HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-11/20/2001-RegularNovember 20, 2001
• 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, November 20,
2001, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Tharp, Wanner
and Weitkunat.
Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Krajicek, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Betty Maloney,1309 City Park Avenue, expressed Bennett school neighborhood concerns regarding
a proposed development in their area and inaccurate minutes of neighborhood meetings.
Valerie McIntyre,1217 Springfield Drive, spoke regarding the Bennett Bungalows development and
expressed concerns regarding the lack of a traffic study, the high density of development in the area
and the need for a park on this land.
• Al Baccili, 520 Galaxy Court, spoke in opposition to the vendor's fee for sales tax collection and
to sales tax on food.
John Gascoyne, 718 West Mountain Avenue, stated that bicyclists do not have enough time to cross
Timberline on the bicycle trail east on Drake. He spoke regarding the need to correct this situation.
Laurie Brunswig, 1901 Ridgewood Road, asked that the open space just north of Bennett School be
kept as open space or a park. She spoke regarding the impact of high density and rapid growth in
rental properties on the neighborhood.
Sharon Vangorder, 403 Riddle Drive, spoke regarding the proposed Bennett Bungalows
development and traffic and speeding concerns in the school area. She asked that any development
be compatible with the neighborhood and the school.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Tharp spoke regarding the Bennett neighborhood park issues, noting that the
development issue is totally separate. She stated that the Westside Neighborhood Plan, which was
developed with substantial citizen input, stated that three additional neighborhood pocket parks
should be developed within the planning area and that one of these pocket parks should be across
from Bennett Elementary School. She noted that because this is a developed area, there are no
• 253
November 20; 2001
parkland development fees collected to generate revenue for the park and that the neighborhood plan
suggests other options for funding the park. She stated that information obtained from staff
indicates that this area is adequately served with existing parks and that funding from the Parks
Department is not available to purchase land and develop it. She stated that the Westside
Neighborhood Plan has led citizens to expect that there will be a park in that area and that the plan
also includes conflicting information about potential development. She stated that there is confusion
regarding Council's intention regarding whether this parcel should be a park or a development. She
stated that staff has indicated that the land has not been purchased and that the City has not pursued
a joint purchase with the school district. She stated that she would propose during Other Business
that the Council direct the City Manager to delay any action on the part of the Zoning Administrator
on this project until the wishes of City Council are clarified.
Councilmember Bertschy requested a brief staff report regarding the Drake/Timberline bicycle trail
crossing.
Councilmember Bertschy requested a memo regarding the status of the Bennett Bungalows project.
Councilmember Tharp expressed concern that the minutes of the Bennett neighborhood meetings
do not reflect some of the comments regarding the proposed park presented at the meetings.
Councilmember Kastein stated that he is interested in looking at the issues regarding a pocket park
in the Bennett school area.
Councilmember Kastein stated that he does not support changing the City's position regarding the
vendor's fee and noted that substantial research has been done on this issue. He stated that the
vendor's fee exists for a purpose and that this is a legitimate process.
Councilmember Hamrick stated that he would like to see more information regarding the Bennett
park issue.
Councilmember Hamrick stated that the Council has discussed the vendor's fee issue and has
concluded that it is appropriate to leave the fee as it is at this time.
Mayor Martinez stated that the Council has not expressed an interest in looking further at the
vendor's fee. He noted that this issue has been researched and discussed a number of times.
Aeenda Review
City Manager Fischbach stated that item #17 First Reading of Ordinance No. 207, 2001, Amending
Section 2-474 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Increase from Seven to Nine the Number of
Commissioners of the Fort Collins Housing Authority was being withdrawn from the agenda.
254
•
•
November 20, 2001
Councilmember Hamrick withdrew item #16 First Reading of Ordinance No. 206, 2001, Amending
Section 2-575 of the City Code Relating to Councilmember Compensation from the Consent
Calendar.
CONSENT CALENDAR
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 162, 2001 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund for Police Services Drunk Driving Enforcement Program
The Colorado Department of Transportation has awarded Fort Collins Police Services a 2002
Law Enforcement Assistance Fund (L.E.A.F.) grant in the amount of $35,000 to help reduce
the number of drunk drivers in Fort Collins. Ordinance No. 162, 2001, which was
unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 6, 2001, provides overtime
compensation for Fort Collins Police Officers who are involved in Operations, which
focuses on the detection and arrest of drunk drivers.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 163 2001 Authorizin an Option to Lease and a
Subsequent Lease of. City -Owned PropertaCity Park North Ballfield to Cricket Colorado
Property Company. for the Location of Antenna Equipment and Related Facilities Along
With Associated Easements.
a
Cricket Colorado Property Company, a division of Cricket Communication ("Cricket")
contacted the Parks Division to discuss the possible lease of land for an antenna and related
equipment to enhance its cellular phone service. The property to be leased and a related
utility easement are located in City Park, north of the ballfields. Council has approved
similar leases for Sprint and Voice Stream in the same area. Through a series of
negotiations, staff has developed a proposed Site Lease with Option that meet the needs of
the City and Cricket. Ordinance No. 163, 2001, was unanimously adopted on First Reading
on November 6, 2001.
Second Reading of Ordinance No 164 2001 Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent
Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands for a Natural Area Along Spring Creek on a Portion
of Lot 1 of Shadowbrook P.U.D.
Over the past several years the Brookhaven Homeowner's Association has approached the
City inquiring whether the City was interested in purchasing land along Spring Creek as the
creek moves through its Planned Unit Development. In June of this year, the Association
presented a formal proposal to sell 2.484 acres of land along Spring Creek to the Natural
Resources Department for $10,000. Staff has reviewed and approves the proposal.
However, due to the restrictive nature of the Associations' Condominium Declaration for the
conveyance of property, the Associations' Board of Directors has requested the City acquire
0 255
November 20, 2001
the property through eminent domain. Without eminent domain, all Brookhaven
Homeowners (approximately 50 homeowners) in the Association and any lending
institutions holding deeds of trust on each condominium would need to execute the
conveyance document pursuant to the Bylaws of the Association. Ordinance No. 164, 2001,
which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 6, 2001, authorizes the use
of eminent domain proceedings to acquire the property.
10. Items Relating to Appropriation of Grant Revenues for Police Services.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 198, 2001, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in
the General Fund for Police Services and Authorizing the Transfer of Matching
Funds Previously Appropriated in the Police Services Operating Budget to the Grant
Project.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 199, 2001, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant
Revenue in the General Fund for Police Services for the Youth Community/Family
Conferencing Program.
Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG): Fort Collins Police Services has been
awarded a grant under the U.S. Department of Justice, Local Law Enforcement Block Grant
(LLEBG) program in the amount of $75,275 for the procurement of equipment and
technology relating to basic law enforcement functions. A local cash match of $8,364 is
required and will be met by the existing Police Services budget. The grant funds will be
used to purchase computer, video, and photo imaging equipment, as well as a flexible
articulating borescope for SWAT use.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 200, 2001, Appropriating Prior Year Use Tax Carryover
Reserves for the Manufacturer's Use Tax Rebate Program.
In March 1996, City Council approved a temporary rebate program for use tax paid on
manufacturing equipment. The program was amended in February 1999 to include several
changes suggested by staff and the manufacturing community. The goal of the program is
to maintain the local economic base by providing modest tax relief to manufacturing
concerns located in Fort Collins. During 2000, the City of Fort Collins received $3,438,535
in use tax receipts from eligible companies within the Standard Industrial Code classification
for manufacturers. This constitutes 65% of all use tax paid by local businesses in 2000.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 201, 2001, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves Designated
for Community Park Improvements in the Capital Improvement Expansion Fund and
Neighborhood Parkland Fund Prior Year Reserves for Transfer to the Building Community
November 20, 2001
• Choices Capital Projects Fund Fossil Creek Community Park Capital Project for Use With
Existing Appropriations to Construct a Maintenance Facility.
Neighborhood and community park impact fees are assessed on new residential dwellings
and these fees are used to build new neighborhood and community park improvements
described in the current approved plan. The current Parks and Recreation Policy Plan
identifies the need for central maintenance facilities for these neighborhood and community
parks. Fossil Creek Community Park will have a maintenance facility that will be used to
maintain that park, and will also be used to maintain a future 50-acre community park and
seven neighborhood parks in the southeast area of the city. Funding for Fossil Creek
Community Park cannot be use to pay for the maintenance facilities for the other parks
because this funding was approved by the voters for Fossil Creek Park. The neighborhood
and community park impact fees for maintenance facilities will be used to enlarge the
maintenance facility at Fossil Creek Park. The larger facility will provide adequate space
to store equipment and materials for the other southeast parks and to accommodate the needs
of the crews that will maintain those parks. Enlarging the Fossil Creek maintenance facility
is the most efficient, cost-effective way to provide maintenance facilities for these southeast
parks.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 202 2001 Authorizing the Conveyance of Non Exclusive
• Utility. Drainage and Temporary Construction Easements at Fort Collins Loveland
Municipal Airport for the Loveland -Fort Collins Industrial Airoark 9th Subdivision
The Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland each own a 50% share of the Fort Collins -Loveland
Municipal Airport. Centre Point LLC has received approval of the Loveland -Fort Collins
Industrial Airpark 9th Subdivision from the Loveland Planning Commission, but is required
to obtain the proposed utility, drainage and temporary construction easements in order to
develop the Subdivision. Centre Point has agreed to improve the Airport retention pond by
increasing its size. The improvements to be constructed in the easements will also be
beneficial for the Airport.
Section 23-111 of the City Code provides that the City Council must authorize the sale, or
conveyance of real property owned by the City following a determination that to do so is in
the best interest of the City.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No 203 2001 Authorizing the Conveyance of Two Non-
exclusive Easements in Connection with the Community Horticulture Center Project
The development of the City's Community Horticulture Center site requires the conveyance
of two easements: (1) an easement for the new location of the Sherwood Lateral Ditch,
which will be moved from its current location; and (2) an emergency access easement for
0 257
November 20, 2001
Poudre Fire Authority. The Community Horticulture Center project is currently in (Type 1)
development review and a public hearing date has been set for December 5, 2001. The
anticipated construction start date for the project is expected to be late February of 2002.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 204.2001. Making Various Amendments to the City of Fort
Collins Land Use Code.
Staff has identified a variety of proposed changes, additions and clarifications in the Fall
biannual update of the Land Use Code. The Planning and Zoning Board will consider the
proposed changes at its November 15, 2001 meeting. The Board's recommendation will be
provided under separate cover.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 206, 2001, Amending Section 2-575 of the City Code
Relating to Councilmember Compensation.
Article II, Section 3 of the City Charter provides that the compensation of Councilmembers
shall be adjusted annually for inflation in accordance with the Denver/Boulder Consumer
Price Index. In 2001, Councilmembers were compensated $550 per month, and the Mayor
received $825 per month.
This Ordinance amends Section 2-575 of the City Code to set the 2002 compensation of \
Councilmembers at $575 and the compensation of the Mayor at $860.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 207, 2001, Amending Section 2-474 of the Code of the City
of Fort Collins to Increase from Seven to Nine the Number of Commissioners of the Fort
Collins Housing Authority.
The Fort Collins Housing Authority has been established by the Fort Collins City Council,
pursuant to the provisions of the Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.) for the purpose of
providing affordable, safe and sanitary housing for low income families in our community.
C.R.S. §29-4-205(3)(a), allows for as many as nine members of the Board of Commissioners
of the Housing Authority. The current Commissioners respectfully request a revision to City
Code to allow for the appointment of nine Commissioners. The Commissioners believe that
the addition of two Commissioners will allow for more expertise in the areas of development
and financing of affordable housing.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No 208 2001 Amending Section 13-23 of the City Code
Concerning Appeals to the Human Relations Commission.
Section 13-16 of the City Code provides that the Human Relations Commission ("HRC")
will hear appeals from decisions of the City Manager that find no probable cause related to
an alleged violation of the Human Rights Code. As currently worded, Section 13-23 of the
258
November 20, 2001
• City Code requires the HRC to conduct an appeal hearing within 30 days of the filing of the
appeal with the City Manager's Office. Over the past couple of years, this 30-day time limit
has been difficult to meet because the HRC's regular meetings are monthly and obtaining a
quorum for a special meeting is sometimes difficult to achieve.
The HRC has requested that the 30-day time limit be extended to 50 days. This request takes
the following into consideration: there are sometimes as many as 35 days between regular
meetings of the HRC; the parties to the appeal hearing need time to prepare for the hearing
(a minimum of 10 days is usually necessary); and it generally takes several days from the
filing of an appeal to coordinate the hearing date and location among the appealing parties,
City support staff, and the 9 members of the HRC. When these factors are considered, the
30-day time limit can be difficult to meet. The additional time would allow for more
scheduling flexibility while still ensuring a reasonably, timely hearing.
The Ordinance also adds a sentence which allows the HRC to adopt additional procedures
for the conduct of the appeal hearing (such as those regulating the appeal notices,
documentary evidence, witness statements, pre -hearing procedures, burden of proof, hearing
procedures, decision of the commission on the merits, notification of decision, as long as
those procedures do not conflict with the City Code or Charter). The procedures are intended
to help ensure a fair yet efficient process for the conduct of the hearing.
• 19. Resolution 2001-156 Approving the Execution of an Agreement to Modify and Amend an
Intergovemmental Agreement Concernin the he Implementation of an "E911" Emergency
Telephone Service.
The City of Fort Collins is a party to an Intergovernmental Agreement ("IGA") dated
November 14, 1990 which established a separate legal entity called the Larimer Emergency
Telephone Authority ("LETA"). LETA is responsible for administering the operation of the
emergency telephone service program (911) and defining the manner in which each of the
parties will participate in the authority.
On July 16, 2001, the LETA Board of Directors approved an agreement to modify and
amend the original IGA. The proposed modification will add the towns of Windsor and
Johnstown as signatories to the IGA with regard to those portions of Larimer County now
included within the respective boundaries of those municipalities. It also provides for
representation for Windsor and Johnstown on the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority
(LETA) Board through the members designated in the IGA as representatives of the small
towns in Larimer County that are signatories to the IGA. The Council approved similar
changes in 1999, which added the Windsor-Severence Fire Protection District and Colorado
State University as signatories to the IGA.
0 259
November 20, 2001
20. Resolution 2001-157 Adopting the City of Fort Collins General Employees' Retirement Plan
as Amended and Restated Effective December 31, 2001.
The City of Fort Collins General Employees' Retirement Plan (the Plan) provides retirement
benefits for approximately 117 retirees and beneficiaries. The Plan has 407 active members
and 114 former Members that have vested benefits as of the last valuation report.
Over the past few years the General Employees' Retirement Committee (the Committee),
with assistance from the Plan's actuary and special legal counsel, identified and studied a
number of changes to the Plan. The changes clarify, explain, and redefine some of the
provisions of the Plan to conform to Intemal Revenue Code changes, provisions of the
Colorado Revised Statutes, and otherwise incorporate certain administrative practices. This
is the first Plan restatement since 1992. Since that time, there have been several changes in
the Intemal Revenue Code however, the deadline for their implementation has been
extended. Earlier this year, the Intemal Revenue Service determined that, to remain tax -
qualified, plans such as the City's should have the Plan changes made by the end of 2001.
The Resolution also amends the Plan for a change to the definition of Eligible Retirement
Plan to include rollover distributions to other types of Plans and IRAs upon the employee's
termination of employment. Under the IRS guidelines, this change cannot go into effect
until 2002.
21. Resolution 2001-158 Expressing the City Council's Endorsement of the Larimer County
Omen Lands Master Plan and Urging the Approval of Said Plan by the Board of County
Commissioners of Larimer County.
The development of the Larimer County Open Lands Master Plan has been a year -long
citizen driven process. Considerable time and effort have been expended to ensure that
County residents including City of Fort Collins residents had ample opportunity to give input
and receive information about the master plan. This effort is reflected in the large amount
of public participation received throughout the planning process.
22. Resolution 2001-159 Amending the Transfort Service Plan.
The Transfort Strategic Plan is a plan for the development of transit services from 2002
through 2010. On June 19, 2001 Council adopted the Transfort Service Plan as an Element
of the Transfort Strategic Operating Plan. Staff is requesting that City Council amend the
Service Plan Element to include transit services on the fixed route system of routes 9 and 14
and to include evening service on the paratransit system. Both of these changes are included
in Transfort's proposed 2002-2003 budget and the implementation of these changes are
contingent on City Council's adoption of the City's proposed 2002-2003 budget.
M-If
•
•
November 20, 2001
23. Routine Deeds and Easements.
A. Easement for construction and maintenance of public utilities to replace a failed
primary electric cable, from Mary G. McVicker, located at 707 Rocky Road.
Monetary consideration: $1500.
B. Easement for construction and maintenance of public utilities to underground
overhead electric system, from William E. and Cathy L. Hoffman, located 225 Wood
Street. Monetary consideration: $125.
**End Consent Calendar**
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
Second Reading of Ordinance No 162 2001 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund for Police Services Drunk Driving Enforcement Program
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No 163 2001 Authorizing an Option to Lease and a
Subsequent Lease of. City -Owned Property at City Park North Ballfield to Cricket Colorado
Property Company, for the Location of Antenna Equipment and Related Facilities Along
With Associated Easements.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No 164 2001 Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent
Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands for a Natural Area Along Spring CIeek on a Portion
of Lot 1 of Shadowbrook P.U.D.
28. Second Reading of Ordinance No 190 2001 Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort
Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the
Johnson Property Rezoning
34. Items Relating to the Cathy Fromme Natural Area First and Second Annexations
A. Cathy Fromme Natural Area First Annexation.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 177, 2001, Annexing Property Known as
the Cathy Fromme Natural Area First Annexation.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 178, 2001, Amending the Zoning Map of
the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property
Included in the Cathy Fromme Natural Area First Annexation.
0 261
November 20, 2001
B. Cathy Fromme Natural Area Second Annexation.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 179, 2001, Annexing Property Known as
the Cathy Fromme Natural Area Second Annexation.
2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 180, 2001, Amending the Zoning Map of
the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property
Included in the Cathy Fromme Natural Area Second Annexation.
35. Items Relating to the Coyote Ridge First, Second, Third, Fourth. Fifth. and Sixth
Annexations.
A. Coyote Ridge First Annexation:
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 165, 2001, Annexing Property Known as the
Coyote Ridge First Annexation.
2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 166, 2001, Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Coyote Ridge First Annexation.
B. Coyote Ridge Second Annexation:
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 167, 2001, Annexing Property Known as the
Coyote Ridge Second Annexation.
2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 168, 2001, Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Coyote Ridge Second Annexation.
C. Coyote Ridge Third Annexation:
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 169, 2001, Annexing Property Known as the
Coyote Ridge Third Annexation.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 170,2001, Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Coyote Ridge Third Annexation.
D. Coyote Ridge Fourth Annexation:
262
November 20, 2001
. 1. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 171, 2001, Annexing Property Known as the
Coyote Ridge Fourth Annexation.
2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 172, 2001, Amending the Zoning Map ofthe City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Coyote Ridge Fourth Annexation.
E. Coyote Ridge Fifth Annexation:
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 173, 2001, Annexing Property Known as the
Coyote Ridge Fifth Annexation.
2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 174, 2001, Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Coyote Ridge Fifth Annexation.
F. Coyote Ridge Sixth Annexation:
1. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 175, 2001, Annexing Property Known as the
Coyote Ridge Sixth Annexation.
• 2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 176, 2001, Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Coyote Ridge Sixth Annexation.
36. Items Relating to the Fossil Creek Wetlands Natural Area Second Annexation
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 181, 2001, Annexing Property Known as the
Fossil Creek Wetlands Natural Area Second Annexation.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 182, 2001, Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Fossil Creek Wetlands Natural Area Second Annexation.
37. Items Relating to the Pineridge Fifth Annexation
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 183, 2001, Annexing Property Known as the
Pineridge Fifth Annexation.
0 263
November 20, 2001
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 184, 2001, Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Pineridge Fifth Annexation.
38. Items Relating to the Westchase I and II Annexation.
A. Items Relating to the Westchase I Annexation:
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 185, 2001, Annexing Property Known as the
Westchase I Annexation.
2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 186,2001, Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Westchase I Annexation.
B. Westchase II Annexation:
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 187, 2001, Annexing Property Known as the
Westchase II Annexation.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 188, 2001, Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Westchase II Annexation.
39. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 191, 2001, Amendingthe he City Code to Adjust the Capital
Improvement Expansion Neighborhood Parkland and Street Oversizing Fees for Increases
Due to Increases in the Cost of Construction and Raw Water.
40. Items Relatin@ to the 2002 Downtown Development Authority Budget.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 195, 2001, Appropriating Operating Funds and
Approving the Budget of the Downtown Development Authority for the Fiscal Year
Beginning January 1, 2002, and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Downtown
Development Authority for 2002.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 196, 2001, Appropriating Revenue in the
Downtown Development Authority Debt Service Fund for Payment of Debt Service
for the Year 2002.
November 20, 2001
• 41. Items Relating to Utility Rates for 2002.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 192, 2001, Amending Chapter 26, Article III,
Division 4 of the City Code Relating to User Rates and Charges for Water.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 193, 2001, Amending Chapter 26, Article IV,
Division 4 of the City Code Relating to Wastewater Fees and Charges.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 194, 2001, Amending Chapter 26, Article VII,
Division 2 of the City Code Relating to Stormwater Fees.
42. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 197, 2001 Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance
Relating to the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2002 and Adopting the Budget for
the Fiscal Years BeginningJanuary anuary 1 2002 and Ending December 31 2003 and Fixing the
Mill Levy for Fiscal Year 2002.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
10. Items Relating to Appropriation of Grant Revenues for Police Services.
• A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 198, 2001, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in
the General Fund for Police Services and Authorizing the Transfer of Matching
Funds Previously Appropriated in the Police Services Operating Budget to the Grant
Project.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 199, 2001, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant
Revenue in the General Fund for Police Services for the Youth Community/Family
Conferencing Program.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 200 2001 Appropriating Prior Year Use Tax Carryover
Reserves for the Manufacturer's Use Tax Rebate Program
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 201, 2001 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves Desi ng ated
for Community Park Improvements in the Canital Improvement Expansion Fund and
Neighborhood Parkland Fund Prior Year Reserves for Transfer to the Building Community
Choices Canital Projects Fund Fossil Creek Community Park Capital Proiect for Use With
Existing Appropriations to Construct a Maintenance Facility.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 202 2001 Authorizing the Conveyance of Non Exclusive
Utility, Drainage and Temporary Construction Easements at Fort Collins Loveland
Municipal Airport for the Loveland -Fort Collins Industrial Airpark 9th Subdivision
0 265
November 20, 2001
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 203, 2001, Authorizing the Conveyance of Two Non-
exclusive Easements in Connection with the Community Horticulture Center Project.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 204, 2001, Making Various Amendments to the City of Fort
Collins Land Use Code.
16. First Reading -of Ordinance No. 206, 2001, Amending Section 2-575 of the City Code
Relatins to Councilmember Compensation.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 208, 2001, Amending Section 13-23 of the City Code
Concerning Anneals to the Human Relations Commission.
31. First Reading of Ordinance No. 209, 2001. Amending Section 2-581 of the Cj y Code and
Setting the Salary of the City Attorney.
32. First Reading of Ordinance No. 210, 2001, Amending Section 2-596 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the City Manager.
33. First Reading of Ordinance No. 211 2001 Amending Section 2-606 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the Municipal Judge.
41. First Reading of Ordinance No 205 2001 Adopting the 2002 Classified Employees Pay and
Classification Plan.
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, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Tharp, Wanner and
Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Consent Calendar Follow-up
Councilmember Bertschy spoke regarding item #15 First Reading of Ordinance No. 204, 2001,
Making Various Amendments to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code and noted that City Plan
receives periodic review and updates.
266
November 20, 2001
• Ordinance No. 206, 2001
Amending Section 2-575 of the City Code Relating to
Councilmember Compensation, Ado ted on First Reading.
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
Article II, Section 3 ofthe City Charter provides that the compensation of Councilmembers shall be
adjusted annually for inflation in accordance with the Denver/Boulder Consumer Price Index. In
2001, Councilmembers were compensated$550permonth, andthe Mayor received$825per month.
This Ordinance amends Section 2-575 of the City Code to set the 2002 compensation of
Councilmembers at $575 and the compensation of the Mayor at $860.
BACKGROUND:
At the April 8, 1997 election, the electorate of the City of Fort Collins approved an amendment to
the City Charter setting the monthly compensation of Councilmembers and the Mayor at $500 and
$750, respectively. In addition, the Charter amendment added language requiring the amounts of
• Council compensation to be adjusted annually for inflation in accordance with the Denver/Boulder
Consumer Price Index. The history of Council compensation since the first adjustment for inflation
was made is as follows:
Year Mayor Councilmember
1999 $770 $515
2000 $790 $525
2001 $825 $550
The 2001 compensation amounts, adjusted for inflation in accordance with the Denver/Boulder
Consumer Price Index are $575 per month for Councilmembers and S860 per month for the
Mayor. "
Councilmember Hamrick stated that he withdrew this item from the Consent Calendar to ensure that
the public understands that the change in Council compensation was given public review because
it is a Charter provision. He stated that it is important for the public to understand how much
Council is paid. He requested information regarding other expenses paid for Councilmembers. He
stated that further review might be needed after this information is obtained.
Councilmember Tharp stated that she does not agree with an automatic annual inflationary increase
for Council compensation although this is a Charter provision.
0 267
November 20, 2001
Councilmember Hamrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Bertschy, to adopt
Ordinance No. 206, 2001 on First Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays:
Councilmember Tharp.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Staff Reports
City Manager Fischbach reported on a meeting with the Humane Society that focused on the
contract. He stated that the Humane Society had requested a 106% increase in funding due to
changes in its accounting procedures and increases in pay levels. He stated that after reviewing the
information from the Humane Society that staff has concluded that the accounting principles are
sound and that pay increases are warranted but that such a large increase in one year is impossible
for the community. He stated that staff is investigating the City's options with regard to animal
control services. He stated that staff met with the Humane Society to explore a short term extension
of the current contract until it is determined whether or not a partnership agreement can be reached.
He stated that efforts are being made to work out an agreement that both parties can support. He
stated that regardless of the outcome of these negotiations that animal control services will continue
for Fort Collins.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Kastein reported on Growth Management Committee discussions regarding the
status of the East Mulberry Corridor Plan, utility standards for compact development, and long range
transportation funding for adequate public facilities.
Mayor Martinez reported on Poudre School District Liaison Committee discussions regarding a new
high school and City park.
Ordinance No. 190, 2001
Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by
Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known
as the Johnson Property Rezoning Adopted on Second Reading:
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
Ordinance No. 190, 2001, was adopted by a vote of 6-1, on November 6, 2001, amending the Zoning
Map of the City of Fort Collins to rezone approximately 217 acres of property located on the
northeast corner of Timberline and Drake Roads. The property is currently zoned T— Transitional.
November 20, 2001
• The Structure Plan designation for the property is a combination oflndustrial, Urban Estate, Low
Density Mixed -Use Residential, Medium Density Mixed -Use Residential, and Neighborhood
Commercial Center. The applicant is proposing to amend the Structure Plan to change the
configuration of the Industrial designation, remove the Neighborhood Commercial Center
designation from the site, slightly modify the boundary line between Medium Density Mixed -Use
Residential and Low Density Mixed -Use Residential, and to slightly modify the boundary line
between Urban Estate and Low Density Mixed -Use Residential. The applicant is also requesting
to rezone the property to a combination ofLMN, MMN, I, and UE to correspond to the requested
Structure Plan amendment.
The Ordinance rezoning the property has been changed from the version presented to Council on
November 6, 2001, in that the new version includes the legal descriptions of the zone district
boundary configurations as directed by Council at that meeting. "
City Manager Fischbach stated that this appears on the discussion agenda because there was a 6-1
vote on First Reading.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adopt
Ordinance No. 190, 2001 on Second Reading.
• Councilmember Hamrick stated that he would not support the ordinance because of the health and
safety issues relating to the new development and because a portion of the zoning is in opposition
to what was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board. He stated that he preferred the
Board's recommended option that included River Corridor zoning for the area closer to the
wastewater treatment plant.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Kastein, Martinez, Tharp,
Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Hamrick.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Resolution 2001-160
Adopting the Northern Colorado Regional
Communities I-25 Corridor Plan Adonted as Amended
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
Eight regional communities have joined together to prepare the Northern Colorado Regional
Communities I-25 Corridor Plan (the "Plan'). The Corridor encompasses an area roughly I mile
on either side of the 1-25 right-of-way for a distance of 32 miles from 2 miles south of Highway 56
269
November 20, 2001
(Berthoud exit) to County Road 58 just north of Fort Collins. This Plan establishes a famework
for the communities to work together on issues of regional significance including unified quality of
development, a local network offuture multi -modal transportation improvements, and protection
of signif cant natural areas and open lands within the Corridor. If adopted, the Plan will become
an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
BACKGROUND:
Interstate 25 is starting to take on an economic life of its own. While most communities in Northern
Colorado are excited about the economic benefits that growth in the corridor brings, they are also
realizing that without caref 1paanning,itbringsothercostsandunanticipatedconsequences. These
include the potential for unattractive development, inadequate transportation systems, impact on
future transit opportunities, and loss of our unique regional character and qualities.
Because of the significance of this corridor, the following jurisdictions have, in an unprecedented
display of intergovernmental cooperation, joined together to prepare the Northern Colorado
Regional Communities I-25 Corridor Plan:
• Lorimer County
• Fort Collins
• Timnath
• Windsor
• Loveland
• Weld County
• Johnstown
• Berthoud
• North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council
• Colorado Department of Transportation.
From its inception, the objectives ofthe planning effortfor the 1-25 corridor have always been clear,
and all endorsed a resolution that established their commitment to this effort. It was also agreed
by the participating jurisdictions that the Plan would not seek to address land use patterns on a
local or regional scale; those decisions would be left to each individual community. Fort Collins
is currently addressing land use patterns in the corridor through the subarea planningprocess. On
January 18, 2000, the Council, by resolution (see attached) agreed to the components of the Plan,
and agreed to work in a spirit of cooperation toward completion and implementation of the Plan.
The elements of the Plan include:
• A summary of an extensive inventory of existing and future conditions (pages 4-7 of the Plan)
PKII
November 20, 2001
• • A set of clearly defined issues that provided direction for the overall Plan and ensured that the
participating communities generally agreed upon the problems to be addressed by the Plan and
to identify both shared and conflicting values in different areas ofthe Corridor (pages 8-12 of
the Plan)
• A Vision for the Corridor (pages 13-16 of the Plan)
• A set of Design Principles to achieve the Vision (pages 17-18 of the Plan)
• An overview of the Design Standards (pages 19-21 ofthe Plan)
• An inventory of open lands and natural areas in the Corridor, and a set of policies that set a
minimum level ofprotection of open lands (pages 22-29 of the Plan)
(NOTE: Adoption ofthe Design Standards is not being considered as part ofthe Resolution,
but rather will be forthcoming aspart ofa 'package " of implementation actions for the I-25
Subarea Plan)
• A summary offuture multi -modal transportation activity in the Corridor and a Conceptual Plan
for local network transportation improvements (pages 30 — 42 of the Plan)
• A list ofrecommended, future actions to be undertaken by the communities (pages 43 — 46 ofthe
Plan)
This Plan, if embraced regionally, establishes a framework for the communities to work together
on issues of regional significance, such as transportation and open lands. By adopting the Plan,
the City, as the largest community in the region, will be seen as endorsing a regional approach to
. problem solving in the Corridor.
Community Involvement
The preparation ofthe I-25 Corridor Plan involved an extensive involvement process over the two-
year planningperiod, as well as an unprecedented collaboration ofpublic and private stakeholders.
The process was designed to ensure than an open line of communication was established between
the participating communities and their elected officials, the consultant team, residents, business
owners, and property owners in the corridor. The process involved both the ongoing dissemination
ofmaterials andfeedback, such as through the project website and targeted opportunities for broad
public involvement at key steps in the process. Over 100 meetings andpublic events were held; over
half of these were conducted in Fort Collins. A detailed account of each ofthe outreach strategies
is described on pages 2-4 of the Plan.
The Council has previously received extensive information about the Plan, including:
• an extensive list of "issues and answers " about the Plan
• a schedule of meetings and public events over the past eighteen months
• the project "listening log" that included correspondence received via the project website
or written comments from the public open houses
• summaries from the focus group meetings
271
November 20, 2001
• discussions from four Study Session on the Plan
Boards and Commission Recommendation
The Planning and Zoning Board recommends adoption. The Transportation Board, the Natural
Resources Board, and the Air Quality Advisory Board recommended against adoption.
Status of Adoption of the Other Participating Jurisdictions
• North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council —recommended adoption
of the Transportation Element
• Berthoud— adopted Plan
• Windsor — adopted Plan
• Larimer County — adopted Plan
• Loveland — adopted Plan.
• Weld County — has not scheduled hearings
• Johnstown — has not scheduled hearings
Timnath — has not scheduled hearings"
City Manager Fischbach presented the history of regional planning efforts with regard to this Plan
and gave background information regarding the agenda item. He stated that the Plan has been
revised to remove transportation funding and to remove phrases that seemed to encourage
development in the corridor. He stated that the proposed Resolution stresses certain aspects of the
Plan that are given high regard by the Council, including planning for future bikes, transit and
pedestrians and the provision of open spaces for community separators. The Resolution also directs
staff to collaborate with the jurisdictions to reconvene the policy oversight committee and the
technical team and organize a regional open space task force. He stated that four other jurisdictions
have approved the Plan and that it is before Council for adoption.
Mayor Martinez stated that the public input participants would each have three minutes to speak.
Joan Base, League of Women Voters of Larimer County, spoke in opposition to the plan as written
because of concerns regarding community separators, open space, and affordable housing.
Ralph Waldo, 2803 East Harmony Road, spoke regarding the plan provisions relating to a parallel
road system to handle local commuter traffic and noted current and future business and commercial
expansions and municipal annexations in the I-25 corridor. He stated that the Corridor Plan is
needed now because of current and future development in the corridor.
272
November 20, 2001
• Diane Shannon, Zoning Board of Appeals, spoke regarding the need for cooperation and planning
ahead with regard to the I-25 corridor, stated that development is inevitable and that without the I-25
Corridor Plan, regional chaos will continue, and asked Council to support the I-25 Corridor Plan.
Chris Rickord, Transportation Board chair, stated that Council has received his letter asking that the
Council not adopt the I-25 Corridor Plan. He stated that this is the only recommendation of the
Board regarding the Plan in its entirety and that the Board's concerns relate to the fiscal obligations
that would be incurred and the lack of choice in the Plan regarding alternative modes of
transportation.
Tim Johnson, Transportation Board member, asked Council to vote against the Resolution because
there is question about who will pay the infrastructure outlined in the Plan. He stated that the City
has enormous capital transportation needs within the City itself and that there is no financial plan
for rebuilding interchanges that are not part of the state highway system. He stated that the I-25
Corridor Plan is the road to fiscal irresponsibility.
Carol Garton, Chief Operating Officer and Acting CEO for Northern Colorado Economic
Development Corporation, 6737 Flagler Road, stated that the Corporation voted unanimously to
support the I-25 Corridor Plan and encourages the Council to support the Plan. She stated that it is
critical for communities to collectively manage the inevitable growth. She stated that the Plan does
. not encourage continuous development along the corridor and does provide an option for all
property that is currently planned, zoned and annexed and for future development along the 30 mile
I-25 corridor. She stated that the elements encouraged by the Plan will enhance our communities
and the quality of life in Northern Colorado.
Brian Hood, 5225 White Willow Drive, spoke in support of the I-25 Corridor Plan. He stated that
growth is part of the natural evolution and is part of the free market economy. He stated that the
Plan establishes the criteria and standards of development and will eliminate patterns of continuous
and unattractive development. He stated that in a capitalistic society that we may limit or restrict
growth but can not eliminate it.
Tim Dow, 323 South College Avenue, local attorney serving as chairman of the Board of Directors
of the Northern Colorado Economic Development Corporation, stated that the Board has
unanimously recommended approval of the Plan. He stated that Fort Collins should be leading the
regional cooperative effort rather than lagging behind in adopting the regional plan. He stated that
this is an opportunity to create a positive master plan.
Loring Knutson, 4625 Regency Drive, spoke regarding the issue of growth in Colorado and stated
that this is an opportunity for representatives of the citizens to do something about planned growth.
He urged Council to vote in favor of the Plan.
0 273
November 20, 2001
Beth Cross, Co -Chair of the Affordable Housing Coalition of Larimer County, expressed concern
regarding affordable housing. She stated that the Coalition does not take a position regarding the
I-25 Corridor Plan but is concerned regarding the implementation of the Plan and the effects it will
have on affordable housing. She stated that the Coalition urges the Council to be thoughtful and
creative in planning for future growth.
Ramon Ajero, 3712 Soderburg Drive, noted that he has previously raised many of the same concerns
noted by others at this hearing. He asked Council to vote in opposition to the plan because of air
quality and funding concerns.
Rob Pehkonen, 4737 Westbury, business owner at 1801 South College Avenue, asked Council to
support the I-25 Corridor Plan.
John Gascoyne, 718 West Mountain Avenue, spoke regarding growth and asked Council to vote to
represent the community, rather than out of town interests who stand to make a lot of money if the
plan is adopted. He questioned whether the Plan is the best that regional planning can come up with
and asked Council to reject the Plan.
Joe KisseL, 913 West Oak Street, asked Council to reject the I-25 Corridor Plan as proposed because
it caters to more automobile traffic, which will contribute to more pollution, congestion, automobile
accidents and dependance upon foreign oil. He stated that the Plan makes no provision for mass
transit such as light rail. He asked Council to reject the Plan and demand that there be provision for
light rail along the Front Range.
Gina Janett, 730 West Oak Street, stated that the deletions that are recommended do not change the
Plan. She stated that the Plan is primarily a road plan and is designed to promote maximum
economic development in the corridor. She stated that this is the diametric opposition of making
provisions for open space and community separators. She stated that there are conflicting visions
and that this Plan will stimulate contiguous sprawl along the 30 mile corridor. She urged the
Council to vote no.
Linda Hopkins, 1801 Rangeview Drive, spoke regarding the growth of the City and stated that
acceptance of the plan will not be an automatic magnet for development. She stated that the plan
would set expectations, establish standards and acknowledge and reinforce important community
values and that it would change over time as has City Plan. She asked that Council adopt the plan
and begin the process of proactive planning.
Brad Edwards, 2828 Cherry Lane, spoke in opposition to the plan as it is written because it does not
address affordable housing, infrastructure funding, air quality, or traffic congestion. He asked that
Council reject the plan so that additional work can be done on some parts of the plan. He spoke
regarding the need for a balanced plan to address needs other than increasing property values and
accelerating growth.
274
November 20, 2001
. Mike Doten, Director of Citizen Planners ofNorthem Colorado, spoke regarding the need for a plan
and stated that this is not the right plan. He stated that this Plan will entice growth and that the
proposed changes to the Plan do nothing to actually change the Plan. He stated that Citizen Planners
has conveyed specific concerns regarding substantive changes that are needed in the Plan regarding
affordable housing and air quality. He asked the Council to reject this Plan and go back to the
drawing board.
Eric Levine, 145 North Meldrum Street, urged Council to reject the plan because roads cause
development and he would not support pouring money into a broken regional transportation system
caused by development and the lack of fees for a transportation system. He stated that this is a road
plan. He stated that the Air Quality Board has recommended that the Council reject the plan in its
present form. He spoke regarding the flawed assumptions of the plan relating to air quality.
John Gless, 311 Whedbee Street, spoke in opposition to the plan because it fails to adequately
acknowledge the negative consequences of the inefficient and destructive land use patterns
embodied in the master plans of the participating communities. He stated that the plan would
facilitate bad master planning by building more expensive roads and that the greatest impediment
to sprawl would be poor access to currently undeveloped areas. He stated that the parallel road
system would remove this obstacle to growth. He asked the Council to reject the plan and retain the
vision portion of the plan to devise a more sensible regional plan.
• Charlie Shilling, 821 Lnagdale Drive, spoke against growth and sprawl. He stated that growth is
not inevitable and asked that the Council vote in opposition to the I-25 Corridor Plan.
Larry Kendall, The Group, asked the Council to vote in favor of the Plan and support regional
planning. He stated that sprawl is unplanned growth and that development has already been
approved in the corridor without an overall master plan. He stated that the Plan does not require the
building of roads and sets aside the opportunity to have setbacks in place to take care of any growth
that might occur. He asked the Council to look to the future and exercise leadership in the region.
He noted that there is approximately 4,000 acres of open space in the corridor and that there will be
more.
Brigette Schmidt, 932 Inverness, stated that other communities have approved the Plan but have not
yet approved the design standards. She expressed concerns regarding mass transit and funding
issues.
Mike Haynes, 1841 Wallenburg Drive, Director of Governmental Affairs Committee for the Fort
Collins Board of Realtors, spoke regarding cooperative efforts for development of this regional plan.
He stated that a vote against the Plan will be a vote for unplanned growth. He urged Council to vote
for the Plan.
0 275
November 20, 2001
Cherie Trine, 524 West Magnolia, asked Council to vote against the Plan and against the Resolution,
which does not change the Plan. She asked that the City plan for growth in a way the citizens of the
City can support. She expressed concerns regarding the growth rate, pollution, and health impacts.
Sally Craig, 1409 South Summitview, stated that there are no design standards in the Plan and that
there is lack of balance in the Plan. She stated that if this is a vision plan with implementation to
follow, that the transportation implementation plan should be removed. She stated that all three
elements of the Plan should be addressed equally, and she asked that Council not support the Plan
as written.
Doug Hutchinson, 1315 Whedbee Street, stated that the I-25 Corridor Plan discussion has become
a debate regarding growth. He stated that in reality the Plan is a reaction to growth that is underway
and planned and that the Plan will keep the growth from being unconnected and uncoordinated
sprawl. He stated that killing the Plan will not stop growth and that the Plan would preserve options
for light rail. He asked Council to vote in favor of the Plan because the alternative is no plan at all.
Randy Fischer, Natural Resources Advisory Board chair, stated that three boards and commissions
have recommended that the Council vote against the Plan. He stated that the alternative is to adopt
another plan that would manage growth in a meaningful way. He stated that this Plan is rooted in
the assumption that growth is inevitable and that continuous growth is good and desirable and that
the Plan's supporters stand to make a lot of money out of it.
Ed Haynes, a Fort Collins resident, spoke regarding the hidden advantages and benefits that will
accrue to the community because of growth. He stated that developers will not develop unless there
is a demand for it. He noted that affordable housing is built by developers and spoke regarding the
need for roads to accommodate automobiles.
Glen Colton, Planning and Zoning Board member, stated that growth is not inevitable and that it
must be limited to maintain the quality of life. He expressed a concern regarding the lack of good
regional planning and stated that the City should put in open space and community separators and
work with the other communities to limit the type of growth that could happen.
Eric Fried, 1813 Suffolk Court, member of the Green Parry, spoke regarding the sprawling
development to the south. He expressed a concern that the other communities are seeking access
to Fort Collins taxpayers to bail them out of poorly planned development that does not pay its own
way. He stated that the proposed deletions to the Plan do not really change the Plan and that it has
been conceived and driven by realtors and developers. He asked Council to send the Plan back to
the drawing board, renegotiate it is possible or kill it.
Kathleen Kilkelly, 920 Inverness Road, stated that the rate of vehicle miles traveled exceeds the rate
of population growth and that this Plan does the opposite of what was hoped for with the adoption
276
November 20, 2001
• of City Plan to reduce the rate of vehicle miles traveled. She stated that the Plan does not address
this issue and she asked that Council not adopt it.
Karen Wagner, County resident and Fort Collins property owner, spoke regarding the magnitude
of this decision and the work that has been done on the Plan. She stated that vested interests should
be stakeholders in this type of decision and that regional planning is essential. She expressed a
concern that over time there has been a strong influence from the private sector lead team with little
attention to the needs and concerns of the general citizenry. She stated that if the Plan is
implemented as drafted that Fort Collins will become the northernmost suburb of metro Denver.
She suggested a "no" vote with a commitment to a better plan with citizens and development
interests working collaboratively to plan for future development that maintains individual
community identities.
Don Shannon, 630 Skysail Lane, stated that like the opponents of the Plan he supports clean air,
clean water, retention of farm land, functional multi -modal transportation, reduced pollution,
affordable housing, and a good life for our citizens. He stated that he has spent many hours on the
I-25 Corridor Plan and that the Plan should have been in place many years ago. He spoke regarding
the impact of a lack of adequate planning along 1-25 to the south. He stated that the 1-25 Corridor
Plan is not perfect, that there have been thousands of hours of input from professionals and
volunteers, that numerous public hearings have been held, that the Plan has been built with the input
• of the City's 2001 citizen survey and a survey conducted by the committee, that the Plan is the result
of cooperation of two counties and six cities, and that the Plan provides a good start and a
framework. He stated that it is a living document similar to City Plan and that it will change over
time. He asked that Council support the I-25 Corridor Plan.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, spoke in opposition to the I-25 Corridor Plan. She stated that
a transportation plan rather than a road plan is needed. She spoke regarding the need for community
identities. She asked that the Council build a new plan with more understanding and consideration.
Councilmember Hamrick asked about the statement that the Plan establishes a framework for the
communities to work together on issues of regional significance and whether the Plan creates any
intergovernmental entities to work on such regional issues. Joe Frank, Director of Advance
Planning, stated that the action plan includes recommendations for a structure to implement the plan
and that the short-term recommendation is that the policy committee and technical team would
continue. He stated that several different structures were investigated and that the recommendation
is for the policy committee to look at a more formal structure.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if this Plan fails to pass, whether this action would preclude or
disband any current entities or community organizations. Frank stated that the remaining
communities could join together and work on an implementation plan and that other organizations
such as the MPO would continue.
0 277
November 20, 2001
Councilmember Hamrick asked about the impact if one of the other entities does not support the
Plan. Frank stated that the jurisdictions have discussed this issue and that it was the consensus that
the plan should continue even if some of the jurisdictions did not continue to participate in the
planning effort.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if Greeley was asked to participate in the plan. Frank stated that
Greeley's growth is outside of the study area. He stated that the policy committee decided early in
the process not to expand the planning area but to keep Greeley, Wellington and Longmont
informed.
Councilmember Hamrick asked about the Plan's definition of "significant natural areas and open
space" and whether golf courses are included. Benn Hermann, consultant, stated that the definition
came from the involved communities. Frank stated that an inventory of natural features (riparian
areas and agricultural lands) and developments in the corridor was completed early in the process.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if natural areas and open space would be automatically included in
the comprehensive plans of the participating communities. Frank stated that the Plan identifies
significant open lands and natural resources in the corridor and establishes policies for their
protection. He stated that a high priority in the action plan is the formation of a regional open space
task force that would do a more detailed analysis of the natural resources, prioritize them and
develop strategies for implementation. He stated that the task force would evaluate tools such as
transfer development units as ways to protect open lands. Hermann stated that by statutory
definition this plan would become part of the comprehensive plan of the adopting communities. He
stated that the Plan would also put something in place for those communities that currently have no
Plan.
Councilmember Hamrick asked about the issue of reduction of traffic congestion on local streets and
I-25 and why I-25 congestion is a local problem. Mark Jackson, Transportation Planner, stated that
I-25 congestion is a regional and inter -stated problem and that this becomes a local problem when
automobiles have no other alternatives for travel between activity centers.
Councilmember Hamrick asked why the City would tackle this issue on an inter -City basis without
going through the MPO when this should be a state issue. Jackson stated that this is not necessarily
a state responsibility because there is a need to provide for mobility for existing and planned
development within the corridor and that this is no different than the master street plan anywhere
else in the community.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if the City could be held liable for costs outside of the Growth
Management Area for infrastructure and services not consistent with City Plan. Jackson stated that
the only financial commitment that the City could potentially have would be for links or pieces of
systems that fall within the Growth Management Area boundaries. Frank stated that the language
references by Councilmember Hamrick is taken from City Plan. City Manager Fischbach stated that
278
November 20, 2001
• the City would not be responsible for costs outside of the Growth Management Area and that the
language of the Resolution could be changed to spell this out.
Councilmember Kastein stated that the intent of the paragraph referenced by Councilmember
Hamrick is to state that it is not the intention of the City to fund infrastructure within the Growth
Management area that is inconsistent with the master plan.
Councilmember Hamrick asked about the impact of development of a regional transportation
authority.
Councilmember Kastein stated that the plan does not address creation of a regional transportation
authority. He encouraged Councilmember Hamrick to make suggestions regarding the language of
the Resolution.
Mayor Martinez asked about the creation process for a regional transportation authority. City
Attorney Roy stated that it would have to be approved by a vote of the people. City Manager
Fischbach stated that a Regional Transportation Authority could not levy a tax against the City. City
Attorney Roy stated that the language of the Resolution could be amended to remove the phrase
"within the GMA" from the section referenced by Councilmember Hamrick to change the section
to clarify that this will not be construed as obligating the City to provide infrastructure or services
• inconsistent with City Plan. Councilmember Hamrick stated that this change would be helpful.
Councilmember Hamrick asked why this Plan would become an element of the Comprehensive
Plan. Frank stated that the practice is to adopt such plans as part of the Comprehensive Plan (City
Plan).
Councilmember Hamrick asked about an option to accept the Plan. Frank stated that accepting the
plan would not make the plan part of City Plan.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked staff to address the issue of affordable housing. Frank stated that
the scope of the project was clear from the beginning and that the scope did not include the issue of
affordable housing. He stated that staff is dealing indirectly with the issue of affordable housing in
the Subarea Plan and that the City has policies that deal directly with affordable housing in any area.
Councilmember Weitkunat spoke regarding the criticism received regarding the narrowness of the
I-25 Corridor Plan. Hermann stated that the study area was determined by the communities and that
regional planning efforts are fragile. He stated that in order to get the communities to continue in
the process that it was necessary to collectively address issues in the corridor rather than in a larger
area. He stated that these types of efforts increase the comfort level of the communities with
working together. He stated that the fragile coalition would not have lasted if the study area had
been larger. Frank stated that the communities discussed this as an initial effort that would be the
basis for future regional planning efforts.
0 279
November 20, 2001
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if a "big stick" approach would have worked in this effort and if
the City was held hostage by other communities. Hermann stated that there is no state or citizen
mandate to provide a "big stick" to accomplish this type of effort. He stated that there was no tool
for this process except voluntary cooperation. Frank stated that the incentive was the funding
mechanism for the study based on size of community as well as a shared concern regarding the
issues.
Councilmember Hamrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Bertschy, to not approve
Resolution 2001-160.
Councilmember Tharp stated that she would vote in favor of the motion to deny the Resolution. She
congratulated those who have worked on this Plan and stated that she is not willing to support it
because the changes in the language do not substantially change the Plan. She commended those
communities that have approved the Plan and stated that Fort Collins already has better plans and
design standards and can still work cooperatively with other communities. She stated that the Plan
would create expectations that would encourage speculation and development and push growth into
this area rather than manage growth. She stated that such economic development along I-25 would
present problems for existing businesses within the core City and that much of this area will be
outside of the City's jurisdiction because the Council has voted to contain the Growth Management
Area. She stated that the City would be best served to deny this Plan and to follow City Plan.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated that she will not support the motion. She stated that the previous
Council that initiated this process voted unanimously for this regional growth -related effort and that
this Plan will be appropriate for Fort Collins. She stated that significant alterations have been made
to the Plan and that it represents a big picture that the communities can agree on. She stated that the
trend in the state is toward increased mobility of people across jurisdictions and between
communities for work, recreation and entertainment. She stated that the problem will continue if
there is no plan.
Councilmember Kastein asked if Robert's Rules of Order would permit a motion to table a motion.
City Attorney Roy stated that he would recommend postponement to a date certain or indefinite
postponement and that such a motion could be made when the main motion is pending and would
take precedence. He stated that a motion to table is not debatable and that a motion to postpone is
debatable as to the propriety of postponement.
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to postpone
indefinitely the motion on the table.
Councilmember Kastein stated that a motion should be made in a form that is understandable and
that he would prefer to see the Council deal with a motion to approve the Resolution. City Attorney
280
November 20, 2001
• Roy stated that the stated purpose may not be dealt with properly by any of these motions. He
suggested that Council vote on the motion on the floor.
Councilmember Kastein withdrew the motion to postpone.
Councilmember Bertschy commended staff for the hard work and patience in dealing with this issue.
He spoke regarding the high integrity of staff and stated that it is unfortunate that inappropriate
criticism has been leveled at the staff and committee that worked on this issue. He stated that he
would support the motion to deny although he supported the Resolution initiating the regional
planning effort. He stated that he has been disappointed that this became a transportation plan and
that this is not in the best interests of the City at this time. He stated that the parallel road system
is not appropriate in this case because it does lead to strip development along the corridor and it does
place the burden on the local entities to solve the I-25 congestion problem. He stated that I-25 as
a transportation corridor is the responsibility of the state and federal government. He stated that the
design features of the Plan are lost with current developments to the south that are in the planning
process. He stated that the Plan is developed on the premise that it would improve air quality, and
that upon build -out he does not believe that this would be the case because of traffic congestion on
the parallel roads. He stated that he is supportive of the changes made in the Resolution but can not
support adoption of the Resolution.
• Councilmember Wanner stated that he would vote against the motion to deny.
Mayor Martinez stated that he would vote against the motion because it is contrary to the normal
operation of the Council because of the way the motion is stated in the negative.
Councilmember Hamrick stated that he would support the motion to not adopt the Plan. He
commended the staff and those who worked on the Resolution. He stated that he can not support
the Corridor Plan because it would exacerbate the issues that it purports to solve. He stated that he
sees the main issue as land use and that the plan would not prohibit sprawl. He stated that the Plan
pays lip service to open space and that design standards are not part of the Plan.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, and Tharp.
Nays: Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez, Wanner and Weitkunat.
THE MOTION FAILED
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adopt Resolution
2001-160.
Councilmember Kastein stated that the amended plan is different that the original Plan and that the
Plan has been made in the spirit of cooperation. He stated that he can support the amended Plan.
He stated that the Plan states the intention of eight Northern Colorado jurisdictions to plan and
is 281
November 20, 2001
cooperate in creating a better future for the region and is the culmination of two years of targeted
work and an expenditure of several hundred thousand dollars. He stated that it is a milestone in the
willingness of communities and counties to create a vision that is practical and fair. He stated that
the Plan inventories the activity already taking place in the corridor and suggests a way for the
individual entities to cooperate to ensure transportation mobility, preservation of open spaces and
quality of development. He stated that there is no entity that can dictate land use and design
standards for the region and that opportunities to effect any positive change in the corridor are
quickly eroding. He stated that the proper role of government is to ensure that the use of the
region's resources for people is coordinated and orderly. He commented that a high quality multi -
modal transportation that leverages existing street infrastructure reserves right-of-way for the future
existence of light rail, addresses the need for inter -City transit, and benefits all users of the I-25
corridor. He stated that the Plan does not encourage more development to occur and simply
identifies and addresses current and future needs in the corridor. He stated that having no plan
would guarantee frustration and that this plan of cooperation is better.
Councilmember Hamrick stated that leadership means developing a plan that the average citizen can
buy into, and that this means developing and open space and community separators plan first. He
stated that this also entails confronting ill advised land use planning from our neighbors. He
expressed concerns regarding the costs to Fort Collins, the impacts on affordable housing, traffic
congestion, and air quality.
Councilmember Kastein requested an amendment to the motion to amend the statement in Section
2(c) that the City "will exercise its weighted voting power as a member of the regional north Front
Range ..." to read that the City "will reserve its right to exercise its weighted voting power ...."
Councilmember Wanner suggested an amendment to read that "... the City Council will direct the
City's representative to exercise its weighted vote on the MPO in votes on issues in the corridor.
..." Councilmember Kastein agreed with the language suggested by Councilmember Wanner.
Councilmember Wanner requested a change in the second WHEREAS paragraph in the second to
last line to insert the word "historical" so that the language would read " ... should reflect a regional
and inter -state character and historical functionality of I-25." Councilmember Wanner stated that
it is important to recognize that uses such as truck stops will continue and are part of the corridor.
Councilmember Kastein accepted this amendment suggested by Councilmember Wanner.
Councilmember Tharp responded to the comments that a previous Council initiated this process,
noting that the current Council has a different composition and is entitled to vote as it determines
on issues. She stated that she would vote against the motion.
Councilmember Wanner stated that growth is not inevitable and that there might be a better plan in
the future but that there will not be as many choices in the future as there are now. He stated that
he shares the very real concerns expressed at the hearing. He noted that there is nothing in the
282
November 20, 2001
• Resolution that states an intent to create a regional transportation authority or to spend money on
anything at this point. He stated that the Resolution states the intent of the City to participate in the
process. He stated that the way to deal with problems is to address them and participate with the
other communities in the region. He stated that he would support the motion.
Mayor Martinez stated that the Resolution that initiated this process indicated that private sector
representatives would be included in the process. He stated that it is important for the City to make
a genuine effort to complete the Plan. He spoke regarding the Resolutions that have been previously
adopted to bring this Plan to this point and addressed how this fits with the policy agenda adopted
by the Council. He stated that the City has already addressed an affordable housing policy that
covers any area of the City. He stated that the Plan is a template for development that has already
been planned and that the Plan would address citizen concerns expressed in the citizen survey.
The vote on the motion to adopt the Resolution as amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Kastein, Martinez, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, and Tharp.
THE MOTION CARRIED
(**Secretary's note: Council took a brief recess at this point.)
• Resolution 2001-161
Repealing Resolution 99-46 and Adopting an Amendment
to the Financial Management Policies Adopted
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
For budget planning purposes, the City's services are categorized in one of three categories:
primary, secondary and support. In recent discussions, City Council expressed a desire to consider
"transportation " as a primary service.
The proposed Resolution amends the Financial Management Policies so that the list of primary
services shown in paragraph D thereof includes the term "transportation " rather than "streets ",
and so that "Transfort" is eliminatedfrom the list ofsecondary services shown in paragraph E; and
repeals Resolution 99-46, since the principles for budget planning set forth in Resolution 99-46 are
incorporated in the Financial Management Policies and future amendments to the principles for
budget planning need only be made to the Financial Management Policies themselves. In effect, this
new Resolution categorizes "transportation" as a primary service.
0 283
November 20, 2001
BACKGROUND:
In 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution 99-46 to aid in the planning for the allocation of
resources to meet the good of the whole community. Among the adopted principles, was one that
categorized the City's services into three categories:
Primary Services — those services that are necessaryfor the good of the entire community.
They are basic to the safety, health and welfare of a community, and the allocation of all
resources necessary for the provision of primary services is the first priority in budget
preparation. Primary services are:
Police
Water
Wastewater
Fire
Streets
Stormwater
Building Inspection
Electric
Natural Resources
Development Review
Engineering
Affordable Housing
Facilities Maintenance
(all public facilities including parks)
Note: The services typically part of this category are those that most people consider
essential to a community's basic functioning. In other words, if a new community
is created or a major disaster devastated a community, these are the services and
facilities that would be needed to ensure the basic safety, health and welfare of
citizens living in the community.
2. Secondary Services — those services that enhance the quality of life and, to many, increase
the value of living and working in a community. While the value of secondary services is
recognized, the allocation ofresources to those services shall be considered only after the
necessary allocation has been made to fund primary services. Secondary services are:
Recreation Transfort Neighborhood Resources
Performing Arts Human Rights Library
Cemeteries Golf Human Services Contract
Airport Parks Natural Areas
Museum
Note: These services are very important. To many, they give our community its "heart and
soul. " However, by definition, these services are not essential to basic functioning
of a community of people. They do indeed enhance and certainly set apart our
communityfrom other communities.
284
November 20, 2001
• 3. Support Services — those services that provide the management, guidelines and operational
assistance to carry out the provision ofprimary and secondary services. Resources should
be allocated to support services to support the level and quality ofprimary services expected
and desired by the community. Support services are:
General Administration Finance Legal
Budget Human Resources City Clerk
Clerical Support Fleet Management Information Technology
Geographic Information Systems
Note: For the most part, these services are provided to all of the various operating
departments. For some, information may be directly delivered to citizens — such as
maps from the GIS service, copies of ordinances and resolutions from the Clerk's
Office —but this is not an essential nature oftheir business. Primary and secondary
services depend on these services to support and supply necessary information and
service for their operations.
The revisions that are reflected in the proposed Resolution include:
a. Combining "Streets " and "Transfort" into a new classification entitled "Transportation. "
• b. Removing "Streets "from the list ofprimary services and removing "Transfort "from the list
of secondary services.
C. Inserting "Transportation " as a primary service.
d. Repealing Resolution 99-46 so that any future amendments to the principles of budget
planning need be made only to the Financial Management Policies themselves and not to
Resolution 99-46. "
City Manager Fischbach presented background information regarding the agenda item. He stated
that the Resolution would combine streets and Transfort into a new classification titled
Transportation, removes streets from the list of primary services, removes Transfort from the list
of secondary services, and inserts Transportation in the list of primary services.
Councilmember Kastein asked if there is a staff recommendation. City Manager Fischbach stated
that the staff recommendation is that the Resolution before the Council should be approved.
Councilmember Kastein asked about the reasoning for originally listing streets as a primary service.
City Manager Fischbach stated that this has been an evolving issue and that he has concluded that
is 285
November 20, 2001
transportation should include transit as part of a total system. He stated that this forms the basis of
his recommendation.
Mayor Martinez asked for the definition of"primary service" and if this has changed. City Manager
Fischbach stated that primary services are those that are necessary for the good of the entire
community and that are basic to the safety, health and welfare of the community. He stated that the
first priority for allocation of resources would be the provision of primary services.
Mayor Martinez asked if the Transfort system is a primary service that is necessary for the entire
community and if it should be a first priority budget item. City Manager Fischbach stated that this
is a judgment question for the Council.
Councilmember Weitkunat noted that Transfort is not mentioned in the Resolution and asked if the
assumption would be that transportation includes automobiles, Dial -a -Ride, airplanes and trains.
Mayor Martinez noted that airport is listed in secondary services.
Councilmember Weitkunat commented that airplanes are different than airports, as buses are
different than streets. She stated that it is necessary to determine if buses will fall under primary
services for financial consideration. City Manager Fischbach stated that the bus system was used
to help the City through the 1997 flood crisis and that bus systems are vital at the time of a crisis
such as the one in New York City.
Mayor Martinez stated that emergency vehicles could be obtained if needed during a crisis. He
questioned designating the bus system as a primary service and noted that the citizens did not list
buses as a top priority in the recent citizen survey.
Councilmember Bertschy made amotion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adopt Resolution
2001-161.
Councilmember Bertschy stated that he would support the Resolution because transit is an integral
part of transportation. He stated that the City will always prioritize the budget and that it is Council
prerogative to determine how funds are expended.
Councilmember Tharp stated that transportation is an all-inclusive service that goes beyond the
provision of streets. She stated that transit is one of the services that citizens expect to be available
when needed. She spoke regarding the need to consider alternate forms of transportation to solve
the traffic congestion problem. She stated that this will broaden the way the City looks at
transportation.
286
November 20, 2001
• Councilmember Weitkunat expressed a concern regarding the intent and policy direction. She stated
that this would combine two categories of services that will compete for funding and split the
available funding. She argued that it is not the City's responsibility to provide bus service to all
citizens any more than it is the City's responsibility to provide a car to every citizen. She expressed
a concern that bus service will take funding away from streets. She stated that she would not
support the motion.
Councilmember Kastein stated that he believes that it makes sense to consider the transportation
system as a whole and stated that he does not believe that the intent should be to elevate Transfort
to primary services. He stated that transportation as a system is a primary service because it is a way
to transport people and services, and that he would support the motion for this reason.
Councilmember Wanner stated that he perceives Transfort as one part of the transportation package.
Councilmember Tharp stated that her intent is to look at transportation in a comprehensive way and
not to give more funding to buses.
Mayor Martinez stated that he would not support the motion.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Tharp
• and Wanner. Nays: Councilmembers Martinez and Weitkunat.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance No. 209, 2001
Amending Section 2-581 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the City Attorney Adonted on First Reading.
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
City Council met in Executive Session on November 13, 2001 to conduct the performance appraisal
Of City Attorney Steve Roy. This Ordinance establishes the 2002 salary of the City Attorney.
BACKGROUND:
City Council is committed to compensating employees in a manner which is fair, competitive and
understandable. The goal as an employer is to attract and retain quality employees and to
recognize and reward quality performance.
0 287
November 20, 2001
In order to accomplish this goal the City Council and the City Attorney meet once a year to discuss
last year's performance and set goals for the coming year.
In 2 00 1, the total compensation paid to the City Attorney included the following:
SALARYAND BENEFITS
ANNUAL
NON -MONETARY BENEFITS
Salary
$ 114,708
Vacation (25 days per year)
Life Insurance
291
Holidays (11 days per year)
Medical Insurance
6,504
Dental Insurance
384
Long Term Disability
734
FICA Max.
4,985
FICA 1.45%
1,829
Pension - ICMA 401(a) and 457 (13916)
14,912
Total Monetary Compensation
$ 144,347
The process established for evaluating the performance of the City Manager, City Attorney, and
Municipal Judge, adopted by the Council via Resolution 2001-123 on October 17, 2000 and further
amended by the adoption of Resolution 2001-18 on February 6, 2001, provides that any change in
compensation for the City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge will be adopted by the
Council by ordinance in sufficient time for the change in compensation to take effect as of the first
full pay period of the ensuing year. "
Rick de la Castro, Human Resources Director, introduced the agenda item.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the City is on target for the percentile rankings for the three
Council employees. De la Castro stated that the increases get the three employees close to the 70'
percentile.
Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt
Ordinance No. 209, 2001 on First Reading, inserting the figures $121,590 for base salary and
$152,520 for total compensation.
Councilmember Tharp asked for clarification regarding the figures. De la Castro stated that the
figures on the agenda item summary reflect the 2001 salary figures.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if there will be a study session discussion regarding the salary
setting process early in next year's process. De la Castro stated that a study session could be held
288
November 20, 2001
• in January or February and include questions and terms of process standardization into each of the
negotiated contracts or develop a handbook to streamline the process.
Mayor Martinez stated that he has asked that Human Resources develop a recommendation for
Council review, and he requested that this process begin in January.
Councilmember Kastein thanked City Attorney Roy for a job well done.
Councilmember Tharp stated that it would be helpful to have figure comparisons for the upcoming
year's salary.
Councilmember Bertschy stated that the City is well served by the competent and objective City
Attorney and that the Council is fortunate to have Mr. Roy as an employee.
Councilmember Wanner thanked City Attorney Roy.
Mayor Martinez commented regarding the City Attorney's excellent service to the City.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein,
Martinez, Tharp, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
• THE MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance No. 210, 2001
Amending Section 2-596 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the City Manager Adopted on First Reading
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
City Council met in Executive Session on November 13, 2001 to conduct the performance appraisal
Of City Manager John Fischbach. This Ordinance establishes the salary of the City Manager.
BACKGROUND:
City Council is committed to compensating employees in a manner which is fair, competitive and
understandable. The goal as an employer is to attract and retain quality employees and to
recognize and reward quality performance.
0 289
November 20, 2001
In order to accomplish this goal the City Council and the City Manager meet once a year to discuss
last year's performance and set goals for the coming year.
In 2001, the total compensation paid to the City Manager included the following:
SALARYAND BENEFITS
ANNUAL
NON -MONETARY BENEFITS
Salary
$ 139,824
Vacation (25 days per year)
Life Insurance
354
Holidays (11 days per year)
Medical Insurance
6,504
Dental Insurance
384
Long Term Disability
895
FICA Max
4,985
FICA 1.45%
2,230
Pension - ICMA 401(a) and 457 (13%)
18,177
Total Monetary Compensation
$ 173,353
The process established for evaluating the performance of the City Manager, City Attorney, and
Municipal Judge, adopted by the Council via Resolution 2000-123 on October 17, 2000 and further
amended by the adoption of Resolution 2001-18 on February 6, 2001, provides that any change in
compensation for the City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge will be adopted by the
Council by ordinance in sufficient time for the change in compensation to take effect as of the first
full pay period of the ensuing year. "
Rick de la Castro introduced the agenda item.
Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adopt Ordinance
No. 210, 2001 on First Reading, inserting the figures $148,213 for base pay and $183,267 for total
compensation.
Councilmember Hamrick stated that he would not support the motion because he does not believe
that the salary increase is warranted due to performance issues. He noted that these performance
issues are being addressed but that at this time he can not support the salary increase.
Councilmember Tharp stated that she would not support the motion because the salary for the City
Manager is adequate and the increase is more than inflation. She stated that she is not convinced
that the City Manager's performance merits such an increase.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated that she would support the motion.
290
November 20, 2001
isCouncilmember Bertschy stated that the City Manager is providing Council with a performance plan
and that it will be up to the Council to ensure that the plan is followed. He commented regarding
the difficulty of the City Manager's job and noted that future months will be as difficult.
Mayor Martinez stated that he believes that the City Manager has done an excellent job and that the
salary increase is warranted. He stated that Mr. Fischbach does an extraordinary job of balancing
many duties and responsibilities. He commended Mr. Fischbach on how well the City as a whole
is managed and stated that the City Manager's top-notch staff is dedicated and loyal to the interests
of the City.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Kastein, Martinez,
Warmer and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Hamrick and Tharp.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance No. 211, 2001
Amending Section 2-606 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the Municipal Judge Adopted on First Reading_
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
• "Executive Summary
City Council met in Executive Session on November 13, 2001 to conduct the performance appraisal
of Municipal Judge Kathleen M. Lane. This Ordinance establishes the 2002 salary ofthe Municipal
Judge.
BACKGROUND:
City Council is committed to compensating employees in a manner which is fair, competitive and
understandable. The goal as an employer is to attract and retain quality employees and to
recognize and reward quality performance.
In order to accomplish this goal the City Council and the Municipal Judge meet once a year to
discuss last year's performance and set goals for the coming year.
In 2001, the total compensation paid to the Municipal Judge included the following:
0 291
November 20, 2001
SALARYAND BENEFITS
ANNUAL
NON-MONETARYBENEFITS
Salary
$ 87,524
Vacation (25 days per year)
Life Insurance
223
Holidays (11 days per year)
Medical Insurance
6,504
Dental Insurance
384
Long Term Disability
560
FICA Max
4,985
FICA 1.45%
1,396
Pension - ICAM 401(a) and 457 (13016)
11,379
Total Monetary Compensation
$ 112,955
The process established for evaluating the performance of the City Manager, City Attorney, and
Municipal Judge, adopted by the Council via Resolution 2001-123 on October 17, 2000 and further
amended by the adoption of Resolution 2001-18 on February 6, 2001, provides that any change in
compensation for the City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge will be adopted by the
Council by ordinance in sufficient time for the change in compensation to take effect as of the first
full pay period of the ensuing year. "
Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to adopt
Ordinance No. 211, 2001 on First Reading, inserting the figures $91,904 for base salary and
$118,235 for total compensation.
Councilmember Kastein commended Judge Lane for her work.
Councilmember Weitkunat thanked Judge Lane for the job she has done.
Councilmember Bertschy thanked Judge Lane for her hard work and outlined the tasks handled by
the Municipal Judge.
Councilmember Hamrick commented regarding Judge Lane's work with the restorative justice
program.
Mayor Martinez thanked Judge Lane for a job well done. He commented regarding Ms. Lane's
efficient handling of liquor licensing.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein,
Martinez, Tharp, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
292
November 20, 2001
• THE MOTION CARRIED
Items Relating to the Cathy Fromme Natural
Area First and Second Annexations. Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
A. Cathy Fromme Natural Area First Annexation.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 177, 2001, Annexing Property Known as the
Cathy Fromme Natural Area First Annexation.
2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 178, 2001, Amending the Zoning Map ofthe City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Cathy Fromme Natural Area First Annexation,
B. Cathy Fromme Natural Area Second Annexation.
• 1. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 179, 2001, Annexing Property Known as the
Cathy Fromme Natural Area Second Annexation.
2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 180, 2001, Amending the Zoning Map ofthe City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Cathy Fromme Natural Area Second Annexation.
On October 2, 2001, Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2001-125 and Resolution 2001-126,
Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Cathy Fromme
Natural Area First and Second Annexations.
On November 6, 2001, Council also adopted, by a 6-1 vote, Ordinance Nos. 177, 178, 179, 180,
2001, annexing and zoning the properties known as the Cathy Fromme Natural Area First and
Second Annexation. The acreage ofthe two annexation sites are asfollows: Cathy Fromme Natural
Area First Annexation is approximately 81 acres, and Cathy Fromme Natural Area Second
Annexation is approximately 156 acres. The recommended zoning is Public Open Lands (POL),
which is consistent with the Structure Plan designation of Rural/Open Lands and Stream
Corridors. "
City Manager Fischbach stated that this item is on the discussion agenda because of the 6-1 vote on
First Reading.
0 293
November 20, 2001
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adopt
Ordinance No. 177, 2001, Ordinance No. 178, 2001, Ordinance No. 179, 2001 and Ordinance No.
180, 2001 on Second Reading.
Councilmember Hamrick stated that he would not support the motion. He thanked the City
Attorney's office for providing aclarification regarding annexing outside of the growth management
area. He stated that the growth management area should be amended before the City proceeds with
annexation and that he has a concern regarding the outreach to residents of the enclave that will be
created by these annexations.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Kastein, Martinez, Tharp,
Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Hamrick.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Items Relating to the Coyote Ridge First, Second,
Third Fourth Fifth, and Sixth Annexations, Adopted on Second Reading.
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
A. Coyote Ridge First Annexation:
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 165, 2001, Annexing Property Known as the
Coyote Ridge First Annexation.
2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 166, 2001, Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Coyote Ridge First Annexation.
B. Coyote Ridge Second Annexation:
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 167, 2001, Annexing Property Known as the
Coyote Ridge Second Annexation.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 168, 2001, Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Coyote Ridge Second Annexation.
C. Coyote Ridge Third Annexation:
294
November 20, 2001
• 1. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 169, 2001, Annexing Property Known as the
Coyote Ridge Third Annexation.
2. Second Reading ofOrdinance No. 170, 2001, Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Coyote Ridge Third Annexation.
D. Coyote Ridge Fourth Annexation:
1. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 171, 2001, Annexing Property Known as the
Coyote Ridge Fourth Annexation.
2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 172, 2001, Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Coyote Ridge Fourth Annexation.
E. Coyote Ridge Fifth Annexation:
1. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 173, 2001, Annexing Property Known as the
Coyote Ridge Fifth Annexation.
• 2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 174, 2001, Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Coyote Ridge Fifth Annexation.
F. Coyote Ridge Sixth Annexation:
1. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 175, 2001, Annexing Property Known as the
Coyote Ridge Sixth Annexation.
2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 176, 2001, Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Coyote Ridge Sixth Annexation.
On October 2, 2001, Council unanimously adopted Resolutions Finding Substantial Compliance and
Initiating Annexation Proceedings for each of the Coyote Ridge annexations listed in A through F
above. On November 6, 2001, Council also adopted, by a vote of 6-1, annexation and zoning
ordinances for each of the Coyote Ridge annexations.
This request is for a 100% voluntary annexation. The acreage of the six annexation sites are as
follows:
0 295
November 20, 2001
Coyote Ridge First is approximately 2.5 acres
Coyote Ridge Second is approximately 181 acres
Coyote Ridge Third is approximately 161 acres
Coyote Ridge Fourth is approximately 192 acres
Coyote Ridge Fifth is approximately 325 acres
Coyote Ridge Sixth is approximately 235 acres
All six annexations are publicly owned property. The recommended zoning is Public Open Lands
(POL), which is consistent with the Structure Plan designation of Rural/Open Lands and Stream
Corridors. "
City Manager Fischbach stated that this is on the discussion agenda because of the 6-1 vote on First
Reading.
Councilmember Bertschy requested a summary regarding the existing enclaves and their current
status.
Councilmember Tharp made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt Ordinance
No. 165, 2001, Ordinance No. 166, 2001, Ordinance No. 167, 2001, Ordinance No. 168, 2001,
Ordinance No. 169, 2001, Ordinance No. 170, 2001, Ordinance No. 171, 2001, Ordinance No. 172,
2001, Ordinance No.173, 2001, Ordinance No.174, 2001, Ordinance No. 175,2001, and Ordinance
No. 176, 2001 on Second Reading.
Councilmember Hamrick stated that he has the same concerns with regard to these annexations as
expressed in the previous agenda item.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Kastein, Martinez, Tharp,
Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Hamrick.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Items Relating to the Fossil Creek Wetlands
Natural Area Second Annexation. Adopted on Second Readine.
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 181, 2001, Annexing Property Known as the Fossil Creek
Wetlands Natural Area Second Annexation.
296
November 20, 2001
• B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 182, 2001, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort
Collins and Classing for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Fossil Creek
Wetlands Natural Area Second Annexation.
On October 2, 2001, Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2001-124, Finding Substantial
Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Fossil Creek Wetlands Natural Area
Second Annexation.
On November 6, 2001, Council also adopted, on First Reading, by a 6-1 vote, Ordinance No. 181,
2001 and Ordinance No. 182, 2001, annexing and zoning the property known as the Fossil Creek
Wetlands NaturalArea SecondAnnexation. The site is approximately 24.74 acres ofpublicly owned
property located south of Trilby Road, east of Timberline Road, north of Carpenter Road, and west
of I-25. "
City Manager Fischbach stated that this agenda item appears on the discussion agenda because of
the 6-1 vote on First Reading.
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to Ordinance No.
181, 2001 and Ordinance No. 182, 2001 on Second Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows:
Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Tharp, Wanner and Weitkunat.
• Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Items Relating to the
Pineridge Fifth Annexation Adopted on Second Readies
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 183, 2001, Annexing Property Known as the Pineridge
Fifth Annexation.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 184, 2001, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort
Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Pineridge Fifth
Annexation.
On October 2, 2001, Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2001-123 Finding Substantial
Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Pineridge Fifth Annexation.
0 297
November 20, 2001
On November 6, 2001, Council also adopted on First Reading, by a 6-1 vote, Ordinance No. 183,
2001 and Ordinance No. 184, 2001, annexing and zoning the property known as the Pineridge Fifth
Annexation. The site is approximately 4.76 acres of publicly owned property located southeast of
Hughes Stadium including a portion of the South Overland Trail and County Road 42C rights of
way, and small piece of the Pineridge Natural Area. "
City Manager Fischbach stated that this item appears on the discussion agenda because of the 6-1
vote on First Reading.
Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt Ordinance
No. 183, 2001 and Ordinance No. 184, 2001 on Second Reading.
Councilmember Hamrick referenced his previous comments regarding the other annexations.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Kastein, Martinez, Tharp,
Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Hamrick.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Items Relating to the
Westchase I and II Annexations. Adopted on Second Readine.
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
A. Items Relating to the Westchase 1 Annexation:
1. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 185, 2001, Annexing Property Known as the
Westchase I Annexation.
2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 186, 2001, Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Westchase I Annexation.
B. Westchase II Annexation:
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 187, 2001, Annexing Property Known as the
Westchase HAnnexation.
298
November 20, 2001
• 2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 188, 2001, Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Westchase II Annexation.
On October 2, 2001, Council unanimously adopted Resolutions 2001-127 and 2001-128 Finding
Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Westchase IAnnexation and
Westchase II Annexation.
On November 6, 2001, Council also adopted on First Reading, by a 6-1 vote, ordinances annexing
and zoning the properties known as the Westchase 1 and Westchase H annexations. The acreage
and location of the two annexation sites are as follows: The Westchase I Annexation and Zoning is
approximately 4.279 acres, and is located within and just east ofthe Timberline Road right-of-way,
just north of the intersection of Timberline and Trilby. The Westchase II Annexation is
approximately 157.93 acres and is located north of the current Trilby Road alignment and east of
the Westchase 1 Annexation. Both properties are located within the Fossil Creek Reservoir
Planning Area.
Both properties are located within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area (UGA). According to
policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County contained in the
Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area, the City will agree to
• consider annexation ofproperty in the UGA when the property is eligible for annexation according
to state law. "
City Manager Fischbach stated that this item is on the discussion agenda because of the 6-1 vote on
First Reading.
Councilmember Hamrick asked about the current City annexation policy and the financial impact
analysis. He asked about the treatment of voluntary and involuntary annexations, noting that for
certain voluntary annexations he would like to know the costs.
Councilmember Kastein stated that it would take additional staff time and resources to prepare a cost
analysis for voluntary annexations.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if the rest of the Council would support cost analyses for voluntary
annexations.
Mayor Martinez suggested discussing this issue under Other Business.
Councilmember Bertschy stated that he would support this annexation, and noted that it is distinct
from the other annexations which related to the City's natural areas.
0 299
November 20, 2001
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adopt Ordinance
No. 185, 2001, Ordinance No. 186, 2001, Ordinance No. 187, 2001 and Ordinance No. 188, 2001
on Second Reading.
Councilmember Hamrick stated that he would not be supporting this annexation because it would
be financially prudent for Council to review costs associated with certain annexations.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Kastein, Martinez, Tharp,
Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Hamrick.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Budget Consent Agenda
39. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 191,2001, Amending the City Code to Adjust the Capital
Improvement Expansion Neighborhood Parkland and Street Oversizing Fees for Increases
Due to Increases in the Cost of Construction and Raw Water.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 6, 2001,
increases the fee schedules for the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees and Neighborhood
Parkland Fee by the change in the 2000 Denver -Boulder -Greeley Consumer Price Index.
Costs in the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees ("CIEF") Study and the fee schedule for
the Neighborhood Parkland Fees were calculated using costs from 1995. The relevant
governing provisions of the City Code call for increases to keep up with annual inflation, and
the fees were last adjusted in late 2000. This Ordinance also increases the CIEF and the
neighborhood parkland fees by the projected increase in the CPI-U of 4.91%. For the
Neighborhood Parkland and Community Parkland fees, the fee levels are increased by
$75.00 and $126.58, respectively to cover the increase in the raw water cost. The Street
Oversizing fees are being increased by 5.96%, the increase in the cost of construction as
reported in the Engineering News Record.
40. Items Relating to the 2002 Downtown Development Authority Budget.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 195, 2001, Appropriating Operating Funds and
Approving the Budget of the Downtown Development Authority for the Fiscal Year
Beginning January 1, 2002, and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Downtown
Development Authority for 2002.
The Downtown Development Authority (the "DDA") adopted the proposed DDA budget for
2002, totaling $416,740, and determined the mill levy necessary to provide for payment of
all properly authorized expenditures incurred by the District, at its regular meeting of
ffi
November 20, 2001
• November 1, 2001. Council unanimously adopted Ordinance No. 195, 2001, on First
Reading on November 6, 2001.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 196, 2001, Appropriating Revenue in the
Downtown Development Authority Debt Service Fund for Payment of Debt Service
for the Year 2002.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 6, 2001,
appropriates funds for 2002 from the tax increment received by the City for the DDA for
debt service payments.
**End Budget Consent"
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Bertschy, to adopt and
approve all items on the Budget Consent Calendar. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Tharp, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
• Items Relating to
Utility Rates for 2002, Adopted on Second Reading_
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
These Ordinances increase annual Water Fund operating revenues by approximately 6%,
Wastewater Fund operating revenues increase by about 2% and Storm Drainage Fund operating
revenues increase 45%. Approval of the rate ordinances will ensure that the Water, Wastewater
and Storm Drainage Funds will meet or exceed debt service coverage requirements.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 192, 2001, Amending Chapter 26, Article 111, Division 4
of the City Code Relating to User Rates and Charges for Water.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 193, 2001, Amending Chapter 26, Article IV, Division 4
of the City Code Relating to Wastewater Fees and Charges.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 194, 2001, Amending Chapter 26, Article VII, Division
2 of the City Code Relating to Stormwater Fees.
0 301
November 20, 2001
As proposed in the 2002-2003 budget, these three ordinances increase the City's utility rates for
customers inside the City limits by 6116for water service and 2%for wastewater service. Stormwater
rates increase by 45%for all customers. Electric rates do not change. These changes will become
effective on billings issued on or after January 1, 2002. The Water Board reviewed and
recommended the rate changes in conjunction with its discussion on the 2002-2003 budget.
Additionally, the proposed water and wastewater ordinances eliminate the rate differences between
inside and outside city customers. Historically, the rates paid by customers outside the City limits
were one and one half times higher than the water and wastewater rates paid by customers inside
the Citylimits. The cost to provide service inside and outside the City limits no longer supports the
different rate levels. In 1994 Council directed staffto 'freeze"the outside City rates until the inside
rates "caught up". With the proposed increases for 2002, the outside rates are now close to
equivalent to rates inside the City limits and in afew cases, customers outside the City may pay less
than they would on inside City rates.
Ordinance No. 192, 2001, was adopted on First Reading on November 6, 2001, by a vote of 5-2.
Ordinance No. 193, 2001, and Ordinance No. 194, 2001, were unanimously adopted on First
Reading on November 6, 2001. "
City Manager Fischbach stated that this item appears on the discussion agenda because of the 5-2
vote on First Reading.
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adopt Ordinance
No. 192, 2001, Ordinance No. 193, 2001 and Ordinance No. 194, 2001 on Second Reading.
Councilmember Bertschy thanked staff for the comparison regarding the average household utility
consumption. He asked that such comparative information be provided as background information
for future rate increases.
Councilmember Tharp stated that she would not vote in support of the motion because the budget
should provide basic services within the limits ofthe City's revenue without reliance on constant rate
increases.
Councilmember Hamrick stated that he would not support the motion because of issues relating to
storm drainage projects, as discussed on First Reading.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Kastein, Martinez,
Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Hamrick and Tharp.
THE MOTION CARRIED
302
November 20, 2001
• Ordinance No. 197, 2001,
Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance Relating
to the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2002 and Adopting the
Budget for the Fiscal Years Beginning January 1, 2002, and Ending December 31, 2003,
and Fixing the Mill Levy for Fiscal Year 2002 Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
Ordinance No. 197, 2001, which was adopted 6-1 on First Reading on November6, 2001, represents
the annual appropriation for fiscal year 2002, and adopts the total City Budget for fiscal year 2002
at $439,139,184 and for fiscal year 2003 at $444, 933, 617. This Ordinance also sets the City mill
levy at 9.797 mills, unchanged since 1991, for fiscal year 2002. "
City Manager Fischbach stated that this item appears on the discussion agenda because of the 6-1
vote on First Reading.
Councilmember Hamrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adopt Ordinance
No. 197, 2001 on Second Reading with amendments to provide ongoing funding for the pollution
• programs, the human rights coordinator position, the youth services librarian and a second Natural
Resources Department environmental planner for code compliance.
Councilmember Bertschy suggested a motion to adopt the current ordinance with amendments to
be proposed by separate motions.
THE MOTION WAS WITHDRAWN
Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt Ordinance
No. 197, 2001 on Second Reading.
Councilmember Kastein thanked the staff for its efforts throughout the difficult and data intensive
budget process.
Councilmember Hamrick asked about the process to make amendments. City Attorney Roy
suggested a separate motion for each amendment to be voted on prior to the vote on the original
motion. He stated that if any of the amendments pass, the vote would be on the main motion as
amended.
Councilmember Hamrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to make an
amendment to include ongoing funding for the pollution prevention programs.
0 303
November 20, 2001
Councilmember Weitkunat stated that she can not support an amendment unless dollar amounts are
know.
Councilmember Kastein asked what would be changed in the budget and where this ongoing funding
would come from.
Councilmember Hamrick stated that there is money in the budget to cover this and that the pollution
prevention programs are critical for a growing City.
Mayor Martinez asked if staff recommends ongoing funding for this purpose. City Manager
Fischbach stated that one-time funding for two years is being recommended by staff. He stated that
staff will attempt to convert this to ongoing funding in the next budget cycle.
Councilmember Weitkunat questioned the need for this amendment.
Councilmember Bertschy stated that he supports ongoing funding for the pollution prevention
program if it can be accomplished. City Manager Fischbach stated than only $4,000 is available for
ongoing money and that if this program is designated for ongoing funding a decision will need to
be made regarding what to cut elsewhere in the budget.
City Attorney Roy stated that the budget must be finalized before the end of November.
Mayor Martinez stated that these amendments are too late in the process.
Councilmember Wanner stated that it is too late to change the budget at this late date but suggested
voting on the motion to amend. He stated that he would like to see ongoing funding for the pollution
prevention programs in the next budget cycle.
The vote on the motion to amend was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick and
Tharp. Nays: Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez, Wanner and Weitkunat
THE MOTION FAILED
Councilmember Hamrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to amend the
ordinance to include ongoing funding for the Natural Resources Department environmental planner
for code compliance that was discontinued.
Councilmember Wanner called for the question on the amendment.
Councilmember Bertschy stated that he would not support the motion and requested a discussion
on this item in the exceptions process.
304
November 20, 2001
• Councilmember Tharp supported the concept of ongoing funding for this item and suggested dealing
with the item in the exceptions process.
Councilmember Kastein asked why this position is needed.
Councilmember Tharp stated that ongoing funding for environmental compliance is needed.
Councilmember Kastein suggested that this item should be discussed at a later date and that at this
late date this type of amendment should not be brought forward unless there is insight into the
immediate need for this type of position.
The vote on the motion to amend was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Hamrick and Tharp. Nays:
Councilmembers Bertschy, Kastein, Martinez, Wanner and Weitkunat
THE MOTION FAILED
Councilmember Hamrick stated that he would like to see more discussion on all of the items he
mentioned in his initial motion. He stated that he would like to see ongoing funding for the human
rights position and the youth services librarian.
• Councilmember Tharp expressed concerns regarding the level of spending in this budget and stated
that it is not a fiscally conservative budget. She stated that she would support a tighter budget that
would be more in line with revenues.
Councilmember Bertschy thanked staff for the memos regarding the adequacy of financial reserves
and priorities in the event of a financial downturn.
Councilmember Wanner thanked Deputy City Manager Jones and Budget Director Smith for their
work in preparing the budget.
Councilmember Hamrick thanked staff for its hard work on the budget and stated that he still has
concerns about the overall increases in the budget compared with inflation. He stated that he still
has questions regarding how the budget process works. He stated that he would not be supporting
the motion.
Mayor Martinez thanked staff for its work on the budget.
The vote on the main motion to adopt Ordinance No. 197, 2001 on Second Reading was as follows:
Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Kastein, Martinez, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays:
Councilmembers Hamrick and Tharp.
0 305
November 20, 2001
THE MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance No. 205, 2001
Adopting the 2002 Classified Employees Pay
and Classification Plan, Adopted on First Reading.
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"Financial Impact
Funding for the Pay and Classification Plan will be accomplished with existing funds, as proposed
by the 2002-2003 budget.
Executive Summary
This Pay Plan continues in support of the practice ofsetting City pay range maximums at the market
70th percentile. Data from the public and private sectors, including reported published survey data
and a special City of Fort Collins Compensation Survey, were used to determine the prevailing
market rates for 100 benchmarkjobs.
This pay plan continues in the philosophy of market comparability and competitiveness.
PRIMARYDATA SOURCES:
Mountain States Employer's Council (MSEC):
MSEC Colorado Front Range Compensation Survey represents Colorado employers of all sizes.
Data is collected from 457 respondents situated all across the front range, including the four
geographic areas of Denver/Boulder, Northern Colorado, Colorado Springs and Pueblo and
representing 68,818 employees. The Northern Colorado survey information includes 54 employers
of various sizes, representing a total of over 32, 000 employees. Although public sector employers
are included in the survey, they represent only 10% of the employers. MSEC surveys 307
benchmarkjobs. Information Technology is included in a separate survey.
Mountain States Employer's Council (MSEC) Information Technology Compensation Survey. -
Data is collected from 286 respondents. There are 7,185 employees and 138 benchmarkjobs.
Information is not broken down by geographic region or type of industry.
Mountain States Employer's Council (MSEC) Public Employers Compensation Survey:
This survey replaces the Longmont Compensation Survey. Sixty-four respondents provided data
from the Front Range representing 81,250 employees and 94 benchmarkjobs.
306
November 20, 2001
• Mountain States Emplover's Council (MSEC) Utilities Compensation Survey
Data is collected from 30 respondents. There are 15,339 employees and 41 benchmark jobs.
Information is not broken down by geographic region or type of industry.
Colorado Municipal League (CML)
CML reports compensation information from 89 jurisdictions in the State of Colorado, including
69 municipalities, 15 counties and five special districts. Sixty-seven of the 89 participants have
populations over 5, 000. The survey provides information on 115 benchmarkjobs commonly shared
by most municipalities, as well as a second survey of32 executive and management level jobs in the
public sector.
City of Fort Collins Compensation Survey
This year, the Human Resources department conducted a special survey of 37 jobs that were not
represented in the published sources. This data was combined with the other survey data to
calculate the prevailing market wage rates.
Results:
Pay Plan: The pay structures were again established by calculating the 70th percentile on
benchmarks and allowing an approximate 10% difference between pay grades. Pay ranges still
• capture a 36% spread. This calculation was done in concert with an examination of the benefit
plans and structures offered by the City and those provided by comparative municipalities. This was
conducted to meet the need to manage the City's total compensation philosophy.
The pay for each pay grade has been reviewed by comparing the benchmark jobs in each
occupational group to similar jobs in the local private and public sectors. This analysis permitted
an evaluation of the competitiveness of the pay grade. Each of the pay grades in an occupational
group were similarly analyzed, and if it was observed that a structure adjustment was needed, the
pay ranges in that occupational group were adjusted.
These analyses indicated that occupational groups needed to be adjusted to remain competitive with
the market. The proposed average structure adjustment is 4. 0%. "
City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item and noted that a discussion will be scheduled
in January or February regarding pay plan philosophy.
Rick de la Castro, Human Resources Director, presented background information regarding the
agenda item. He outlined the process that is followed to determine the new pay plan and pay ranges.
0 307
November 20, 2001
Councilmember Hamrick asked if there is a deadline for adoption of the pay plan. City Manager
Fischbach stated that in order to make the payment to the employees the pay plan must be approved
on Second Reading by December 18.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if this has been discussed at a study session. City Manager
Fischbach stated that a study session will be held early in 2002 to discuss the City's pay philosophy.
Councilmember Hamrick asked about what a healthy turnover rate would be. De la Castro stated
that there is not a standard number and that Fort Collins has the lowest turnover compared with other
cities that are surveyed.
Councilmember Tharp made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt Ordinance
No. 205, 2001 on First Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Tharp, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Mayor Martinez thanked staff for its work on the pay plan.
Other Business
Councilmember Tharp suggested that the City Council direct the City Manager to delay any action
of the Zoning Administrator with regard to the Bennett Bungalows until the wishes of Council are
clarified.
Mayor Martinez asked what type of Council action would be needed to accomplish Councilmember
Tharp's intent. City Manager Fischbach stated that staff needs to research how this can be
accomplished.
Councilmember Bertschy suggested talking about this issue in an Executive Session after staff has
an opportunity to research the matter.
Councilmember Tharp suggested that it is necessary to address the intent of the Westside Plan with
regard to the Bennett park issue.
Mayor Martinez requested that this item be scheduled to another meeting for discussion in Executive
Session.
308
•
•
•
November 20, 2001
December 4, 2001 and January 1, 2002
Reeular Council Meetings Cancelled
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Bertschy, to cancel the
regular Council meetings of December 4, 2001 because of the National League of Cities conference
and January 1, 2002 because of the holiday. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Tharp, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Adiournment
Councilmember Tharp made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adjourn the meeting
to November 27, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Tharp, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
ATTEST:
309
Mayor