, and pay impact fees for additional widening. The proposed amendment would offer a desirable new "edge" to the community. As anticipated in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan's implementation strategies, extending the GMA to include the CPA would create a desirable edge to the community. The existing boundary to be extended is contiguous to existing developed areas of the City of Fort Collins. The proposed amendment would contribute to the compact urban form of the city. The Fossil Creek CPA is contiguous to existing development in the city limits, according to Section 3.7.2 Contiguity of the City's Land Use Code. According to Section 3.7.2, contiguity to existing 19 March 15, 2005 development is not affected by publicly owned open space or a lake/reservoir. The CPA is thus adjacent to developments, such as Westchase, located north of Fossil Creek Reservoir. IGA Amendments In 1980, the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area (UGA). The agreement established a united, cooperative planning effort towards development goals and policies for the effective management of development in the Fort Collins urban area. The last time the IGA was amended occurred in November 2000. As a result of the proposed GMA boundary amendment the following change to the agreement need to be made. The proposed boundary amendment will require updating the map (Exhibit 1 in the IGA) showing the new GMA boundary as per the Fossil Creek CPA amendment. In order to become an official amendment to the IGA the boundary change must be approved by both the City Council and the Lorimer County Board of Commissioners. FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSION Regarding the potential GMA Boundary amendment, staff makes the following finding offact and conclusion: A. The Fossil Creek CPA GMA boundary amendment is needed in order for the City to comply with the policies and expectations set out in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan and intergovernmental agreements with Loveland, Windsor, and the County. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Fossil Creek Cooperative Planning Area (CPA) Growth Management Area (GMA) boundary amendment. If approved by the City Council, the boundary amendment will be forwarded to the Board of Commissioners of Larimer Countyfor approval as amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins GMA. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION At its regular monthly meeting on June 17, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the Fossil Creek CPA GMA boundary amendment. A copy of the Board's minutes is attached. During public input at the June 17 meeting, two property owners within the Fossil Creek CPA indicated their properties were divided by the GMA boundary as proposed by staff. In one case (the Van Cleave property), the proposed GMA boundary divided the ownership into a 35+ acre (in) portion and a 5 acre (out) portion; while in the other case (the Lemaster, Wortley, Skogan property), the proposed GMA boundary divided the ownership into a 40 acre (in) portion and an 80 acre (out) 20 March 15, 2005 portion. It was not the intent of the staff's proposed GMA boundary to divide properties under single ownership. The Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation is to include the 5 acres, along with the balance of 35+ acres, of the Van Cleave property within the GMA boundary and to exclude the 40 acres, along with the balance of 80 acres, of the Lemaster, Wortley, Skogan property from the GMA boundary amendment. Staff supports the Board's recommendation. Property Owner Opposition The property owners within the Fossil Creek CPA appear entrenched in their position that they do not want to be included in the GMA and eventually annexed into Fort Collins. These property - owners apparently believe they wouldfare better with their development plans if they were to annex into anotherjurisdiction, with Loveland or Windsor being the obvious options. Staffhas learned that some owners, even as recent as last month, contacted Loveland regardingpotential annexation and they have approached Larimer County to see what the County's position would be about such annexation in relationship to the IGA which indicates the Fossil Creek CPA should be annexed into Fort Collins. We also know that Loveland and Windsor are interested, but at this point, have been willing to honor the intergovernmental agreement, at least while it is still in effect. From the landowner'sperspective, annexation into Fort Collins wouldprovide them no benefits and would only make development of their properties more difficult. Their opposition is based on the following issues and concerns: City Land Use Code Natural Area/Wet Land Set Back Requirements The owners believe the City's LUC requirements are unreasonable, especially regarding some wet lands that were caused by inadequate drainage systems that were put in place when roads were constructed (i.e., culverts were installed that were too small to allow waterpass through eventually leading to back ups that created a "wet land') versus natural wet lands that are part of a stream corridor. There is also the belief that the ability to propose modifications to City standards is too limited and/or the mitigation requirements are too strict and expensive. The owners were told the City's Natural Resources Department was going to investigate and analyze wet lands to see if certain differentiations were warranted and possibly make changes to the standards within the LUC. However, the project is not on an immediate work plan for the Department. The property -owners apparently believe they wouldfare better with their development plans if they were to annex into another jurisdiction. City's policy not to financially participate in needed 1-25 interchange improvements The Carpenter Road and State Highway 392 interchange on I-25 needs to be upgraded. Without a new interchange, further development at the intersection is severely limited if not outright 21 March 15, 2005 prohibited. The City's policy not to participate financially in any interstate interchange improvement is of concern to the owners, but perhaps of greater concern is the City's possible opposition to the establishment of other potential funding mechanisms, such as a special improvement or metro districts, the use of tax increment financing, etc. The property -owners apparently believe they would fare better with their development plans if they were to annex into another jurisdiction. Fear that annexation would not be a step toward development but a step towards delaying development Again, the property -owners apparently believe they would fare better with their development plans if they were to annex into another jurisdiction. The owners fear that annexation into Fort Collins would only place their properties under what they perceive as the City's "no growth "philosophy. Questions on the timing and the need to complete the amendment in the immediate future The owners are concerned about the timing of the amendment and the apparent City rush to complete it before the April2005 election. The owners want more time to discuss their issues and concerns. Of course, the requested delay could be a ruse to allow the owners to have more time to work with other jurisdictions about annexation and convince Larimer County to abandon the IGA requirement for annexation into Fort Collins. Larimer County's Position Based on a joint study session City staff conducted with the Lorimer County Planning Commission and the Larimer County Board of Commissioners, the County has some questions and issues regarding the GMA boundary expansion. There is support for the eventual annexation into Fort Collins ofthe properties immediately adjacent to the I-25 interchange since that is the area most likely to be urbanized with higher intensity commercial uses and need urban services. The balance of the CPA is designated as Rural Development on the Structure Plan and is part of the Fort Collins -Loveland community separator. The County strongly questioned the need to amend the GMA boundary to include these rural areas. The County asked why the City believes it can do a better job with rural development and protecting the open space corridor and community separator than the County. It must be noted that the GMA boundary amendment is not something the City can do unilaterally as the Lorimer County must also approve the amendment. " Deputy City Manager Jones introduced the agenda item. City Attorney Roy noted that the new title of the Resolution clarified that it would not actually amend the GMA boundary and would authorize the execution of an amendment to the IGA with Larimer County to that effect, and then if that IGA amendment occurred a formal amendment to the Structure Plan would be presented for Council consideration. He stated the title of the Resolution 22 March 15, 2005 was being amended to more accurately reflect what it would accomplish. Ken Waido, Chief Planner, stated the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan was adopted in March 1998 by the City and County after a two-year planning process to do a subarea plan for the area south of Harmony, north of the reservoir and west of I-25. He stated the Growth Management Area boundary was amended to include about 5'/z square miles that were previously outside of the GMA boundary, and that a cooperative planning area was created for a possible future amendment to the GMA boundary. He stated in June 1999 there was an intergovernmental agreement between the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland, Town of Windsor and Latimer County that formally recognized the cooperative planning area as a future expansion of the Fort Collins GMA. He stated in May 2004 the City Council adopted an update to City Plan and the CPA boundary was shown as a potential expansion area for the GMA boundary and that staff subsequently began the process to make the GMA boundary amendment. He stated a related intergovernmental agreement between Latimer County and City of Loveland that was signed in January 2004 provided that Loveland would not annex into a growth management boundary or a cooperative planning area of another municipality that had a formal intergovernmental agreement with Latimer County. He stated the City of Fort Collins did have such an intergovernmental agreement with Latimer County for the cooperative planning area. He stated the Loveland/Larimer County agreement also provided that Loveland would not annex north of County Road 30. He stated the purpose of the agenda item was to implement the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan and City Plan and the policies in those plans, to help implement the plan for the region between Fort Collins and Loveland known as the Fort Collins -Loveland Corridor Area, to help implement the I-25 Regional Corridor Plan, to comply with the series of intergovernmental agreements between various governmental entities, to add additional protection to the area north of the Fort Collins -Loveland airport, to help manage future development and also to help manage critical natural resources around Fossil Creek Reservoir. He stated when the City Plan update was adopted in May 2004, a policy was put into place relating to an established criteria that should be used for Growth Management Area boundary amendments. He stated staff believed that the GMA boundary amendment complied with the goals, principles and policies of City Plan; that there would be a positive net fiscal benefit due to the potential future land uses in the area, which included about 90 acres of commercial development and 40 acres of employment ground and plans for lower density residential development; that it was necessary to accommodate activity in the Growth Management Area because it would add additional property for commercial and employment expansion; that there were some environmental resources that were of concern but that there would be nothing to disallow the GMA boundary change; and that this would be a logical change and would help form an "edge" and was contiguous. He presented visual information regarding the boundary as depicted in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan and the City Plan Structure Plan. He stated the eastern boundary was I-25, the southern boundary was the half section line between County Road 32 (Carpenter Road) and County Road 30 (the northern edge of the Loveland Growth Management Area boundary). He stated the Town of Windsor had annexed property on the east side of this area. He stated because the preliminary boundary divided properties staff recommended to the Planning and Zoning Board taking out an area that was the northern part of the Eagle Ranch Estates Subdivision. He stated another option was to include the entire subdivision in the GMA and that staff instead recommended to remove the entire subdivision from the GMA. He stated staff also recommended that a 40 acre tract attached to a larger parcel to the south be excluded from the GMA and that a small parcel of about five acres be added to the GMA 23 March 15, 2005 to allow that property associated with other Employment ground to become part of the GMA. He stated the Planning and Zoning Board was recommending the GMA boundary amendment as outlined above on a 5-0 vote and that staff supported the Board recommendation. Jeff Couch, Team Engineering, 346A Shallow Pond Drive, representing 100% of the property owners affected by the proposed GMA expansion, opposed the inclusion of those properties within the GMA boundary. He stated such inclusion would not be appropriate given the plans for that area. He stated the City was not currently in compliance with its intergovernmental agreements. He read the following from one of the corridor plans: "Private property rights are important. Both the United States and Colorado Constitutions prohibit governments from taking private property without just compensation. Actions taken to implement or carry out the purpose of this plan will be consistent with the Constitutional rights of all property owners, taxpayers and citizens of Larimer County." He stated the City did not have a zoning designation that would allow the property owners to complete what had been begun in Larimer County. He stated the property owners would like to keep the current zoning. He stated most of the property was in the AP zone, which was a unique, flexible County zone that would allow a mix of industrial and commercial uses that would support the airport use. He stated this ability would be lost if the properties were included in the Fort Collins GMA and ultimately in a future Fort Collins annexation area. He stated one of the reasons for the intergovernmental agreement was to coordinate infrastructure in the area and that one of the biggest needs was transportation. He stated at the Study Session it became clear that the City of Fort Collins would not participate financially in the interchange replacement and that this would probably be done with some kind of private/public partnership. He stated CDOT did not have the replacement interchange on its schedule for the next 20 years. He stated if the interchange was to be replaced that there would be a need for private and public money. He stated this interchange was one of the most critical transportation needs in northern Colorado. He stated the property owners believed that the intergovernmental agreements anticipated that the communities would work toward the zoning designation and the completion of infrastructure and that the feedback from the City was indicating that this was not the case. He stated the property owners also believed that Fort Collins provided no services in that area and questioned why the City would want to "take" that area. He noted that County Road 32 had been turned over to the State, that the parallel road system would be a County system, and the City had indicated that it would not participate financially in the interchange. He stated the City provided no services and "had no say" in the transportation in the area. He stated CPES Director Greg Byrne had indicated that the City "provided planning services" in the area. He stated this was not a service that helped the property owners "promote and ultimately develop the projects." He stated there needed to be a "community of interest." He stated there was no zoning that would allow the property owners to approximate the County's AP zone and that any City zoning would be more restrictive; that the setbacks along the I-25 corridor would be more restrictive; that the environmental impacts would be more restrictive; and that there would be a "taking of property rights." He stated the property owners did have a "community of interest" with Loveland and had discussed eventual annexation to Loveland. He stated the parallel roadway system would eventually extend into Centerra and the AP zone was intended to support the airport. He stated the connection would put the properties within one mile of fire and police services currently at the airport. He stated Loveland recognized the interchange as its north entryway into the community and that Loveland was very interested in improving that interchange. John Barnett, John Barnett and Associates, 3200 Greenwood Court, stated he represented Steve 24 March 15, 2005 Prado, the owner of the first property at the southwest corner of County Road 32 (Carpenter Road)/State Highway 392 and I-25, and Pat Dwyer. He stated on behalf of Mr. Dwyer, that his group purchased property on the northwest corner of I-25 and Highway 392 in 1973 and that they wanted the ability to continue with their investment and development plans. He stated they believed that they would lose that ability if Fort Collins added this property to the Growth Management Area. He stated on behalf of Mr. Prado that the I-25/Highway 392 interchange needed to be improved and that Windsor needed an "effective partner" on the west side to address the burdens created by Windsor, Fort Collins and Loveland growth. He stated CDOT had estimated a cost of $28 million to improve the interchange and that this was a "mid range project." He stated the first phase (relocation of the east frontage road) was done by Windsor and that the second phase was relocation of the west frontage road. He stated there were verbal commitments from all landowners along the west side of I-25 to provide right-of-way to that if "appropriate projects" could get approval. He stated this would be a public/private partnership. He stated the third phase would be relocation of the west ramps of I-25, and that the final phase would be replacement of the crossing structure. He stated each of the preliminary phases would improve the traffic situation and that no development could happen in that area until those improvements happened. He stated Fort Collins had a "tremendous role" in creating the traffic problems over the years and that the City should have a role in interchange development. He stated Mr. Prado's land was split between residential and commercial and that it was vital that there be adequate "value" and "tax revenue as well as developer revenue"created. He stated the "planning was flawed on this site." He stated having the area broken up between employment commercial and residential would not work. He stated a major wetland was on Mr. Prado's property and that it was split by the dividing line between commercial and residential. He stated this was the location where CDOT would like to see the relocated frontage road. He stated the Fort Collins wetlands policies would create a "nightmare" for this area. He stated Section 404 of the Clean Water Act should govern and that there should be "trust, efficiency and predictability" in the approval process. He stated this would work as a public/private partnership. He stated Mr. Waido indicated that the expansion of the Growth Management Area would implement a plan, and that it did not. He stated "plans were implemented by developers building neighborhoods and commercial facilities and businesses." Curt Briggoner, 7301 Southwest Frontage Road, commercial property owner, stated the private property owners in the area were concerned with the impact on property values and how hard the City would be to deal with on developing the land around the exit system to the "potential value." He stated the property was zoned commercial and that he wanted to do some commercial development. He stated some Councilmembers had indicated at past meetings that they wanted to keep the area as open space and "would make it hard" on anyone wanting to develop the property by creating large setbacks from the lake and wetlands. Mr. Barnett requested additional time to speak. Mayor Martinez stated he would allow another two minutes. Mr. Barnett stated "perception or reality of an anti -business agenda would preclude the creation of effective public/private partnerships that would lead to the improvement of the interchange." He stated an "open space agenda" was not appropriate for planning this particular area. He stated Mr. 25 March 15, 2005 Prado wanted to make the point that if any municipality would agree to what was being requested through a binding annexation agreement, he would be willing to annex. He stated at this point he would "adamantly oppose" expansion of the Growth Management Area in this area. He stated one of the concerns was that there were three Fort Collins interchanges and that the only one ever approved by Fort Collins was the one for Anheuser-Busch over 20 years ago. He stated Loveland and Windsor were working on intergovernmental agreements to manage their shared I-25 corridor and, if those agreements were approved, they would share revenue and would set standards for planning and development. He stated this was a more appropriate approach than a "unilateral land grab." He urged the Council to reject this Resolution and stated the County Commissioners would receive the same request. He stated one use for intergovernmental agreements was to create a condition wherein there could be "cooperative development." He stated everyone was interested in "quality development" in the area and that the property owners were looking for an "effective public partner." Mayor Martinez asked for a staff response to the comment that there might be some kind of violation of the intergovernmental agreements. Waido stated this particular amendment was consistent with the intergovernmental agreement that was signed by Loveland, Windsor, Fort Collins and Larimer County in 1999. Mayor Martinez asked if legal staff agreed with that statement. City Attorney Roy stated he had nothing to add at this point. He stated it was his understanding that the proposed amendment was consistent with the agreements and that he would have to review the tape regarding any alleged breaches and prepare a response for Council. Mayor Martinez asked what the zoning would be if the property was annexed to the City. Waido presented visual information regarding areas shown on the Structure Plan to be zoned upon annexation C-Commercial, E-Employment, or a larger lot residential zone than the Urban Estates zone (currently being established). He stated some parcels in the area had been purchased by the City and/or County for open space and conservation easements. He presented visual information regarding the current County zoning of AP -Airport and stated the City's zoning would be more restrictive than the County's zoning. He stated the City's position was that some commercial and industrial uses allowed in the County's AP zone would be inconsistent with the open space separator corridor between Fort Collins and Loveland. He stated the area adjacent to I-25 was in a variety of County zones and that most of that land had been designated to be in the C-Commercial zone. Mayor Martinez asked if the open space would expand further. Waido stated he did not know if the City or County natural areas programs were in any negotiations for the purchase of additional land. Greg Byrne, CPES Director, stated the Corridor Plan jointly adopted by the City with the County and Loveland set out many subareas in the area between the two communities. He stated the intent was to reduce the intensity of development in that area, primarily through the County's transfer of development units program, and also through the purchase of conservation easements. He stated the City had spent about $2 million in open space and natural areas funding in this area in pursuance of that plan and Council policy to create a separator between the two communities. He stated the City had put about $1 million into a new regional park on the south side of the reservoir, bought the surface rights to Fossil Creek Reservoir and removed the boating club that was there, and purchased 26 March 15, 2005 additional land around Duck Lake and conservation easements. He stated the City had been very active in that area in implementing the Corridor Plan. Mayor Martinez asked if there were plans to expand the open space in that area. Byrne stated if the City encountered property owners who were willing to reduce the intensity of development that the City would cooperate with the County in buying some of the development rights. He stated there was no intent on the part of either jurisdiction to eliminate the development potential and that the intent was to zone in conformance with the adopted plan. Councilmember Tharp asked if annexation of any of the property was being discussed at this point. City Attorney Roy replied in the negative. Councilmember Tharp asked under what circumstances annexation would take place. Waido stated the intergovernmental agreement with Latimer County provided that properties that were contiguous to the Fort Collins City limits would be required to annex and that the County would not accept development applications for properties that could annex. He stated Fossil Creek Reservoir had contiguity and that the City had talked with the County about annexing the regional park to provide contiguity to other properties south of County Road 32. He stated the County placed a strong emphasis on City annexation of properties that were within the Growth Management Area. Councilmember Tharp asked if Mr. Prado's property at the corner of Highway 392 and I-25 was currently zoned for commercial. Waido stated the property was zoned Commercial, Tourist or Business in the County. Councilmember Tharp asked if that property would be Employment or Commercial after annexation to the City. Waido stated this particular property would be Commercial. Joe Frank, Director of Advance Planning, stated efforts were made to match existing County zoning to City zoning as much as possible i.e. County Commercial would be made City Commercial. Councilmember Tharp asked if that would pose any particular hardship for the property or would change the potential use of the property. Byrne stated Mr. Prado also owned or controlled some property to the west of the Commercial property that was indicated for residential development and would like to see the Commercial designation expanded to the west. Councilmember Tharp asked if that kind of zoning change would be dealt with when there was a development plan. Byrne stated if the Structure Plan was adopted that this would provide a policy basis for guiding a future zoning decision. He stated staff acknowledged that Mr. Prado had two issues: adequate commercial land to do large scale commercial development and adequate tax base to support the interchange. He stated Mr. Prado was invited to bring back an alternative plan and that he did not do that. He stated Mr. Prado instead sent a letter to the City saying that he opposed the expansion of the Growth Management Area. He stated the City then indicated to Mr. Prado that the City wanted to see the boundary issue between the commercial and large lot residential dealt with appropriately. He stated the City was not able to continue those conversations with Mr. Prado. Councilmember Tharp stated she would also like to address the "perception issue" relating to the 27 March 15, 2005 City's plans for the areas and stated the "perception may not match reality." She stated she would like to focus on the implementation of the intergovernmental agreement that allowed the City to include this section in the Growth Management Area and leave the annexation issues to be dealt with when specific development plans would come forward. Byrne stated much of the testimony heard by the Council was specific to development proposals and that Councilmember Tharp correctly noted that this was not what was before the Council for consideration. Councilmember Kastein asked if there was any visual information that showed this area relative to Fort Collins, Windsor and Loveland. Waido stated Windsor had annexed everything east of I-25 and that Loveland's Growth Management Area boundary was on County Road 30 and west to the foothills. Councilmember Kastein asked for visual information showing Highway 392. Waido stated it was Carpenter Road. Councilmember Kastein asked about the City -owned natural areas. Waido stated some areas had been purchased by the City and that the regional park was purchased by the City and County. He stated there was a conservation easement that was an open area. Councilmember Kastein asked if any designation of open lands would be accomplished through conservation easements, purchase of land or transfer of development units. Byrne replied in the affirmative and stated the City did not intend to try to remove the development rights from the Commercial or Employment ground. He stated the Corridor Plan called for that property to be developed in commercial or mixed use. Councilmember Kastein asked if that property was at the interchange. Byrne replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Kastein asked if the contention was over the County's AP zoning which encompassed the entire area. Waido replied in the affirmative. Byrne stated much of the area had already developed residentially in large lots under the AP zoning. Waido stated the zone would permit a series of nonresidential uses and that all would need to go through the County's special review process because they were not permitted uses by right. Councilmember Kastein asked the County zoning could overlay lands owned by the City as open space. Waido stated the County zoning preceded the acquisition of the land by the City and that upon annexation the City -owned open lands would be placed in the Public Open Lands zoning district. Councilmember Kastein asked if Loveland could place property owned by the City in its GMA. Byrne stated Loveland could theoretically include City property in its GMA but that the City would not petition for annexation of that property to Loveland. He stated staff had talked with Larimer County about the potential for the County to petition for annexation of the regional park to Fort Collins and that the County indicated an interest in seeing that happen. m March 15, 2005 Councilmember Kastein asked for clarification about the County zoning of land purchased by the City for open space. Byrne stated the underlying County AP zoning would remain in place even though the City had purchased the property and put it to a different use. He stated the County had chosen not to pursue the implementation of the open space preservation portion of the Corridor Plan through rezoning or downzoning of property. He stated the County had chosen to pursue that through the transfer of development units program while leaving the zoning in place. He stated if the property was annexed into the City that it would be zoned in conformance with the designation in those plans. Councilmember Kastein asked about the criteria for the Growth Management Area amendment that related to whether the proposed amendment was necessary to accommodate an activity that could not be reasonably accommodated on lands within the existing GMA boundary. He stated the argument was made that there were five entryways into the City and that the Carpenter Road/Highway 392 interchange was unique in that it had more development potential than some of the other interchanges. Waido stated this was correct from the commercial perspective. He stated the Prospect Road interchange also had significant adjacent commercial ground and that the Mountain Vista Drive interchange was zoned either Industrial or Employment. He stated one of the conditions of the I-25 Subarea Plan was that secondary commercial uses would not be allowed within a quarter mile of I-25 in the Employment and Industrial zones. He stated the commercial uses were earmarked for the activity center along Prospect Road and that Mulberry Street was already developed. He stated the Highway 392 interchange did provide additional land for uses that would be limited in other parts of the City. Councilmember Kastein asked if the interchange activity center was viewed as important to the City and if this was in line with what some of the landowners wanted to see in the area. He asked if the primary contention was the interchange and the City's unwillingness to participate financially, even though the City had indicated that it would consider special improvement districts. Waido stated the City Plan and Master Transportation Plan provided that the policy of the City with regard to interchange improvements was that the role of the City would be to encourage partnerships between a variety of interests including CDOT, the Federal Highway Administration and private interests to build or improve interchanges. He stated the item of contention was the statement in the plan that the policy does not permit the City to financially participate in interchange improvements. He stated it was a Council decision regarding whether the City would participate in some way. Mayor Martinez asked for clarification of the policy. Waido stated it was a Council decision regarding whether to participate. Councilmember Kastein asked if the zoning could wait if the Growth Management Area expansion was approved. Waido stated Council could provide direction to that effect. He stated the proposed zoning was the land use pattern adopted by the Council less than a year ago with the update to City Plan. He stated staff would need some direction from Council about changing the land use pattern. Frank stated the Council could also entertain changes to the Structure Plan at the time of annexation and development based on new information or a development plan. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney, stated when the Structure Plan Map was amended that it would have to show the proposed land uses and that this would serve as the foundation for future zoning upon annexation. Byrne a9 March 15, 2005 stated if the Council wanted to "signal flexibility" in the City's discussions with the County that this would help in the discussions with the County. Councilmember Bertschy asked about the transfer of development units (TDU) program. Waido stated much of the area showed a higher residential density than was currently allowed under County zoning and that to achieve the planned residential densities the property owner or developer had to seek additional units elsewhere. Councilmember Bertschy asked if transfer of development units had occurred. Waido stated many transfers of development units had occurred and that there were still undeveloped properties and some properties within the corridor that could potentially send their units to areas north of the reservoir. Councilmember Bertschy stated those were "property rights." Byrne replied in the affirmative and stated the transferred development units were paid for in the open market and that the City accepted the density and agreed to provide the services. He stated the development potential in the area from which the units were transferred was either eliminated or reduced in perpetuity. Councilmember Bertschy stated the Resolution was indicating that the City would move forward to work out a new intergovernmental agreement rather than actually expanding the Growth Management Area. He asked what the process would be to move in that direction. Waido stated the GMA expansion would require approval by the City Council and Larimer County Commissioners. He stated once approval was received staff would accomplish the necessary technical changes to the documents to make the formal GMA boundary change. He stated at this staff was requesting permission for the Mayor to sign the amended intergovernmental agreement and that the County would hold a hearing on the matter within several months. He stated Council would be asked to approve an amendment to City Plan to change the official Growth Management Area boundary for the Structure Plan. Councilmember Bertschy asked about the intergovernmental agreement with Loveland which provided that Loveland would not expand beyond County Road 30. Byrne stated Loveland could not expand beyond that point without violating their intergovernmental agreements with Fort Collins and Larimer County. He stated the Loveland -Fort Collins agreement had another four to five years to run and that the Loveland-Larimer County agreement went until 2014. Councilmember Bertschy asked if there was a similar agreement with Windsor. Byrne stated the Fort Collins -Windsor agreement provided that Fort Collins would not annex east of the Interstate and that Windsor would not annex west of the Interstate. He stated Windsor was party to a four-way agreement with Fort Collins, Loveland and Larimer County relating to the cooperative planning area. Frank stated the Windsor-Larimer County agreement provided that Windsor would not annex into other Growth Management Areas or the cooperative planning area. Mayor Martinez asked Mr. Barnett if Loveland had indicated that it planned to expand into that area and had made promises relating to that development. Mr. Barnett stated Loveland had not made any promises at this point. 30 March 15, 2005 Mayor Martinez asked Mr. Barnett if Loveland had given any "hint" on this. Mr. Barnett stated there had been conversations with the City of Loveland and that Loveland should answer that question themselves. He stated he was not certain that Loveland was "fully cognizant" of the latest agreement that had been signed. (Secretary's Note: The Council took a recess at this point.) Mayor Martinez asked if staff had any conversations with Mr. Barnett about Loveland's intentions. Waido stated it was his understanding that the property owners were currently engaged in a study and cost/benefit analysis of what the properties could potentially generate in terms of tax revenues and what the properties would require in terms of services. He stated the property owners would be submitting that to the City of Loveland. He noted that he had not confirmed whether the City of Loveland was receptive to receiving that type of report. Councilmember Tharp suggested asking Loveland what its involvement had been on this matter. She asked about the purpose of the "cooperative planning area." Waido stated the cooperative planning area was set aside as a potential future expansion of a Growth Management Area. He stated the 1999 agreement between the four parties identified the Fossil Creek cooperative planning area as a logical extension of the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. Councilmember Tharp asked which areas of the potential expansion area were already developed, developable or committed for open space. Waido presented visual information showing the areas acquired or reserved as open space, developable areas, and developed areas. Mayor Martinez asked if this area could be declared by a jurisdiction to be a "blighted area" under the current law. Waido replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adopt Resolution 2005-028. Councilmember Kastein offered a friendly amendment to include language regarding an understanding that in subsequent negotiations with the County and landowners there may be modifications to the Exhibit. He stated his intent related to the permitted uses rather than the size of the GMA to provide some latitude and a "bargaining chip" in negotiations. Councilmember Tharp asked staff to respond to Councilmember Kastein's suggestion. Byrne stated it could be helpful to have some flexibility in discussions with the County over what the exact boundaries of some zoning districts would be. Councilmember Tharp stated would be acceptable if that was Councilmember Kastein's intent. City Attorney Roy requested clarification of the friendly amendment. Councilmember Kastein stated the friendly amendment might not be needed. He stated the intent was to allow latitude in discussions with the County. City Attorney Roy asked if the intent was that the boundary itself to be flexible. 31 March 15, 2005 Councilmember Bertschy asked if Exhibit A was intended to show detail. Waido stated the intent was not to show detailed land use patterns but to show the boundary change. Councilmember Bertschy stated he did not believe that the friendly amendment was needed. City Attorney Roy stated he did not believe that it was needed. Frank stated Council consensus appeared to be that the details would still be up for discussion and that staff understood the direction. Councilmember Kastein withdrew the offer of a friendly amendment. He stated the City had a responsibility to expand the GMA to include this area because Fort Collins was in closest proximity and had the "best planning resources." He stated the City "needed to be part of this" and that this would further work that had already been done. He stated the City was working to cooperate with the State and other cities and hoped to change perceptions about the City being anti -development. Councilmember Bertschy stated it was important that the City uphold its part in existing intergovernmental agreements. Councilmember Tharp stated the City should move ahead with this because it matched the IGA, it was a logical expansion of the GMA, the City had made a major investment in the separator concept in that area, and Highway 392 was a major entryway into the City. Mayor Martinez favored moving ahead with this and stated this was a logical step. He stated the City had worked hard on the development review process and would continue to do so. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Kastein, Martinez and Tharp. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 2005-025 Appointing Arbitrators to the Collective Bargaining Panel Pursuant to Section 2-624 of the City Code, Adopted The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Citizen -Initiated Ordinance No. 1, 2004, which was approved by City voters in April of 2004, created Section 2-624 of the City Code which provides for the establishment of a permanent panel of arbitrators whose role will be to hear requests for binding arbitration. This Resolution establishes the panel of arbitrators. 32 March 15, 2005 BACKGROUND City Council submitted Citizen -Initiated Ordinance No. 1, 2004 Relating to Collective Bargaining for Police Employees to the electorate on August 10, 2004, at which time voters approved the ballot measure. In accordance with the Ordinance, petitions were distributed among bargaining unit members to nominate a representative. The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) Lodge No. 3 received a sufficient number ofnominations, and a subsequent secret ballot ofbargaining unit members was conducted by the American Arbitration Association. The FOP was elected to serve as the sole representative of the bargaining unit. Section 2-624 of the City Code provides that the City Council will establish a permanent panel of arbitrators whose role will be to hear requestsfor binding arbitration. This Resolution establishes the panel of arbitrators. If the City and the FOP are unable to reach an agreement on the terms of a collective bargaining contract, an arbitrator from the panel will be selected to resolve the impasse. The process of selecting an arbitrator from the panel is described in detail in section 2- 624 of the City Code. " Councilmember Tharp stated she withdrew this item from the Consent Calendar because the information provided to the Council provided the names of people without providing information about qualifications or the selection process. She stated a memo had been provided indicating how the Request for Proposals solicited applications from interested and qualified arbitrators. She stated the initial information asked Council to "rubber stamp" what had been done by staff without any explanation. She stated with the additional information that had been provided she could support adoption of the Resolution. Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adopt Resolution 2005-025. Mayor Martinez thanked staff for the hard work on putting this together. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Kastein, Martinez and Tharp. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Councilmember Kastein stated the Legislative Review Committee's agenda indicated that there would be a discussion about RTA legislation. He pointed out that the RTA legislation was being refined to add some limits and some oversight from CDOT. 33 March 15, 2005 Adjournment Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adjourn the meeting to 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 6, 2005. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Kastein, Martinez and Tharp. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: 34