HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-12/07/2004-RegularDecember 7, 2004
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, December 7,
2004, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and
Weitkunat.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Mayor Martinez stated each participant would have three minutes to speak.
Carmen Reed, Old Town resident, stated the Rolland Moore West Neighborhood Network had
collected some stories regarding antisocial behavior, Code violations and irresponsibility of landlords
of rental properties. She stated these situations were threatening the quality of life in single family
neighborhoods. She spoke regarding actual situations in which loud and disruptive parties affected
entire neighborhoods.
W.C. Waker, Avery Park Neighborhood, spoke regarding the impacts of rentals, noise, loud parties,
speeding, and improper parking in her neighborhood.
Melissa Anderson, Rolland Moore West Neighborhood Network, stated the neighborhood was
recommending that CSU and the City work together to preserve single family neighborhoods through
the following actions: expand education for students on respecting and fitting in with neighborhood
norms and values; enforce occupancy limits on residential rentals in single family neighborhoods;
adopt legislative that would serve to enlist landlords in addressing the issues of alcohol abuse and
general nuisance issues by requiring them to have tenants sign leases that would include clauses
prohibiting large parties, noise after 10:00 p.m., underage drinking and other violations of City
ordinances; expand education, especially for young women, on the hazards of binge drinking; pass
a keg registration ordinance to allow purchasers to be identified and contacted if needed; strengthen
communication links with law enforcement, hire more staff on campus to handle increased volume
of students receiving ticketed violations and reported to CSU by the police; close a loophole in the
CSU freshman housing rule that allows freshmen to live off campus if parents are listed as owners
of a house but are not present; raise academic standards; continue the Fort Collins police party
patrols; pass a nuisance gathering ordinance to more effectively stop parties before they escalate out
of control and hold instigators accountable; establish standards for maintenance and enhancement
of structures and landscapes on properties operated as rental business investments in R-L and N-C-L
zones; and build or support private projects for additional housing on or near campus to relieve the
pressure on neighborhoods and create environments that are more conducive to student life. She
stated the Neighborhood Network was submitting six pages of stories and the position paper
275
December 7, 2004
"Preserving Our Neighborhoods" for the public record.
Glen Colton, 625 Hinsdale Drive, spoke regarding urban renewal abuse i.e. actions taken by the City
of Loveland a year ago and actions being taken by the Town of Timnath to declare farmland as a
"blighted area" to get tax increment financing. He stated this could have a detrimental impact on
school funding, including higher education, because discretionary State funds would be routed to
municipal improvements rather than to education. He stated the use by communities of this
"inappropriate tool" would also fuel urban sprawl in northern Colorado. He asked that the City
support the drafting of legislation to curb the abuse of urban renewal authorities and tax increment
financing.
Don Taranto, 1316 La Eda Lane, objected to the proposed southwest enclave annexation. He stated
the annexation would affect over 1,100 families and over 2,000 acres and could potentially be the
largest forced annexation in the history of the State. He stated this annexation would not meet the
"spirit of the law." He stated this enclave was created by the acquisition of open space property
rather than by a "ringing" of the property by infrastructure. He stated this enclave was an "exception
to the rule" and that there would be no benefit to the City or to the property owners in the area. He
stated this area was not yet a "legitimate candidate" for annexation.
Kelly Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, congratulated everyone involved in the visionary purchase
of the Soapstone Ranch. He stated he lived in the Rolland Moore Neighborhood. He stated some
members of the Council appeared to be focusing on "behavior issues" relating to rentals and
neighborhoods. He stated the real issue was an enforced and enforceable (and no exceptions) "three
unrelated" ordinance in single family neighborhoods. He stated current policy was "destroying
neighborhoods." He also stated interviews of City Manager candidates should be held in open
session rather than Executive Session.
Don Simpson, Mountain Valley Acres, opposed the southwest enclave annexation. He stated one
of the main objections would be increased utility rates and the loss of membership in the R.E.A. He
stated the area would be paying 25% more for 10 years for electricity if annexed. He stated this was
a case of the City "trying to develop" the area and that the area residents had not had a voice in this.
He stated the vast majority of residents were strongly opposed to the annexation. He also expressed
a concern about stormwater fees for the large acreages in the area. He stated fees would be $10 to
$100 per month and that this would be excessive.
Dean Miller, 2856 Canby Way, stated the last study session was informative and helpful. He
commended the Council for its "thoughtful deliberations and sharing of ideas." He stated it was a
"respectful interaction." He stated many people want the City to move ahead and that they want to
know how their money will be spent on specific projects. He stated many people would be willing
to pay more taxes if it would help create good jobs. He thanked the Council for the decision to make
it possible for the citizens to vote on the expansion of the Senior Center.
Mark Brophy, 1109 West Harmony Road, stated_there would be a ballot issue in April to repeal the
grocery tax. He stated the Council had asked the City Manager to identify what part of the budget
276
December 7, 2004
would be cut if the grocery tax was repealed. He asked that the Council make that decision itself
because the Council sets the policy and the City Manager implements the policy. He suggested that
the Council schedule time at a meeting to discuss the "least valuable parts" of the City budget and
to suggest to the voters what would be cut from the budget if the grocery tax was repealed.
Lindsay Byers, CSU student, stated the "three unrelated" ordinance was discriminatory, arbitrary and
subjective. She stated the ordinance did not solve the nuisance problem.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Mayor Martinez stated he had promised the residents of the southwest enclave annexation area a
letter of response to their issues and that all of the answers were not yet available. He asked when
a letter would be completed. Interim City Manager Atteberry stated the answers would all be
available by the end of the week.
Mayor Martinez stated the Council did make the final decisions on budget cuts and changes. He
stated the staff made recommendations to the Council in that area.
Councilmember Bertschy asked for more information about the keg registration ordinance recently
adopted by Laramie, Wyoming. He stated the Charter required that the City Manager prepare the
City budget and present it to the Council. He stated Fort Collins was working on an Urban Renewal
District for the North College area that fit the true definition of urban renewal. He stated the Council
was concerned about relationships with neighboring communities, such as the Town of Timnath, and
about community separators.
Councilmember Roy thanked those who spoke about the southwest enclave annexation. He asked
if it would be possible to determine the number of kegs sold in Fort Collins. Interim City Manager
Atteberry stated staff would determine if that information was available and that staff would obtain
the Laramie keg registration ordinance.
Mayor Martinez stated he would also like to see information collected on how well keg registration
ordinances work in the communities that have adopted such an ordinance.
Councilmember Roy stated he agreed that the Council was still focusing on how to create a solution
to the nuisance elements of rental properties. He stated he was convinced that "true rental licensing"
with standards and inspections based on the "three unrelated ordinance" was the correct direction
to solve the problem. He stated Council was able to make good decisions because of the quality
work on options done by staff. He stated he was proud of the Soapstone Ranch purchase. He stated
there were "true blighted areas" in the North College area and that there were major differences
between the City's urban renewal efforts and the activities of other municipalities regarding
farmland.
Councilmember Hamrick stated this Council should resolve the rental licensing issue rather than
"handing it off" to the next Council. He asked for a time line for consideration of the specific
277
December 7, 2004
components of the rental licensing issue. Interim City Manager Atteberry stated a Study Session was
scheduled to discuss rental licensing alternatives and Council direction on January 25.
Councilmember Hamrick stated he believed that the Council had provided direction to bring back
a revised "three unrelated" ordinance to change it from a criminal liability to a civil infraction. City
Attorney Roy stated this direction was clear. He stated the issue being discussed at the staff level
was how to tie in the possibility that certain areas may be exempt from the "three unrelated"
requirement. He stated Council direction on this issue was needed before the revised "three
unrelated" ordinance could be drafted.
Councilmember Hamrick stated he did not want a delay in having an enforceable "three unrelated"
ordinance. Interim City Manager Atteberry stated a work group was looking at the issue and that an
economic analysis was being done. He stated Councilmember Hamrick's questions should be
answered in material being sent to the Council within the next few days.
Councilmember Hamrick stated the City Manager interviews should be held in an open and public
process. He stated Council would be discussing this issue later in the meeting.
Councilmember Kastein stated the urban renewal issue was not part of the legislative policy agenda
and that he would therefore request that the Resolution adopting the legislative policy agenda be
pulled from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion. He stated the Building on Basics ballot
issue would be delayed to November because of the issue on the April ballot relating to repeal of the
grocery tax. He stated the enhancement project package was a priority after maintenance of current
City activities. He stated the quarter center extension for road maintenance would appear on the
April ballot because it was a high priority that was currently being funded from a previous tax. He
stated if that tax was not extended that the City would not be able to maintain its roads.
Agenda Review
Interim City Manager Atteberry stated Resolution 2004-145 recognizing retiring bond counsel
Loring Harkness had been added to the agenda and asked that Council consider that item as part of
the Consent Calendar. He stated item #29 Resolution 2004-144 Amending the Boards and
Commissions Manual Relating to Citizen Participation during Board and Commission Meetings had
a revised Resolution.
Mark Brophy,1109 West Harmony Road, withdrew item #27 Resolution 2004-142 Adopting the
City's 2005 Legislative Policy Agenda from the Consent Calendar.
CONSENT CALENDAR
7. Consideration and approval of the adjourned meeting minutes of November 9, 2004.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 174, 2004, Amending Chapter 26, Article VII, Division
278
December 7. 2004
2 of the City Code Relating to Stormwater Fees.
The Ordinance will:
NOT increase stormwater rates for 2005; but will
permit the Utilities General Manager to adjust the area utilized in calculating
the monthly stormwater fee for residential lots in excess of one-half acre and
for properties used for agricultural purposes.
Staff recommends that Council approve the Ordinance pending further study and analysis of
the capital improvement program and financing plan. Ordinance No. 174, 2004 (Option A)
was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 16, 2004.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 179, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the Recreation Fund to be Used for General Operating Support of the Adaptive Recreation
Opportunities Program Recreation Works Project.
The City was awarded a $43,030 grant from the Department of Education via a sub -award
from Colorado State University. This Ordinance, which was adopted unanimously on First
Reading on November 16, 2004, appropriates that grant money in the Recreation Works
Grant H project.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 180, 2004, 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 Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant Program.
Fort Collins Police Services ("FCPS") has been awarded a grant from the U.S. Department
of Justice LLEBG program in the amount of $13,817. The funds are to buy equipment
related to basic law enforcement functions. A local cash match of $1,535 is required and will
be met by the existing Police Services budget. The grant funds will be used to purchase
trunk vaults for securing SWAT rifles and other SWAT equipment in vehicles.
The grant requires input from an Advisory Board who will make a non -binding
recommendation to the U.S. Department of Justice on the agency's use of the funds. The
Advisory Board, consisting of representatives from local law enforcement (FCPS Chief
Harrison), prosecution (District Attorney Stuart VanMeveren), court system (Judge Kathleen
Lane), public school (Ellyn Dickmann), and a non-profit agency active in crime prevention
or treatment (Scoot Crandall — TEAM Fort Collins and Pam McCracken — CSU Center for
Drug and Alcohol Education), reviewed the project and supported the proposed use of the
grant funds. Ordinance No. 180, 2004, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on
November 16, 2004.
279
December 7, 2004
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 181,2004,Authorizingthe PurchasingAgent toEnter into
an Agreement for the Financing by Lease -Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment.
The cost of the items to be lease -purchased is $406,132. No payments are due in 2004.
Payments at the 4.43% interest rate will not exceed $91,002 in 2005. Money for the first
year lease -purchase payments is included in the 2005 budget. The effect of the debt position
for the purpose of financial rating of the City will be to raise the total City debt by .09%. A
competitive process was used to select Koch Financial Corporation for this lease. Staff
believes acceptance of this lease rate is in the City's best interest.
Ordinance No. 181, 2004, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 16,
2004.
12. Second Reading, of Ordinance No. 182, 2004, Authorizing the Conduct of a Mail Ballot
Election for the April 5, 2005 Regular Municipal Election.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 16, 2004,
authorizes the April 5, 2005 regular municipal election to be conductedby mail ballot, adopts
the Mail Ballot Election Act of the Uniform Election Code governing mail ballot elections,
authorizes the City Clerk to submit a mail ballot plan to the Secretary of State, and
establishes the polling place for in -person voting for the April election.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 184, 2004, Authorizing Addendum #1 to the Long Term
Lease of Property at the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airnort with Bill Sheel.
Bill Sheel has constructed a private hangar on the airport under a long-term lease agreement.
Mr. Sheel wishes to construct an automobile access to his hangar off of Lear Drive. The
land needed for this access will be added to his lease and lease payments will be increased
by an additional $115.80 per year.
The cities have the option of canceling the amendment if the land is needed for any purpose
in the future. The cities are not obligated for any costs if the amendment is canceled prior
to the expiration of the term of the base lease.
Ordinance No. 184, 2004, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 16,
2004.
14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 185.2004,Authorizing the Conveyance ofNon-Exclusive
Easement Interests for the Construction of a Twenty -Two Foot Wide Drainage Channel for
the Redeemer Lutheran Church of Fort Collins on a Portion of the Fossil Creek Reservoir
Regional Open Space.
Pursuant to the City of Fort Collins Natural Area and Open Lands Easement Policy adopted
by Resolution 2001-094, Redeemer Lutheran Church, located about 600 feet west of the
RM
southwest corner of Timberline and Carpenter Roads, is requesting an easement for a
drainage channel across the Fossil Creek Reservoir Regional Open Space jointly owned by
City of Fort Collins and Larimer County.
The 25-foot wide permanent easement will accommodate a 22-foot wide drainage channel
that will be approximately 3-4 feet deep. The easement and channel will be located generally
along the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way for a distance of approximately 785 feet, with
a total area of 19,248 square feet (0.44 acre). A 45-foot wide temporary construction
easement necessary for the construction of the drainage channel will encompass the
permanent drainage easement during the time of construction and reclamation, estimated to
be no more than one year, and will be a total of 34,006 square feet (0.78 acre) in size.
Ordinance No. 185, 2004, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 16,
2004.
15. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 186, 2004, Authorizing the Granting of a Non -Exclusive
Utility Easement to the City of Loveland on Jointly Owned, City and City of Loveland
Property at the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport.
The proposed easement runs the east 40 feet of the SE 1/4 of Section 28, Township 6 North,
Range 68 West, a portion of the Airport property. The City of L.oveland's Power Operations
Division is seeking to provide new service, and improve existing service in the airpark area.
The proposed easement is 40 feet in width and runs the length of the property, or 2647.71
feet. The City of Loveland's Power Operations Division will restore the ground's surface
to its prior condition.
Staff has determined that this easement carries a benefit which exceeds its cost. This
easement will benefit the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport by bringing power to
areas not currently served and thus facilitating future Airport expansion. This Ordinance was
unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 16, 2004.
16. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 187, 2004, Amending Ordinance No. 050. 2004
Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary
for the Construction of Public Improvements in Connection with the Stormwater Utility
Drainage Outfall for the North Tributary ystem and the Street Oversizing Ziegler Road
Realignment Project.
With Ordinance No. 050, 2004, Council granted authorization to allow the City to begin
condemnation proceedings if the continuing negotiations are not successful. The City has
continued good faith negotiations with the property owners to acquire the property. As a
result of these negotiations, there have been several minor changes to the construction details
of the improvements.
281
December 7, 2004
These minor changes affect the amount of property required for the storm water drainage
easement, reduce the area of a planned vehicle turn around on the maintenance road, and
reduce the slope easement required for the Ziegler Road embankment. In addition, the
property owners have requested that the City act as intermediaries for other drainage and
utility easements required by the Rigden Farm development for its Sixth Filing.
To accommodate these changes and at the property owner's request, staff has prepared
revised legal descriptions for the eminent domain process. This Ordinance, which was
unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 16, 2004, amends Ordinance No. 050,
2004 by revising the legal descriptions of the easements.
17. Second Readine of Ordinance No. 188, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Home Investment Partnerships Prop -ram.
The Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program and the Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) Program provide funds from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development to the City of Fort Collins that can be allocated to community development and
affordable housing related programs and projects, thereby reducing the demand on the City's
General Fund Budget to address such issues. Ordinance No. 188, 2004, was unanimously
adopted on First Reading on November 16, 2004.
18. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 189, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Community Development Block Grant Program.
The Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program and the Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) Program provide funds from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development to the City of Fort Collins that can be allocated to community development and
affordable housing related programs and projects, thereby reducing the demand on the City's
General Fund Budget to address such issues. Ordinance No. 189, 2004, was unanimously
adopted on First Reading on November 16, 2004.
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 190, 2004, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General
Fund forUveradin and ndReplacingtheDevelopmentTracking_SystemandtheDevelopment
Management System.
The City of Fort Collins has operated and maintained a software application known as the
DTS since 1999. This application automates the departments of Building and Zoning and
Current Planning business processes. These processes include portions of the development
review process, the complete building permit process, as well as peripheral processes such
as contractor licensing. The software is a vital component to the operation of these
departments.
The vendor that supplies this application, Accela, recently released the latest version of this
automated system. The City diligently researched the new software release and has deemed
282
December 7, 2004
it a very desirable upgrade. The new release will align this system with the current standards
and direction of the City's overall Information Technology strategies. This upgrade would
also allow for the processes of Building and Zoning and Development Review to be
completely integrated within a single application. Such integration will allow a more
coordinated processing of development review and construction permitting. The vendor is
offering, for a limited -time, considerable pricing incentives for existing software license
holders. If the City agrees to upgrade by December 31, 2004, Accela will waive all licensing
fees for the upgrade software, a total of $149,995. The upgrade to the latest software release
will be required in the future if the City continues to use this vendor's products.
20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 191, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund for the Restorative Justice Youth Conferencing Program and the Restorative
Justice Restore Program.
Office of .Juvenile .Justice, Division of Criminal .Justice (DCJ) Grant
A grant in the amount of $20,000 has been received from the Colorado Division of Criminal
Justice ("DCJ") for salaries associated with the continued operation of the Restorative Justice
Youth Conferencing Program. Restorative justice is an alternative method of holding a youth
offender accountable for his or her actions by conferencing with the youth and the victim to
develop appropriate consequences for the offense. By learning to understand the impacts of
their actions on the victim, Criminal Justice Officials are optimistic repeat offenses will be
reduced. A $2,222 cash match is required and will be met by appropriating previously
collected project income (client fees) from users of this program. The grant period is from
October 1, 2004 to September 30, 2005.
Bohemian Foundation Grant
The Bohemian Foundation awarded a grant in the amount of $25,000 for salaries associated
with the continued operation of the Restorative Justice Restore Program ("RESTORE"). The
RESTORE Program was developed to apply a restorative justice approach to hold juvenile
shoplifting suspects accountable for their actions and assist them in making appropriate
amends to the victims. Families, victims and law enforcement are all involved in this
monthly process in which 25 to 50 youth participate. No cash match is required. The grant
period is from October 1, 2004 to September 30, 2005.
The grant monies are awarded to and received by the Restorative Justice Program. They are
not used in or by Municipal Court. However, about 85% of the cases handled in the two
restorati vej ustice programs are referred by Municipal Court. These cases deal primarily with
youth and young adults, and are dismissed from Municipal Court upon completion of the
Restorative Justice Program. The Court is sent verification of completion. Case referrals are
also received from the District Court, police officers and school administrators.
wit?
December 7, 2004
21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 192, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Street Oversizin¢ Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations from the Street
Oversizing Fund to the Capital Project Fund - Drake and Ziegler Road Improvements
Project, Phase I.
The Drake and Zeigler Road Improvements Project, Phase I includes arterial street
improvements for Drake Road, from Timberline east to Environmental Drive (approximately
4,500 linear feet). These street improvements will include the widening of Drake Road to
a minor arterial street standard from its existing two-lane configuration, and the construction
of the Environmental Drive connection (an additional 1,000linear feet). The improvements
include the installation of curb -and -gutter, sidewalks, asphalt paving, bike lanes, and storm
sewers.
Staff has coordinated this project with the planned construction of a new trunk sewer line to
be constructed by the City's water and wastewater utility. These projects both require a full
street closure in order to construct them safely and efficiently. By coordinating schedules
and completing the work simultaneously, only one street closure will be necessary. The
construction is planned to begin in March of 2005. The full closure of the roadway will last
approximately 3 months.
22. First Reading of Ordinance No. 193, 2004, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort
Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the
Running Deer Natural Area Rezoning.
The rezoning request is consistent with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan designations
of both "Poudre River" and "Open Lands, Parks, Stream Corridors." The majority of the
properties contained within these "green" corridor designations are large publicly owned
parks, natural areas and open lands that have a community -wide emphasis or other
characteristics which warrant inclusion under this separate designation rather than inclusion
in an adjoining neighborhood or other District designation.
The T- Transition Zone District is intended for properties for which there are no specific and
immediate plans for development. The only permitted uses are those existing at the date the
property was placed into the district. Rezoning the property will allow the Natural Areas
Program to move forward with its plans to construct a parking lot and a trailhead to provide
public access to the property
There are roughly 14.828 acres on the northern end of the property which are currently being
leased by the City to an adjacent business. This area is not included in the rezoning request
and will remain within the T — Transition Zone District until the future use of the property
has been determined.
December 7, 2004
23. Items Pertaining to the Donation of a Conservation Easement From Larimer County for
Natural Areas Purposes.
A. Resolution 2004-138 Authorizing the Acceptance of a Donation of a Conservation
Easement on Red Mountain Ranch from Larimer County for Natural Area Purposes.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 194, 2004, Appropriating the Value of a
Conservation Easement on Red Mountain Ranch Donated to the City by Larimer
County as Unanticipated Revenue in the Natural Areas Fund.
This Resolution will authorize acceptance by the City of a donation of a conservation
easement on Red Mountain Ranch, adjacent to the City's Soapstone Ranch, for natural area
purposes. The Ordinance will appropriate the value of the donated conservation easement.
24. Items Pertaining to the Liebl Annexation.
A. Resolution 2004-139 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding
the Liebl Annexation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 195, 2004, Annexing Property Known
as the Liebl Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 196, 2004, Amending the Zoning Map
of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included
in the Liebl Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
The Liebl Annexation is a request to annex and zone 2.8 acres of land located along the east
side of Timberline Road, south of Kechter Road. The site contains an existing single family
residence and detached garage. The parcel is designated UE — Urban Estate on the Fort
Collins Structure Plan and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. The anticipated land use
is a bed and breakfast consistent with the design standards in the UE zone district. The parcel
is currently zoned FA1 - Farming in Larimer County.
25. Resolution 2004-140 Reappointing Kathleen M. Lane as Municipal Judge and Authorizing
Certain Other Amendments to the Judge's Employment Contract.
Article VII, Section 1 of the Charter provides that the Municipal Judge is to be appointed for
a term of two years. Kathleen M. Lane was first appointed to serve as the City's Municipal
Judge for a term commencing July 1, 1989. This Resolution reappoints Judge Lane for
another two-year term commencing on January 1, 2005 and ending on December 31, 2006,
and authorizes the Mayor to execute an addendum to Judge Lane's Employment Agreement.
285
December 7, 2004
26. Resolution 2004-141 Approving a Fifth Addendum to the City Attorney's Emplo ment
Agreement.
The Resolution would approve changes to the City Attorney's employment contract.
27. Resolution 2004-142 Adoptingthe e City's 2005 Legislative Policy Agenda.
Each year the Legislative Review Committee (LRC) develops a legislative agenda to assist
in the analysis of pending legislation. The proposed 2005 Legislative Policy Agenda, which
is attached to the Resolution as Exhibit "A", has been updated from the 2004 document and
was reviewed and approved by the Legislative Review Committee. Changes are highlighted
below. This document will be used as a guide for the upcoming 2005 General Assembly and
the first session of the 109th Congress. The purpose of the Legislative Policy Agenda is to
articulate the City's position on common legislative topics. It will be used by Council
members and staff to determine positions on pending legislation and as a general reference
for state legislators and our congressional delegation.
28. Resolution 2004-143 Concerning Alcohol Abuse in Our Community.
This Resolution recognizes a growing concern in the Fort Collins community regarding
student alcohol abuse and its impact on the City and on Colorado State University, and
directs the City Manager to undertake certain measures to identify strategies the City could
pursue to help curb alcohol abuse in the community.
29. Resolution 2004-144 Amending the Boards and Commissions Manual Relating to Citizen
Participation during Board and Commission Meetings.
The Boards and Commissions Manual (the "Manual") was adopted by City Council by
Resolution 2001-026. Resolution 2004-144 will amend the Manual to include a new section
under "Meeting Responsibilities." The new section will be entitled "Public Input" and will
direct all boards and commissions to include as part of the regular meeting agendas an
opportunity for public comment. This new provision will afford the public an opportunity
to provide input on topics assigned to the various boards and commissions and will broaden
the base of information available to boards and commissions.
30. Routine Easements.
A. Easement for Construction and Maintenance of Public Utilities from Gunter and
Nicolette Bischoff, to underground existing electric system, located at 2516 South
College Avenue. Monetary Consideration: $400.
December 7, 2004
30.5 Resolution 2004-045 Expressingthe he City Council's Appreciation to Loring E. Harkness III
for His Outstanding Service as Bond Counsel to the City of Fort Collins.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 174, 2004, Amending Chapter 26, Article VII, Division
2 of the City Code Relating to Stormwater Fees.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 179, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the Recreation Fund to be Used for General Operating Support of the Adaptive Recreation
Opportunities Program Recreation Works Project.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 180, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund for Police Services and Authorizing the Transfer of Matching Funds
Previously ppropriated in the Police Services Operating Budget to the Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant Program.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 181, 2004, Authorizing_ the Purchasing Agent to Enter into
an Agreement for the Financing by Lease -Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 182, 2004, Authorizing the Conduct of a Mail Ballot
Election for the April 5, 2005 Regular Municipal Election.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 184, 2004, Authorizing Addendum #1 to the Long Term
Lease of Property at the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport with Bill Sheel.
14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 185, 2004, Authorizing the Conveyance of Non -Exclusive
Easement Interests for the Construction of a Twenty -Two Foot Wide Drainage Channel for
the Redeemer Lutheran Church of Fort Collins on a Portion of the Fossil Creek Reservoir
Regional Open Space.
15. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 186, 2004, Authorizing the Granting of a Non -Exclusive
Utility Easement to the City of Loveland on Jointly Owned, City and City of Loveland
Property at the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport.
16. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 187, 2004, Amending Ordinance No. 050. 2004
Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary
for the Construction of Public Improvements in Connection with the Stormwater Utility
Drainage Outfall for the North Tributary System and the Street Oversizing Ziegler Road
Realignment Project.
287
MWAW OM
17. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 188, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Home Investment Partnerships Program.
18. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 189, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Community Development Block Grant Program.
34. Second Reading of Ordinance No.183, 2004, Amending Section 23-114 of the City Code
Concerning the Leasingof f City Property at the Fort Collins -Loveland Airport.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 190, 2004, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General
Fund for Upgradingand nd Replacing the Development Tracking System and the Development
Management System.
20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 191, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund for the Restorative Justice Youth Conferencing Program and the Restorative
Justice Restore Program.
21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 192, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Street Oversizing Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations from the Street
Oversizing Fund to the Capital Project Fund - Drake and Ziegler Road Improvements
Project, Phase 1.
22. First Reading of Ordinance No. 193, 2004, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort
Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the
Running Deer Natural Area Rezoning:
23. Items Pertaining to the Donation of a Conservation Easement From Larimer County for
Natural Areas Purposes.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 194, 2004, Appropriating the Value of a Conservation
Easement on Red Mountain Ranch Donated to the City by Larimer County as
Unanticipated Revenue in the Natural Areas Fund.
24. Items Pertaining to the Liebl Annexation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 195, 2004, Annexing Property Known as
the Liebl Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 196, 2004, Amending the Zoning Map of
the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in
the Liebl Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
NW.
December 7, 2004
35. First Reading of Ordinance No. 197, 2004, Amending Chapter 7.5-32 of the City Code
Regarding Street Oversizing Capital Improvement Expansion Fees.
36. First Reading of Ordinance No. 198, 2004, Making Various Amendments to the City of Fort
Collins Land Use Code.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, 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, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Consent Calendar Follow-up
Councilmember Bertschy spoke regarding item #23 Items Pertaining to the Donation of a
Conservation Easement From Larimer Countyfor Natural Areas Purposes.
Councilmember Hamrick commented regarding item #20 First Reading of Ordinance No. 191,2004,
Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for the Restorative Justice Youth
Conferencing Program and the Restorative Justice Restore Program and thanked the Bohemian
Foundation for its contribution.
Mayor Martinez asked how the Municipal Court used the restorative justice program. Judge
Kathleen Lane stated this was an important alternative sentencing device and diversion program.
She described the operation of the two programs.
Mayor Martinez noted that the Council had recently reappointed Judge Lane for another two years.
Staff Reports
Interim City Manager Atteberry reported that there would be a retirement reception for retiring bond
counsel Loring Harkness on December 14 at 4:00 p.m. He also reported that Rose Winkler, Human
Resources Department, had received a Children's Theater Outstanding Service Award for her
volunteer efforts. He reported that the cost to date of snow removal for the recent storm was
$230,463 and that the annual budget for snow removal was $763,000. He reported on the magnitude
of the storm conditions and the priorities for snow and ice removal.
Mayor Martinez noted that there were citizen complaints about the City plowing sidewalks shut after
sidewalks had been shoveled and asked how such complaints were handled. Ron Phillips,
Transportation Services Director, stated the City responded to such complaints by clearing the
sidewalk after the snow removal workload had diminished. He stated sidewalks were cleared where
sidewalks had been covered due to plowing on a routine basis once the major snow removal had
been completed.
W `7
December 7, 2004
Mayor Martinez asked if it was likely that a homeowner would receive a citation if the sidewalk was
not cleared after snow plowing covered it up. Phillips stated no citations were written that early in
the process and that if a citation was written that there was an appeal process.
Mayor Martinez asked when enforcement would begin. Phillips stated the City Code provided that
enforcement could commence 24 hours after the snow stops.
Mayor Martinez asked if there was a process in place to ensure that tickets would not be written in
cases where the sidewalk had been shoveled and the City had plowed and covered up the sidewalk.
Phillips stated it was unlikely that tickets would be issued in such situations. He stated most people
understood that the streets must be cleared and that they might need to clear sidewalks again after
the City plowed.
Mayor Martinez noted that many senior citizens had difficulty clearing their sidewalks. Interim City
Manager Atteberry stated snow plow operators made efforts to control speed to avoid covering up
sidewalks or locking in parked cars. He noted that when sidewalks were covered up due to plowing
that the City made an effort to mitigate the situation as quickly as possible.
Councilmember Tharp noted that there were some stretches of roadway such as Prospect Road where
there was no alternative except to cover up the sidewalk. She commented that it seemed to take a
long time to get sidewalks cleared and that this could create a hazardous situation for pedestrians.
Councilmember Roy commented that one storm had used up about one-third of the snow removal
budget. He commended the City for its snow removal efforts.
Mayor Martinez asked if the City worked with private contractors to keep up with snow removal.
Phillips stated private contractors were called out early in this storm to help keep arterial streets clear
and to replace City trucks during breakdowns.
Councilmember Reports
Mayor Martinez reported on the grand opening for the West Elizabeth street and median
improvements.
Councilmember Tharp noted that she had heard complimentary comments from the business
community on the West Elizabeth project.
Councilmember Bertschy reported on the National League of Cities conference in Indianapolis.
Mayor Martinez reported that he spoke at the opening of the new Natural Resources Research
Campus visitor's center.
I'1
December 7, 2004
Councilmember Kastein reported on the Ad Hoc Benefits Committee discussions on benchmark
changes.
Councilmember Tharp reported on a sustainability workshop sponsored by the Chamber of
Commerce.
Ordinance No. 183, 2004,
Amending Section 23-114 of the City Code Concerning the Leasing of City
Property at the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Cities of Loveland and Fort Collins have been reviewing for approval ground leases for the
construction of private hangars at the airport; these leases have been generic from one to the other
and have been approved through the consent agenda. By giving the City Managers the ability to
approve the leases it will expedite the approval process, reduce Councils work load and expedite
the initial collections of lease payments.
Ordinance No. 183, 2004, was adopted 6-1 (Nays: Councilmember Hamrick) on First Reading on
November 16, 2004."
Interim City Manager Atteberry stated this item was on the discussion agenda because the vote on
First Reading was 6-1.
Councilmember Hamrick stated the Airport impacted southeast Fort Collins residents
disproportionately and that it was important to look closely at any changes at the Airport that would
contribute to more airport traffic. He stated he believed that the Council should have an opportunity
to review hangar leases.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the issue was hangar leases and having aircraft in a building rather
than in the open. She stated this was not an issue of an increase in airport traffic.
Councilmember Tharp stated she was on the regional airport study committee and that a 20-year plan
for the Airport was being developed. She stated issues of expansion were being taken into
consideration. She stated hangar leases were not a concern to her and that the airport study was
being conducted to ensure the viability of the municipal airport. She stated the Airport was an
"economic driver" for jobs, transportation and communication.
Councilmember Tharp made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt Ordinance
No. 183, 2004 on Second Reading.
291
VOW =0MWA1WW#1J
Councilmember Roy stated he had voted in favor of the Ordinance on First Reading but would vote
against it on Second Reading. He stated he favored having the Council review hangar leases and
anything else that would give the Council a "better handle" on "ground level" activities at the
Airport.
Councilmember Kastein stated he would support the motion. He commented that the Council
needed to be in touch with the "bigger picture" at the Airport rather than the details of items such
as hangar leases. He noted that a master plan was being developed for the Airport.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Kastein, Martinez, Tharp
and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Hamrick and Roy.
Ordinance No.197, 2004,
Amending Chapter 7.5-32 of the City Code Regarding Street
Oversizing Capital Improvement Expansion Fees. Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff is proposing a 13.8% increase to the Street Oversizing Fee. The increase consists of two
elements: a 3.6% increase for inflation, and revisions to the Street Oversizing fees to account far
recently adopted changes to the City's Master Street Plan. Periodic routine recalculations of the
Street Oversizing fees are necessary to ensure that fee revenues will be sufficient to pay for the cost
of improvements that the program will be constructing.
• Construction costs have increased. Staff is recommending a 3.6% increase to keep pace with
inflation.
The recently adopted East Mulberry Plan tripled the amount of arterial and collector
roadway required to serve the zoning and density proposed in this planning area.
The recently adopted Transportation Master Plan reclassified several street segments as a
result ofcomputer modeling ofthe transportation network. Several streets were downgraded
in classification and a few were upgraded. However, no increase is necessary for these
changes.
Staff is proposing a recalculation of Street Oversizing fees to include these changes. The overall
result is a 13.8% increase in Street Oversizing fees.
292
December 7, 2004
BACKGROUND
Inflation of Construction Costs:
All of the city's capital improvement expansion fees, including the Street Oversizing Fee, are
adjusted annually for inflation. The Street Oversizing Fee is indexed to the Regional Construction
Cost Index published in the Engineering News Record (ENR). This index is showing a 9.5%
increase, mainly due to material price increases for steel, wood and fuel. However, staff also tracks
construction cost pricing for each project and developer reimbursement made in the Street
Oversizing Program. Staff has seen a 3.6% increase in construction costs and is recommending that
fees be increased to recover this 3.6% inflation amount.
East Mulberry Plan Revisions:
The East Mulberry Plan area is from Mulberry Street on the south, to (but not including) Vine Drive
on the north; and from Lemay Avenue to I-25. The adopted Plan looked at the transportation
network needed to support the land uses indicated by the City's Structure Plan. A significant
amount of arterial and collector streets were added. The previous amount of lane miles in the area
was 17.61. This increased to 62.13 lane miles, more than tripling the amount of street improvements
necessary. In the Street Oversizing analysis of these improvements, existing County developments
were not included, both for the street improvements adjacent to these areas and trip destinations to
these areas. However, the recalculation showed a 10.2% increase to the Street Oversizing fees.
Transportation Master Plan Revisions:
Staff also analyzed the reclassification of streets adopted with the Transportation Master Plan.
Several street segments were downgraded. A few street segments were upgraded, the most
significant being Carpenter Road rising to a six lane major arterial. However the net effect of these
roadway changes was insignificant in the recalculation of the Street Oversizing fees. The
Transportation Master Plan revisions did not increase the fees.
History
The City's policy is to require new development to pay for growth -related impacts on public
facilities. The Street Oversizing Impact Fee was enacted in 1979, with revisions in 1988 and 1996.
Additional impact fees for Fire, Police, Library, General Government and Community Parks were
adopted in 1996.
Impact fees are one-time payments that fund the development or expansion ofpublic facilities needed
to accommodate new development. The intent is for new development to pay for its proportionate
share of the capital costs of additional infrastructure capacity. Specific costs have been identified
using local data and current dollars. There are over 150 miles of arterial and collector street
improvements needed in the City's transportation network to accommodate new development within
the Urban Growth Area Boundary. These improvements will be needed to serve new growth. The
293
December 7, 2004
cost to complete the arterial and collector street network (including bike lanes and pedestrian ways)
to build out in the Urban Growth Area has been estimated by an analysis of the adopted Master
Street Plan. Included in these infrastructure costs are bus bays and shelters, commuter bicycle
lanes, sidewalks and ADA ramps, and other improvements that increase the modal capability of the
street into a transportation corridor. The level of improvement is based on the new Street Standards
adopted in 1996.
The Street Oversizing Program uses the impact fees it collects to fund the construction of arterial
and collector roadways necessary to mitigate the impacts of new development.
Increasing the functional capacity of existing improved streets can be viewed as correcting "existing
deficiencies" in public facilities and not as a need created by new development. Impact fees are
specifically restricted from correcting these existing deficiencies. These improvements are
traditionally funded in Fort Collins by sales taxes.
Summary
Capital improvement expansion fees are annually adjusted for inflation. This year staff is
recommending a 3.6% increase to offset the effects of increased construction costs.
Changes in City Land Use Regulations and Transportation Plans require revising the Street
Oversizing Program to bring it in line with new regulations and capture the actual costs of growth.
The Street Oversizing Program has undergone routine recalculations in the past in response to
changes in the City's Land Use Plan:
The Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan adopted in 1999 added significant street
miles to the City's Master Street Plan and required a fee increase to recover
costs.
The Fossil Lake expansion of the City's GMA in 2000 added some street
miles, but also increased the amount of developable land in the City,
resulting in a decrease of fees.
The recently adopted East Mulberry Plan and the adoption of the Transportation Master Plan made
changes to the future funding obligations of the Street Oversizing Program. Fees should be
increased to recover costs. Street Oversizing must recover the costs of growth to continue to be a
financially viable program for constructing transportation infrastructure in newly -developing areas.
A matrix of the proposed revisions included in this routine recalculation of the Street Oversizing
fees:
294
December 7, 2004
Current Fee
Inflation
East Mulberry Plan
add
Proposed Fee
esidential
$2,006/d.u.
$72/d.u.
$204/d.u.
$2 282/d.u.
i ht Industrial
$1.43/s..
$0.51s..
$0.141s..
$1.62/s. .
ice
$3.35/s..
$0.121s..
$0.341s..
$3.81/s..
etail
$4.98/s..
$0.181s..
$0.511s..
$5.67/s..
3.6% change
10.2% increase
13.8% increase
Staff recommends adoption of these routine fee adjustments to the Street Oversizing Program."
Interim City Manager Atteberry introduced the agenda item.
Matt Baker, Transportation Services, presented background information relating to the agenda item.
He stated the proposed street oversizing fee adjustments had been reviewed with the Council at a
Study Session. He stated the intent of the fee was to have new development pay its fair share of
transportation costs. He stated an impact fee was collected for each new development based on trip
generation and that the funds received were used to reimburse developers for constructing streets or
for the City to construct streets within or adjacent to the newly developed areas. He presented visual
information showing a graphic representation of payment of costs and the $26.7 million in
transportation improvements completed using the street oversizing program over the last six years.
He stated the proposal was to make routine adjustments to the street oversizing program: an annual
adjustment for inflation of construction costs and a routine recalculation due to the East Mulberry
Plan. He stated the proposed adjustments were an increase of 3.6% for the 2005 inflation adjustment
and an increase of 10.2% due to the recalculation of the East Mulberry Plan. He stated the total
recommended increase in the fee was 13.8%. He presented an overview of the recalculations that
had been done to arrive at the recommended increases. He stated the East Mulberry Subarea Plan
added a significant number of street miles (about 45 lane miles) to the City network and that the
Transportation Master Plan reclassified streets in accordance with the most recent computer
modeling. He stated no change in the oversizing fee was recommended as a result of the
Transportation Master Plan reclassifications. He presented comparative fee information for other
jurisdictions and historical information relating the City's impact fees to the sales price of new
homes. He stated impact fees had remained about 7.8% to 7.9% of the cost of new homes and that
impact fees were currently about 7.5% of the average sale price of a new home in Fort Collins. He
presented examples of increased fees for various kinds of commercial developments. He
summarized the review and public outreach processes.
Michelle Jacobs, Home Builders Association of Northern Colorado, stated placing the burden on
families was unfair. She stated only a small amount of the cost was paid by the City. She spoke
regarding impact fee court cases and stated the "essential nexis" was not apparent in the $204
increase for East Mulberry since that property was 4-8 years away from annexation. She stated it
was not reasonable to impose an impact fee increase to build streets on land that was not in the City.
295
.77iAVilllll
She stated an inflationary increase had already been approved earlier this year. She stated the City
should "work with the money it had rather than continually going to the building permit well to shore
up City finances." She stated current Fort Collins residents were moving into new homes. She
stated the Council needed to look at required improvements before adopting new or updated master
plans.
Tim Johnson, 1337 Stonehenge Drive, Transportation Board member, stated the Board supported
this increase. He stated there was a shortfall in funding for transportation needs. He stated growth
caused a need for transportation and that this was the reason there were oversizing fees. He stated
these fees were trip generation based fees and that this was a fair approach. He noted that
"speculative" commercial development on Riverside, Timberline and other streets were not deterred
by the impact fees. He noted that older intersections in town were failing due to the incremental
addition of traffic from new development. He stated a combination of solutions would be necessary
to pay for transportation capital needs. He stated a lack of adequate public facilities would "stop
development cold." He stated oversizing fees were necessary. He urged everyone to contact the
State about raising the gasoline tax and vehicle registration fees to pay for fundamental
transportation needs.
Glen Colton, 625 Hinsdale Drive, spoke in support of the recommended increases in street
oversizing fees. He asked that the Council consider going beyond that back to the March staff
recommendation for a larger increase to cover the impact of new development on existing
intersections. He spoke regarding strategies included in the Economic Vitality and Sustainability
Action Group report pertaining to transportation funding mechanisms. He noted that in the City Plan
survey 85% of residents surveyed indicated that new development should pay for all the costs of
extending roads and providing utilities and other required services. He stated implementing the
March staff recommendation for a larger fee increase would raise another $1 million per year for
critical funding needs. He stated this would be more fair to existing taxpayers. He stated new
growth should pay what it actually costs for improvements. He stated inadequate fees contributed
to an ever growing problem. He urged the Council to pass the proposed Ordinance and to go even
further to adopt the March staff recommendations.
David May, Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce Executive Director, spoke in opposition to the fee
increases. He stated they were being represented as routine and that a 13.8% increase was not
routine in these difficult economic times. He stated other mandatory costs had been added to
housing costs recently i.e. radon mitigation, soil amendments, etc. He stated added fees had a
significant impact on housing stock and commercial construction. He recommended that the Council
commission a study to look at the impact fees in comparison to other communities.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb Street, stated the proposed fees were inadequate. She stated
streets were now inadequate because of rapid growth. She stated sales tax could not be counted on
to meet transportation capital needs. She asked that the Council look at other solutions. She stated
oversizing fees failed to contribute to solving the problems of inadequate intersections and
"crumbling existing streets." She stated there were many "uncaptured costs" to existing residents
that added up to economic shortfalls. She stated there were intangible costs, such as added air
296
December 7, 2004
pollution and associated health costs. She asked that the Council take a comprehensive look at long
term transportation needs.
Councilmember Tharp asked staff to summarize why it was important to add the East Mulberry
streets to the analysis even though that area was not yet annexed to the City. Baker stated 20% of
the East Mulberry plan area was in the City at this time and that over 90% of the area was eligible
for annexation upon development. He stated upon annexation development would pay City impact
fees, construct streets and be reimbursed from the street oversizing fund. He stated it was necessary
to include the area in the Transportation Master Plan and to collect fees to build roads in the area.
Ron Phillips, Transportation Services Director, stated this was also consistent with the City planning
process. He stated the Growth Management Area had historically been the area for the base for the
formulation of costs of street infrastructure. He stated it was necessary for street oversizing fees to
be paid over time to help defer the cost of the development's impacts on the City.
Mayor Martinez asked if a street oversizing fee was being charged in the proposed southwest
annexation area. Phillips stated the area was included in the Master Street Plan and that the arterial
and collector (oversized) streets were included in the fee formulation because they were in the
Growth Management Area. He stated if development took place in that area in the County that there
was no street oversizing fee applied. He stated the arterial and collector streets were part of the
formulation of costs anticipated to go into the base of calculating the fee.
Mayor Martinez asked if there was a street oversizing impact fee for streets outside of the City limits.
Phillips stated they were included in the cost estimates done for the entire Growth Management Area
for collector and arterial streets. He stated homes constructed in the area that were not required to
annex would not pay the street oversizing fee but that if they annexed they would be required to pay
the fee. Cam McNair, City Engineer, stated they would pay a fee to the County if they remained in
the County and would pay a fee to the City if annexed.
Mayor Martinez asked why East Mulberry was being asked to pay before being annexed. McNair
stated the builder would pay a one-time fee when they drew a building permit.
Councilmember Kastein asked if development had been paying for street oversizing that may
eventually happen since the inception of the street oversizing fee. Baker replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated this issue had been discussed at the study session. She stated she
believed that everyone agreed with the inflationary increase. She asked Council to consider
postponing the 10.2% portion of the increase because the East Mulberry plan was only recently
adopted and because of the difficult economic times. She stated there had been incremental actions
in recent months that increased the cost of development. She stated it was "arbitrary" to make the
increase based simply on the addition of a subarea plan to the program. She asked for postponement
of the increase based on conditions. She noted that all new construction in the City would be
"picking up the tab."
297
December 7, 2004
Councilmember Tharp asked staff about the effect of such a delay. Phillips stated the City took in
about $4 million annually in street oversizing fees and that 10% would be $400,000. He stated
development paid the fees in effect at the time a building permit was pulled.
Councilmember Kastein noted that public improvements were delayed for the Lifestyle Center and
that some sales tax was rebated for that project. He also noted that Loveland offered incentives to
development to a greater degree than Fort Collins. He stated Loveland's impact fees for streets were
$2,900 and that the Fort Collins fees were $1,000 less than that. He stated the comparison was not
clear because of the rebates offered by Loveland and that it was unclear "how far behind" Fort
Collins actually was. Phillips stated when Loveland waived fees that they were paid from the
General Fund as required by law. He stated much of Loveland's new infrastructure was being paid
for through the issuance of debt to be paid for through the Metro District, the Urban Renewal
Authority, etc. He stated the Loveland approach to funding major infrastructure was different than
the Fort Collins approach.
Councilmember Kastein noted that it was not possible to compare the Loveland and Fort Collins
impact fees in isolation. Phillips agreed and noted that the Fort Collins fees were figured on the
rationale that had been in use for many year.
Councilmember Kastein asked if streets were completely funded in the past and, if so, what had
changed to create the funding shortfalls. Baker stated in past years the maintenance program was
street overlay on a block -by -block basis. He spoke regarding historical maintenance problems at
major intersections and the issuance of debt to patch streets damaged in snow storms. He stated such
situations led to the creation of a pavement maintenance program and street oversizing program.
Phillips stated the original street oversizing fees were set by Council lower than necessary and that
the street oversizing fund had financial difficulties as a result. He stated there had been a "steady
attempt" since then to set the fees where they needed to be.
Councilmember Roy stated he had questions at the study session on strategies for existing
intersection deficiencies and asked if there were any ideas on how the City should proceed. Phillips
stated the staff work that had been done on the issue was presented at a study session in March. He
stated additional study session discussion could be scheduled at Council's direction.
Councilmember Roy stated the City should address funding for existing intersection deficiencies.
He stated in response to Councilmember Weitkunat's comments that it was important to deal with
this issue now rather than postponing the matter.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if the $1.2 billion funding shortfall would be made worse if this fee
increase was postponed and how it would impact development in some areas. McNair stated the
$1.2 billion estimate was conceptual and that any action on the street oversizing fees would not
change that estimated figure. He stated over time the impact fees had been about the same
percentage of total housing prices. He stated Bruce Biggi had done a report on impact fees and
concluded that there was no dramatic impact on development provided the fees were applied fairly
W
December 7, 2004
and consistently and that the monies were used for the intended purposes. He stated the City's
program was "successful, consistent and self-sustaining" for 25 years.
("Secretary's Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point.)
Councilmember Hamrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adopt Ordinance
No. 197, 2004 on First Reading.
Councilmember Roy asked if at least three Councilmembers were interested in having staff work on
options for addressing funding for existing intersection deficiencies.
Councilmembers Bertschy and Hamrick stated they were interested.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would not support the motion and would not support
consideration of the intersection problem. She stated Fort Collins was in a difficult economic
situation and that the City was facing issues relating to sales tax and other funding resources. She
stated this Ordinance would impact the citizens and businesses. She stated more and more costs
were being passed along to the citizens of the community. She stated this action and the addition
of other fees would not help the economic recovery. She stated she would prefer to postpone the fee
increase. She stated she could support the inflationary increase but not the 10% increase.
Councilmember Hamrick stated price did not equal cost in housing. He stated impact fees had
remained consistent as far as a percentage of the cost of a home. He stated impact fees could have
a net positive effect on the local economy. He stated he would support the motion and that he would
also support an intersection and existing deficiencies analysis.
Councilmember Bertschy stated he would like the discussion to continue about existing deficiencies
and intersections. He stated the fee increases were justified by the City's inability to fund the overall
need. He stated there would be major improvements to be funded in an area (East Mulberry) that
would be a vital part of the City in the near future. He stated the overall funding of major
transportation needs must be addressed. He stated this significant increase would only be a "dent"
in the problem. He stated he was also concerned about the frequency of fee increases.
Councilmember Tharp stated she agreed that it was "tricky" to add more fees during time of
economic downturn. She stated it was necessary to have money to pay for adequate infrastructure
and that the transportation sales tax did not pass. She stated she did not want transportation funding
to fall further behind and that it appeared to be necessary to increase the street oversizing fees. She
stated she would reluctantly support the motion.
Councilmember Kastein stated there were significant funding issues. He noted that the gasoline tax
had not increased for inflation in decades and that the City was forced to find other options for street
maintenance and capital. He stated he would support the motion and that he would like to see an
analysis comparing the impact fees with the fees of other cities that were offering rebates to
developments.
299
December 7, 2004
Mayor Martinez expressed a concern that incremental fee increases were raising the cost of housing
and the cost of living. He noted that many working people could not afford to live in the City.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers BeRschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Roy,
and Tharp. Nays: Councilmembers Martinez and Weitkunat.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 198, 2004,
Making Various Amendments to the City of
Fort Collins Land Use Code. Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff has identified a variety of proposed changes, additions and clarifications in the Fall biannual
update of the Land Use Code. On November 18, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Board considered
the proposed changes and took specific action on five individual items. These actions are
summarized in the attached memo. Outside of these five specific items, the Board voted 6 - 0 to
recommend approval of the balance of the proposed changes to City Council.
BACKGROUND
The Land Use Code was first adopted in March of 1997. Subsequent revisions have been
recommended on a biannual basis to make changes, additions, deletions and clarifications that have
been identified in the preceding six months. The proposed changes are offered in order to resolve
implementation issues and to continuously improve both the overall quality and "user friendliness"
of the Code.
Attachments include a summary of the Planning and Zoning Board's action and a summary of all
the issues as well as the proposed Ordinance itself.
In addition, the attachments provided by the private party that seeks to add the Drive-in Restaurants
to the Neighborhood Center zone district are included. Also provided are draft design standards
,for Drive-in Restaurants if they are to be allowed in the N-C zone district. Should City Council
decide to enact these design standards, refinements will need to be made between First and Second
Readings of the Ordinance."
Interim City Manager Atteberry introduced the agenda item.
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, presented background information regarding the agenda item. He stated
these were the biannual Land Use Code updates. He stated at an October study session, Council
directed the deletion from the package of changes a request to reduce the minimum parking
300
December 7. 2004
requirement for the two -bedroom multifamily dwelling unit. He stated Council also directed that
the drive-in restaurant not be added to the NC -Neighborhood Commercial zone district. He noted
that the Planning and Zoning Board voted 4-2 in favor of that change. He stated at a November
Study Session the raptor buffer issue was discussed and that the Council was evenly divided on that
issue. He stated the Planning and Zoning Board considered the "skinny house" issue for the NCM
and NCB zone districts and voted 4-2 to recommend leaving the Code language as written. He stated
the Board also favored adding space in the trash enclosure for recyclable materials containers. He
stated language relating to indoor kennels was "tightened up" at the request of the Planning and
Zoning Board to allow such uses in the Harmony Corridor zone in the regional or community
shopping center and not in a residential district. He stated the Board voted 5-1 to continue the raptor
buffer item. He noted that the Council had an extensive packet of information on the proposed Land
Use Code changes, the study session discussions and Board recommendations.
John Stokes, Natural Resources, presented visual information relating to the raptor buffer issue. He
noted that the issue was discussed at a recent study session. He stated the proposal brought forward
at the request of some Councilmembers was to eliminate the hawk buffer and mitigation provisions
currently in the Code and to create a temporary disturbance radius of 450 feet during the first nesting
season and during the first year of a multi -year construction. He stated in subsequent years there
would not be a protected radius but that the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibited disturbance
of active nests. He stated the Natural Resources Advisory Board wanted the City to retain the current
standards and that the Planning and Zoning Board voted to continue the matter for further discussion.
He stated concerns included the loss of urban raptors, the lack of a City-wide tree protection
ordinance, and the lack of a scientific basis for the changes. He stated the staff recommendation was
to modify the Code as proposed. He stated staff believed that the changes would be appropriate
because the City had a "robust" landscape scale conservation system consisting of the natural areas
program and Section 3.4 of the Code setting forth setbacks for wetlands and riparian corridors.
Mayor Martinez stated each participant would have three minutes to speak.
Michelle Jacobs, Home Builders Association of Northern Colorado, stated the cost of land
development in the City contributed to increased home prices. She thanked the Councilmembers
who asked that the raptor buffer issue be brought back for discussion and who condemned the
$10,000 per acre mitigation fee. She stated there was a need to streamline the development review
process. She asked that the Council accept staff's proposal to eliminate the raptor buffer zones with
the exception of the one-year limited construction activity and to eliminate the $10,000 per acre
mitigation fee.
Patrick Reeves, 810 Maple Street, read a prepared statement on behalf of himself and nine other
residents (Diane Riser, 408 Wood Street; Robert and Elizabeth Cuff, 400 Park Street; Danielle Bilou,
406 Wood Street; Pat Kendall, 502 North Shields Street; Jim Wertz, 425 North Sherwood Street;
Don and Ruth Ingles-Widrick, 401 Wood Street; and Nan Reed, 308 Park Street) and stated the
comments had also been endorsed by the Capital Hill Neighborhood organizing group. He stated
item 666 would promote the preservation of historic Old Town neighborhoods such as Martinez Park
and Capital Hill by decreasing the potential for "shoehorning" of extremely narrow single-family
301
R�707212MWI
homes and duplexes side -by -side within a single lot with a minimum street frontage dimension of
40 feet. He stated the changes did not conflict with the City Plan goals for redevelopment and in -fill
in Old Town and that the planned growth could be accommodated by in -fill of existing vacant lots,
consolidation of adjacent underutilized partial lots, and through construction of carnage houses
behind existing dwellings. He stated the Land Use Code has not been recently updated to reflect the
goals of City Plan and that there were deficiencies that could be potentially destructive to the
neighborhood. He stated the revisions in item 666 were limited to single-family homes and duplexes
and were not extended to all permitted uses in NCM zoned areas (multifamily dwellings of up to four
units, bed and breakfasts, group homes, child care centers, etc.). He stated failing to give the same
treatment to these uses as to single-family homes and duplexes would promote an alteration of the
historical pattern of development and provide an economic incentive for the "scrape -off' of existing
structures and the construction of high density multifamily developments. He stated the Martinez
Park Neighborhood organization was informed by staff that the rewriting of the Westside
Neighborhood Plan will be delayed for two years. He stated policy EXN1.4 of City Plan "In -fill
Development and Redevelopment" permits in -fill redevelopment only in designated areas of existing
neighborhoods as determined in a subarea plan. He stated the residents of Martinez Park and Capital
Hill were in a vulnerable position where in -fill was being encouraged by City Plan without
appropriate quantitative standards.
Dick Rule, 4824 South Lemay Avenue, addressed items 674 and 675 and stated the proposed change
would eliminate single-family dwellings and accessory buildings and structures from the
requirements of Section 3.4.7 (Historical and Cultural Resources). He stated his assumption was
that this change would have eliminated the process he had to go through on the sale of his property.
He stated the proposed change would only pertain to non single-family dwelling units. He stated
these changes did not adequately address Council's comments at his appeal hearing or at the Study
Session on September 28. He stated he believed that Council wanted to restore the preservation
program to a more voluntary program through education and incentives and to provide better
notification to property owners regarding potentially eligible or declared sites or structures. He
stated he did not believe that those changes were addressed. He stated Paragraph (e) in Section 3.4.7
relating to demolition or relocation referred to "individually eligible" structures rather than
designated structures. He stated the proposed change would create the same kind of environment
that he had to deal with on his property. He stated there should be more specific guidelines on
relocation or demolition or structures other than an "opinion of the decision maker." He asked that
Council require additional work on this section of the Land Use Code and on Chapter 14 of the City
Code.
Kelly Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, stated the "science" showed that there should be bigger
raptor buffer zones. He stated staff should have focused on the "real reasons" for the change to zero
buffer i.e. that this was a one non -endangered species provision. He stated he would have preferred
to see strengthened habitat protection standards and enforcement of those standards and a stronger
community separator program. He stated this change to the Land Use Code was not ready for
approval. He stated the change relating to recyclable containers could also be improved.
302
December 7, 2004
Glen Colton, 625 Hinsdale Drive, supported the Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation that
there was not enough analysis done on the raptor buffer issue.
Fred Croci, 718 Meadow Run Drive, Wheeler Commercial, spoke in support of drive-throughs in
NC -Neighborhood Commercial zones. He stated he believed that pedestrian safety issues could be
adequately addressed.
John Slack, 1831 Terrace Court, W.W. Reynolds, supported drive-throughs in the NC zone. He
Scott Beard, Sonic Drive In, 1301 West Elizabeth Street, stated he had presented to the City Clerk
a petition signed by 140 individuals in support of drive-in restaurants in NC districts with one
contingency i.e. that design related issues be directed back to staff and Planning and Zoning to allow
the development of acceptable standards.
David Beard, Sonic Drive In, 1301 West Elizabeth Street, asked that Council allow drive-ins in the
NC zone and refer the design standards to the Planning and Zoning Board.
Shannon Velasquez, 2702 Rigden Parkway, stated there were few time and cost efficient restaurants
in the area in which she lived and worked. She supported the addition of a Sonic drive -through in
her area.
Mayor Martinez asked if Mr. Rule was correct in stating that the proposed Ordinance was contrary
to Council's direction. Shepard stated he was told that the proposal would "take the single-family
home out of the equation." He stated it was his understanding that if the Ordinance had been in
place during the Rule Farm proceedings that there would have been no such proceedings.
Councilmember Kastein stated it was his understanding that the Council direction was to allow the
ultimate decision regarding historical properties to be with the property owner. He questioned the
wording of the Ordinance that would allow relocation or demolition only if in the opinion of the
decision maker the applicant had to the maximum extent feasible attempted to preserve the site. He
asked if this language would leave the final decision up to the applicant. City Attorney Roy stated
his reading of the language would leave the decision up to the decision maker. He stated he would
discuss the language with the Deputy City Attorney prior to Second Reading of the Ordinance. He
stated the "decision maker" and "to the maximum extent feasible" were defined terms in the Code.
Greg Byrne, CPES Director, stated the proposed Land Use Code change was a partial response to
the direction received from Council. He stated further work was being done on options and that a
recommendation would be presented in the next round of Code changes. He stated the proposed
changes would take the review process back to how it was administered two years ago and that more
substantive changes would be made next spring.
Councilmember Tharp asked why staff did not follow the Council's direction in making these
changes. Byrne stated staff was following Council's direction and that the full changes were not
ready for this round of Land Use Code changes.
303
Councilmember Tharp noted that Council did not direct staff to develop six options and that clear
direction was given about the changes to be brought forward. She asked why staff was looking at
six different options. Byrne stated discussion was scheduled for the February 22 Study Session.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the problems that had occurred with the Rule situation would
be lessened by making this change. Byrne replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked about the language regarding "individually eligible" made a
difference and why the language relating to "designated" could not also be included. Byrne stated
those options would be considered by the Council in the next round of changes. He stated the
problem for the Rule situation was conflicting Code provisions. He stated in the spring changes the
Council would be asked if it wanted any provisions for protection of eligible ordesignated structures.
He stated it was his understanding that Council direction was to immediately eliminate the
conflicting provisions.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if this partial solution would be better than the current situation.
Byrne replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Rule requested permission to speak again. Mayor Martinez approved the request.
Mr. Rule stated all this change would do would be to remove single-family dwellings from the
requirements that he had to go through for his property. He stated the Chapter 14 provisions would
continue in effect.
Councilmember Kastein stated he viewed this as a first step toward a more lenient process that
would be more favorable for property owners. He stated he would like the recommendations to
come forward in time for this Council to make a decision before the election. Byrne stated staff
planned to bring the next round of changes forward to a February Study Session for action in March.
Mayor Martinez asked why the full changes could not yet be made. Byrne stated staff did not receive
clear direction on some specifics. He stated staff did understand that Council wanted a relaxation
in the standards.
Mayor Martinez requested that staff provide a copy of the study session summary at which direction
was given.
Councilmember Hamrick stated a speaker indicated that item 666 relating to "skinny houses" would
apply only to single-family and duplexes and asked why it would not apply to other uses. Cameron
Gloss, Director of Current Planning, stated there were work plan items scheduled over the next 18
months to address this issue. He stated a Code interpretation had been done to determine that houses
as narrow as 15 feet could be built in the Old Town area and that this would be incongruent with the
character of the surrounding area. He stated staff believed that the recommended Code change was
appropriate but did not believe that expanding the requirement beyond single-family or duplexes was
304
December 7, 2004
not necessary. He stated it would be unlikely for a four-plex that narrow to be built and that this was
not viewed as an "immediate threat."
Councilmember Hamrick asked if staff planned to address the issue further in the future. Gloss
stated staff agreed that there were other in -fill design issues that needed to be addressed in a more
"exhaustive effort."
Councilmember Bertschy asked if the proposed Ordinance would allow or continue to disallow
drive -through restaurants. Shepard stated this was not in the Ordinance and that the request was that
allowance of drive-throughs be included in the Ordinance. He stated the direction staff received
from Council was that this issue was not ready for inclusion in the Ordinance.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the drive -through issue was considered by the Planning and
Zoning Board. Shepard stated the Board considered it and recommended 4-2 to add it to the
Ordinance.
Councilmember Bertschy asked about item 668 (trash recycling enclosures) and why the phrase "to
the extent reasonably feasible" was added after the Planning and Zoning Board considered the issue.
Shepard stated staff believed that the Code was written in such a way to give the flexibility to
administer the standard on a case -by -case basis rather than a "one size fits all' basis. He stated there
was a fear expressed at the Planning and Zoning Board that staff would not do that. He stated the
language was added to indicate the intent to be flexible.
Councilmember Bertschy asked if the language was added after Planning and Zoning Board
approval. Shepard stated it was added based on testimony at the Board meeting.
Councilmember Bertschy asked what the Board vote was on this issue. Shepard stated the Board
took a unanimous "voice vote" on this issue.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the Council could choose to add the drive-in language to the
Ordinance. Shepard replied in the affirmative and stated staff had provided a draft of some design
standards at the direction of Council.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the design standards were final. Shepard stated they were not final
but that the draft showed the "context."
Councilmember Bertschy asked if the Council could consider the individual issues and asked how
that should be handled. City Attorney Roy stated a motion could be made to divide the question and
that each issue could be considered by separate motion.
Councilmember Bertschy suggested a motion to propose the passage of the Ordinance minus any
specific items that required more work. He stated he believed that there should be a separate vote
on adding a provision to allow drive-in restaurants, making amendments to the item on trash
recycling enclosures, and raptor standards.
305
December 7, 2004
Councilmember Hamrick asked if a motion could be made to adopt the Ordinance followed by
motions to amend.
Councilmember Bertschy stated he would like to vote for the Ordinance in general and that there
were several specific items that might prevent him from voting for the Ordinance.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would prefer to divide the motion. She suggested a discussion
on the direction on specific items. She stated the easiest process would be to make a motion and pull
the specific items out for discussion as amendments.
Councilmember Kastein stated he would prefer to divide the motion as suggested by Councilmember
Bertschy to allow the Council to take a different kind of action on each item if desired. He stated
he thought there should also be a motion on "skinny houses." City Attorney Roy stated the motion
could be divided and each issue addressed. He stated it would then be necessary to prepare an
Ordinance that would be consistent with the outcome of those individual votes. He suggested
putting the Ordinance on the table by motion and then entertaining motions to add on Second
Reading an item dealing with drive -through restaurants, to take out the wording relating to raptors
until reworked by the Council, and to amend the recycle container provision. He stated Council
could then go back to the main motion to adopt or defeat what was left in the Ordinance.
Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to adopt Ordinance
No. 198, 2004 on First Reading.
Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by CouncilmemberWeitkunat, to amend the
Ordinance to allow drive-in restaurants in the NC zone with the stipulation that design guidelines
would be prepared and brought back for Council consideration.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the intent was to have those design guidelines considered by the
Planning and Zoning Board. City Attorney Roy stated the Code required Board consideration prior
to presentation to the Council.
Councilmember Weitkunat requested clarification regarding the design guidelines and whether they
could be done after Second Reading of the Ordinance. City Attorney Roy stated any change to the
Land Use Code must be considered by the Planning and Zoning Board before Council consideration.
Gloss stated staff was proposing standards and that clarification was needed as to whether these
should be standards or guidelines. He noted that staff would prefer standards. Byrne stated the
concept of drive-in restaurants was reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board and that the Board
had not reviewed the staff's recommendations on design guidelines. City Attorney Roy stated
Section 2.9.4 required the Board to make a recommendation to the City Council. He stated if the
concept had been endorsed by the Board that this constituted the required recommendation from the
Board to the Council to amend the text of the Code. He stated it was discretionary on whether Board
input was required on the guidelines.
December 7, 2004
Councilmember Roy stated on October 26 the Council gave direction to staff not to pursue this. He
noted that an interested party spoke at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing and that this item was
now being "shoehorned" into the Land Use Code less than a month and a half after Council gave
direction on this issue. Shepard stated that was a fair assessment.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the Council would be asked to approve the design guidelines.
Councilmember Bertschy stated that was his intent.
Councilmember Kastein stated he would like to see the menu board allowed as part of the design
standard.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if the intent of the motion was to add this to the Ordinance. He
noted that this was an effort to do that "on the fly." He stated direction could instead be given to
staff to bring this back as a separate Code change. He stated this would provide more clarity and
time to discuss the issue.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated this issue went before the Planning and Zoning Board and that
Council had two discussions on this issue. She stated it seemed to be ready for a decision with the
exception of the standards.
Councilmember Tharp stated the Council said "no" originally but that it was "reasonable" to listen
to what was presented. She stated she was ready to move ahead on this issue.
Councilmember Bertschy stated he changed his mind because "drive -through" restaurants were
permitted and that "drive-in" restaurants were not. He stated "drive-ins" were more environmentally
friendly than "drive-throughs" because people turn their engines off at "drive-ins." Shepard stated
in the NC zone the standard at issue was very specific i.e. that fast food restaurants were allowed but
that "drive-ins" and "drive-throughs" were prohibited. He stated the request was to delete the
prohibition on "drive-ins" only and to continue to prohibit "drive-throughs" in the NC zone. He
stated was the intent of the 4-2 Planning and Zoning Board vote.
The vote on the motion to amend the Ordinance to allow drive-ins in the NC zone was as follows:
Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays:
Councilmember Roy.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Council member Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to amend Section
3.2.5(B) relating to trash bin enclosures to remove the wording "to the extent reasonably feasible."
Councilmember Weitkunat asked for the rationale and the effect of that change.
307
I .7�11IIM
Councilmember Bertschy stated the intent was to ensure adequate space and that the language was
added after the Planning and Zoning Board consideration of the previous wording.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if there could be circumstances in which it would not be feasible.
Shepard stated the intent was to design a standard that was flexible rather than proscriptive. He
stated there was one situation in which a branch bank did not want to have an enclosure because it
shredded confidential paper through an interior recycling program rather than through an exterior
trash hauling service. City Attorney Roy stated the definition of the phrase to the extent reasonably
feasible was that "under the circumstances reasonable efforts have been undertaken to comply with
the regulation, that costs of compliance clearly outweigh the potential benefits to the public or would
unreasonably burden the proposed project, and reasonable steps have been undertaken to minimize
any potential harm or adverse impacts resulting from noncompliance."
Councilmember Roy stated Section 3.4.7 had a reference "to the maximum extent feasible" and that
Council had objected to that language. He stated a majority of Council was also taking exception
to the language "to the extent reasonably feasible."
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she did not say that the language "to the maximum extent feasible"
was unpalatable. She stated she would favor the inclusion of that language in the Land Use Code
because there were some "gray areas" in which flexibility was necessary. She stated the example
of the branch bank was a prime example.
Councilmember Roy stated he would support Councilmember Bertschy's motion to amend.
Councilmember Hamrick asked how staff would handle situations such as the branch bank if the
language "to the extent reasonably feasible" was not included. Shepard stated it was his
interpretation that staff would still be allowed flexibility to deal with the situation.
Councilmember Hamrick asked what would happen if a new user went into business at the bank
location in the future. Shepard stated if there was a change from a bank to a bank that the City would
have no authority to change what had been approved because it would be a minor amendment. He
stated if it was a change of use requiring a change in the Certificate of Occupancy that the City would
have the ability to require the trash enclosure.
Mayor Martinez asked if it would hurt to leave the wording in. Shepard stated staff was comfortable
either way. He stated there were apparently concerns that the inclusion of the language made the
standard "too loose" at some time in the future.
The vote on the motion to amend the Ordinance to remove the language "to the extent reasonably
feasible" was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick and Roy. Nays:
Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez, Tharp and Weitkunat.
THE MOTION FAILED
9M.
December 7, 2004
Councilmember Kastein stated it was unclear what was being recommended about "skinny houses"
and what the Planning and Zoning Board said. He asked if the Board was recommending leaving
the Code the same. Gloss stated the Board requested that the Code change as submitted to the
Council. He stated there was testimony suggesting expansion of the Code language.
Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to refer item 676 (the
raptor buffer standards) back to the Planning and Zoning Board
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the Council had discussed this issue many times and that she was
"perplexed" about why the Planning and Zoning Board did not make a recommendation. She stated
there had been enough discussion to warrant moving forward.
Councilmember Hamrick asked why the Planning and Zoning Board voted to continue this item.
Stokes stated the Board wanted to have some additional discussion on the issue and did not feel that
the staff perspective was fully developed. He stated the Board wanted the matter to be brought back
with some different options.
The vote on the motion to amend the Ordinance to refer the raptor buffer standards back to the
Planning and Zoning Board was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick and Roy.
Nays: Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez, Tharp and Weitkunat.
THE MOTION FAILED.
Councilmember Roy asked if there was a definition for "skinny houses." Gloss stated there were
examples in other jurisdictions of houses that were as narrow as 15 feet.
Councilmember Roy asked why there would not be a prohibition for "skinny" office buildings as
well as "skinny houses." Gloss stated staff did not see a need for that prohibition at this point given
the pattern of development. He stated other jurisdictions had not experienced a problem with other
types of "skinny" buildings.
Councilmember Roy stated he would like to see development of a definition for "skinny house" and
"skinny duplex." Gloss stated staff could work on that while working on changes to in -fill policies.
He stated the nomenclature was intended to refer to "narrow houses" and that the term "skinny
houses" was used to help people remember the concept.
Councilmember Roy stated he would not support the main motion. He stated Council had directed
that the drive-in restaurant issue not be brought forward and that it had been brought forward after
an interested party talked at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing. He stated the Planning and
Zoning Board suggestion regarding trash enclosures had been changed after Board consideration.
He stated Council direction was clear (even though he disagreed) regarding the demolition and
relocation of historic buildings and that what was brought back for Council consideration did not
follow that direction. He stated he did not agree with the raptor buffer zone change. He stated there
309
December 7, 2004
were concerns regarding "skinny houses." He stated the Ordinance was lacking in terms of clarity,
completion and failure to follow Council direction.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the intent of the biannual Land Use Code changes was to help
produce a Code that would function well. She stated these changes had been worked through and
that some could reoccur in the future as work continued to correct problems. She stated she was
comfortable with the direction based on changes in the community. She stated this was a "changing
document" that should reflect the "changing community."
Councilmember Hamrick stated he agreed with Councilmember Roy's comments and would not be
supporting the main motion.
The vote on the main motion as amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez,
Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick and Roy.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
("Secretary's Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point.)
Resolution 2004-142
Adopting the City's 2005 Legislative Policy Agenda, Adopted
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Each year the Legislative Review Committee (LRC) develops a legislative agenda to assist in the
analysis of pending legislation. The proposed 2005 Legislative Policy Agenda, which is attached
to the Resolution as Exhibit "A ", has been updated from the 2004 document and was reviewed and
approved by the Legislative Review Committee. Changes are highlighted below. This document will
be used as a guide for the upcoming 2005 General Assembly and the first session of the 109th
Congress. The purpose of the Legislative Policy Agenda is to articulate the City's position on
common legislative topics. It will be used by Council members and staff to determine positions on
pending legislation and as a general reference for state legislators and our congressional
delegation.
Policy statement additions and deletions to the 2004 Legislative Policy Agenda:
Pape 5. AIR QUALITY, amend statement:
2. Support legislation that encourages regional planning efforts for regional issues that cannot be
solved through City action in isolation, e.g. the brown cloud and ozone.
This addition highlights ozone because the Fort Collins area is currently in non -attainment.
310
December 7, 2004
Page 7. AIR OVALITY, wood smoke, amend statement:
1. Support legislation and regulation that reduce wood smoke emissions and that restrict the
installation of non -certified wood stoves and fireplaces.
Adds wording to the policy statement that is already included in the introductory paragraph of the
wood smoke section.
Page 15, FINANCE, add statement:
3. Support increased state funding and budgetary autonomy for Colorado State University and Front
Range Community College
The phrase budgetary autonomy refers to enterprise status for CSU and these entities' ability to set
tuition rates — a key provision if they are to blunt the effects of continuing funding reductions. The
health of Fort Collins' economy and City revenues are tied to the financial condition of these
institutions.
Page 18, FIRE PROTECTION, amend statement
1. Support legislation adopting a State fire code, the code of choice being either the Uniform Fire
Code (1997orlater) orthe 2006International Fire Code, which establish a State minimum standard
for fire code enforcement in existing and newly constructed structures. Permit local option of
municipalities to impose more restrictive standards.
The International Fire Code is becoming the code of choice for cities and counties throughout the
state in large part because of it's compatibility with the International building codes being adopted
by those same entities. Fire Marshals have been involved in the development of both the Uniform
Fire Code and the International Fire Code.
Page 24, NEIGHBORHOOD RESOURCES, add statement:
5. Support legislation that facilitates the eviction of public nuisance tenants.
Eviction is a process covered by state statutes which currently place eviction matters in County
Court. Evictions can take 60 to 90 days due to case backlogs. As the City looks for ways to improve
its neighborhoods it should support ways of speeding the process for removing tenants who are
chronic violators of the City's public nuisance ordinances. Possibilities include moving these cases
to Municipal Court or allow them to be heard by an administrative law judge.
Page 25, POLICE SERVICES, delete statement:
8. Support legislation that increases the penalty for impersonating a police officer from a
misdemeanor to a felony.
311
December 7, 2004
This law was passed by the 2004 General Assembly.
Page 25, POLICE SERVICES, add statement:
8. Support legislation that authorizes law enforcement peer support team members' "privileged
communication" status that is not admissible in judicial, administrative, arbitration or other
adjudicatory proceedings.
This statement would support a bill authored by Fort Collins Police psychologist Dan Dworkin and
Loveland Police psychologist Jack Digliani. The new law would give privileged communication
status to conversations between police officers and law enforcement peer counseling team members.
Peer counselors are fellow officers trained and certified by a police department to provide emotional
support informal sessions. Peer counseling is used by officers to deal with the trauma of a critical
incident or to discuss job and family related issues. It has been found to bean effective method to
relieve the stress and burdens of police work. To be effective, the conversations must be held in
confidence. The proposed legislation would not protect officers from any admission of felony
conduct, criminal intent, family abuse or from testifying about any case in which they are involved
as a police officer or a witness.
Paxe 30, TELECOMMUNICATION, delete statement:
13. Support adequate spectrum allocation of public radio frequencies for public safety, emergency
services, public works, and other public use as vital to the city's ability to safeguard citizens. The
City will continue to monitor and negotiate for appropriate allocation of all telecommunication
resources.
IT has suggested that this statement be eliminated because it is repetitive of statement #6, page 25,
under Police Services. "
Interim City Manager Atteberry stated staff would be available to answer any questions about the
agenda item.
Mark Brophy, 1109 West Harmony Road, stated the Colorado Supreme Court found State Treasurer
Mike Coffman guilty of using State funds to lobby against a citizen initiative (Amendment 23). He
stated it was a problem in general that governments used taxpayer dollars to argue for policy
decisions. He stated the government should be the "servant of the people." He stated there would
be a City initiative on the ballot regarding the removal of fluoride from drinking water. He
commented on a letter dated May 19, 2003 from Mayor Martinez to Senator Peggy Reeves regarding
proposed State legislation that were "partisan bills."He stated the Fort Collins City Council should
not be using government funds to argue in this manner on "tyrannical" bills related to property
rights.
Councilmember Kastein asked if there was any language in the legislative policy relating to urban
renewal districts and farmland being designated as "blighted areas" to allow the use of tax increment
312
December 7, 2004
financing. Mark Radtke, Legislative Coordinator, stated there was nothing in the policy that
specifically addressed urban renewal in that context. He stated there were policy statements that
protected the City's use of urban renewal as a tool.
Councilmember Kastein asked the Legislative Review Committee to discuss this issue again.
Councilmember Tharp asked for more direction.
Councilmember Kastein stated he was concerned about the farmland being declared to be "urban
blight" by other jurisdictions and whether this was an improper use of urban renewal districts.
Councilmember Tharp stated if the last bill that was before the legislature had passed that the City
could not have had the Urban Renewal District on North College Avenue because some of that land
was vacant. She stated the bill would have excluded all vacant land. She stated the Committee
could look at the issue again.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated it might be appropriate for the EVSAG Committee to look at the
issue since urban renewal districts were an economic tool.
Councilmember Hamrick stated it would be worthwhile to discuss the issue to develop the City's
position.
Councilmember Tharp made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to adopt Resolution
2004-142.
Councilmember Kastein thanked Mr. Brophy for his comments. He stated he would be asking staff
to follow up on several items.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein,
Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Executive Session Authorized
Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adjourn into
Executive Session pursuant to Sections 2-31(a)(1)(a), 2-31(a)(1)(d), and 2-31(a)(2) of the City Code
to discuss personnel matters, potential litigation and legal issues relating to the City Manager
appointment process.
Mathew Benson, reporter with the Fort Collins Coloradoan, objected on behalf of his employer and
the public to the decision to go into Executive Session. He stated the Colorado Revised Statutes
provided that this body could meet into Executive Session to discuss certain matters and that this did
313
December 7, 2004
not appear to meet any of the criteria. He asked for an opportunity for the Coloradoan's attorney
to present objections to this Executive Session.
Alden Hill, attorney representing the Coloradoan, stated open government was better government.
He requested an open meeting on the City Manager selection process and opposed this discussion
in an Executive Session. He stated this was not a "personnel matter" relating to the
employer/employee relationship. He stated taxpayer dollars would be spent to pay a critical member
of a Council -Manager team. He asked that the Council "let the spotlight shine on this process." He
stated an Executive Session was not justified in this situation.
Councilmember Tharp asked the City Attorney to clarify why the Council could meet in Executive
Session for the issues that were raised. City Attorney Roy stated this was a difficult discussion
because it could "compromise the purposes for which the Executive Session discussion will occur."
He stated Mr. Hill appeared to be making some assumptions about the topics that would be discussed
in Executive Session. He stated he believed that the topics described (personnel matters and
potential litigation and legal issues related to the City Manager selection process) were all legitimate
topics for consideration and discussion in Executive Session under the provisions of the local open
meetings law and the State open meetings law insofar as that might apply.
Councilmember Roy stated he felt strongly that the Council's work should be done `but in front of
the people." He stated there were circumstances in which the discussion was done best in Executive
Session. He stated he would "promise" that he would support having every other session regarding
the hiring of the new City Manager in public. He stated the Council needed an opportunity to discuss
issues with the City Attorney in a confidential mode. He stated the need for an Executive Session
was clear in this case.
Councilmember Hamrick stated the topics that could be discussed in Executive Session were broad.
He stated he was "struggling" with what part of the City Manager selection process would be
confidential. He stated it would help him and the public to know what would be discussed in the
Executive Session without revealing the advice that the City Attorney might give the Council. City
Attorney Roy noted for the record that the "personnel matters" to be discussed in the Executive
Session were not limited to the City Manager selection process. He stated a further disclosure of
those "personnel matters" would compromise the purpose for which the Executive Session was being
conducted.
Councilmember Hamrick suggested that the "City Manager selection process" was a broad
description.
Councilmember Bertschy repeated the motion and stated the purpose was to discuss personnel
matters, potential litigation and legal issues related to the City Manager appointment process. He
stated the motion did not indicate that the appointment process would be discussed.
Councilmember Hamrick stated interviews had been scheduled with the City Manager candidates
and that he wanted to verify that those interviews would be conducted in public.
314
December 7, 2004
Councilmember Kastein stated the Executive Session discussion would relate to "legal issues"
relating to the selection process.
Councilmember Hamrick stated he would vote to go into Executive Session.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein,
Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
("Secretary's Note: The Council adjourned into Executive Session at 10:35 p.m. and reconvened
following the Executive Session at 11:45 p.m. Interim City Manager Atteberry left at 11:15 p.m.
during the Executive Session.)
Mayor Martinez asked if there was further Council discussion.
Councilmember Hamrick supported a public discussion of the process being used for the selection
of the new City Manager. He stated he would also like an open discussion on the Council's
participation in the selection process. He asked for an update to the public on the schedule for this
week. Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager, explained the process and schedule. She stated the
candidates would meet with the Citizen Advisory Panel and Executive Lead Team panel on
Thursday and Friday. She stated on Thursday evening at the Lincoln Center there would be a
community reception and a presentation by each candidate followed by questions and answers. She
stated there would be an employee forum on Friday afternoon. She stated on Friday evening the
Council would meet with one candidate and on Saturday the Council would meet with the other four
candidates. She stated the Council would receive the feedback from the two panels on Saturday
afternoon.
Mayor Martinez asked why two candidates could not be interviewed on Friday. Jones stated there
would not be sufficient time to allow for two candidates to be interviewed on Friday.
Mayor Martinez asked how much time was allowed for each interview. Jones stated an hour and 15
minutes was allowed for each interview and that extra time could be taken if needed.
Councilmember Hamrick asked about whether the panel interviews were open to the public. Rick
DeLaCastro, Human Resources Director, stated the intent was that those sessions would be private
interviews because they were forums not covered by the open meetings law.
Councilmember Tharp asked if the rationale was that the members of those two groups were not
elected officials and that there was therefore no requirement for an open meeting. DeLaCastro
replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Kastein asked about the pros and cons of having interviews conducted in public and
behind closed doors. DeLaCastro stated the pros of a public interview was an open process that
315
December 7. 2004
would enable people to form their own opinions about the candidates. He stated the downside would
be that the individuals who had applied were not necessarily told ahead of time that these would be
public interviews. He stated the interviews could have an impact on the current employment or
future employment of the unsuccessful candidates. He stated a public interview could result in the
candidate not being as candid as he might be in a closed session. He stated from a human resources
perspective the goal is selection and attraction of the best candidate. He stated his opinion was that
the quality of the interview would be better if the session was not open to the public.
Mayor Martinez asked if the process for the previous City Manager selection included public or
Executive Session interviews. Jones stated the interviews were done in Executive Session. She
stated one concern would be a level playing field for all candidates and that the candidates
interviewed later might have an advantage over the first candidates interviewed.
Mayor Martinez asked if it would be possible to apply a restriction to ensure that candidates did not
observe the interviews of the other candidates. Jones stated could be done but that there would be
no guarantees that the candidates would not learn the questions asked of other candidates.
Councilmember Roy stated his main concern was to find the best candidate for the City of Fort
Collins. He stated the five candidates had placed themselves in an "open spot" and that he wanted
this process to be in public. He questioned why the process would not be made as "transparent' as
possible.
Councilmember Tharp noted that the City had hired a "headhunter" and asked if he had any advice
about the best practice for interviewing candidates. Jones stated the comment was that there would
be more complete and candid information in a private session and that the discussion about the
candidates could take place in a public session.
Councilmember Tharp asked if it was legal to conduct the interviews in private. City Attorney Roy
stated he believed that it would be legal. He stated neither the State law or the City Code expressly
spoke to the question of who could be an Executive Session with the Council. He stated the City
Code authorized the consideration of the appointment or hiring of City personnel. He stated the City
Council could invite people into its Executive Session for the purpose of providing information to
facilitate discussion. He stated he believed that from the legal standpoint that interviews of
candidates could fall into that category.
Councilmember Tharp asked what other cities did in this situation. City Attorney Roy stated he
talked with the Colorado Municipal League about this issue and that it was his understanding that
the practice of interviewing candidates for this kind of position in Executive Session was common
among Colorado municipalities. He stated a interviews by the administrative staff were clearly not
subject to the open meetings law. He stated the citizen panel could, under the State law, be
construed as a kind of meeting that could be subject to those laws. He stated if the Council chose
to close the interviews before the citizen panel that they would have to decide whether to go into
Executive Session to conduct the interviews.
316
December 7, 2004
CounciImember Bertschy stated "public" needed to be defined with regard to the Council interviews.
He stated his understanding was that the interviews would not be televised and that the interviews
would be held in a comfortable setting. He stated the ability of the City Manager to function in a
"very public arena" was important. He stated the candidates should be notified in advance that the
interviews would be public.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated in this situation the Council was the "employer" and the
interviewees were the "employees." She stated she did not believe that this was different than any
other type of work -related interview. She stated there needed to be a one-on-one interaction to solicit
appropriate responses. She stated the interviews would change in a public venue. She stated she
would like to see the citizen panel interviews done in an open venue. She stated this would be the
appropriate place for community involvement. She stated the City Manager would be directly
responsible to the City Council. She favored private conversations between the candidates and the
Council and an ensuing open discussion. She stated the interviews needed to be held in private.
Mayor Martinez expressed a concern that some candidates would have an advantage over the other
candidates depending on when the interview occurred. He stated if the interviews were to be held
in public that all of the interviews should be held on the same day.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked what would be gained through a public process.
Councilmember Roy stated the Councilmembers were the elected representatives of the citizens in
charge of hiring the City Manager. He stated was the reason the interviews should be held in public.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated a public interview process would make the Councilmembers,
rather than the candidates, the "object" of the interview.
Councilmember Roy agreed with that statement.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated a public process would say that the Council was "doing its job"
rather than "probing" to determine the best candidate.
Councilmember Tharp stated some questions about the candidate's current employment or issues
the candidate was dealing with should not be asked or answered in public. She stated it did not serve
the public to know such information but that it was important for the Council to know that
information. She stated asking such questions in a public setting may make it difficult for the
unsuccessful candidates in their current situations. She stated it would be difficult for the candidates
to give "real answers" to those kinds of questions when the interviews were being done "on stage."
She stated the Council would "become part of the stage" when the interviews were done in public.
Mayor Martinez stated holding the interviews in Executive Session would prevent Councilmembers
from discussing the interviews and candidates outside of the Executive Session.
317
December 7, 2004
Councilmember Kastein agreed with Councilmember Tharp's comments. He stated many questions
could point to personnel issues, job satisfaction, relationships to the candidates' Councils, etc. He
stated it would be difficult for candidates to answer those kinds of questions in public. He stated one
good reason to have the interviews in public was to give the public a chance to provide feedback.
He noted that there would be an opportunity for the public to participate at the Lincoln Center forum.
He stated he did not believe that the citizen panel interviews should be in public. He asked if the
Council chose to keep the panel interviews closed if the advice from those panels could be kept
confidential.
Councilmember Roy asked if Councilmember Kastein would be uncomfortable asking some
questions in a public session.
Councilmember Kastein stated the candidates would feel uncomfortable answering some questions
in a public interview.
Councilmember Hamrick stated Councils would already be asking their City Manager why they were
interviewing for other jobs. He stated the City Manager would not come for an interview and "tell
a different story." He stated if some of the candidates could not answer questions in public that they
perhaps should not be applying. He stated this was a "political process" involving elected officials
and that the process should be open.
Councilmember Kastein stated some candidates may not give the real answers in a public interview
but would in a private interview.
Mayor Martinez stated the depth of the interview could change depending on whether it was a public
or private interview. He stated the answers would be more "superficial" in a public interview.
Councilmember Roy noted that the Council could not make a final choice in Executive Session. He
asked how the Council would transition from the Executive Session to making a choice in the public
meeting.
Mayor Martinez stated there would be a public discussion on the merits of the candidates.
CouncilmemberWeitkunat stated she was ready to make a motion. City Attorney Roy suggested that
Council clarify the process with regard to the Council interviews, the staff panel interviews and the
citizen panel interviews.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to hold the staff
interviews of the applicants in sessions that would not be open to the public.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if "public" included the news media. City Attorney Roy stated
would be his understanding.
318
December 7, 2004
Alden Hill, representing the Coloradoan, stated it would be a mistake to pass the motion. He stated
this was a public process that should be open to the public. He stated the staff interviews should be
open.
Councilmember Tharp suggested dealing with the Council interviews first and making the other
interviews consistent with the Council interview process.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the discussion had been that staff meetings were not subject to the
open meetings law.
Councilmember Tharp stated she would like to see consistency in the interviews.
THE MOTION WAS WITHDRAWN.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, that the Council
deal with interviews for the City Manager in Executive Session.
Mr. Hill stated one way to learn about candidates was to send someone to learn about their abilities
where they currently work. He stated the main concern should be the public interest rather than
difficulties for the candidates. He stated the State law specifically excluded employment
applications as a personnel matter. He stated this should be handled in the public arena.
Mayor Martinez asked if there should be public interviews for City employees.
Mr. Hill stated there was a distinction between most employees and the City Manager.
City Attorney Roy recommended another Executive Session to discuss legal issues and potential
litigation before voting on this motion.
Mark Brophy,1109 West Harmony Road, stated former Mayor Ohlson had indicated that interviews
were held in public during the last process. He suggested delaying this discussion because of the
lateness of the hour.
Executive Session Authorized
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adjourn into
Executive Session pursuant to Section 2-31(a)(2) of the City Code. The vote on the motion was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays:
Councilmember Hamrick.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
("Secretary's Note: The Council adjourned into Executive Session at 12:30 a.m. and reconvened
following the Executive Session at 12:45 a.m.)
319
December 7, 2004
Mayor Martinez noted that a motion was on the floor.
Councilmember Roy spoke in favor of having all of the interviews on Saturday and sequestering the
candidates away from the proceedings.
Mayor Martinez stated the interviews should all be held on Saturday.
City Attorney Roy asked for confirmation that the motion would only require the interviews to be
held in Executive Session.
Mayor Martinez replied in the affirmative.
The vote on the Councilmember Weitkunat's motion that the Council deal with interviews for the
City Manager in Executive Session was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez and
Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Roy and Tharp.
THE MOTION FAILED.
Councilmember Kastein stated if interviews were to be held in public that all candidates should be
informed about that decision. He stated it was more important for the deliberation process to be
conducted in private than for the interviews to be held in private.
Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, that deliberations
would be held in Executive Session. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Martinez asked if Council agreed that all five interviews would be conducted on Saturday.
The consensus was in favor of holding all interviews on Saturday.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the questions to be asked in the interviews had been determined.
Jones stated there were sample questions provided by the "headhunter" and that the Council would
need to discuss the interview questions.
Mayor Martinez suggested that the Council meet at 6:30 p.m. on Friday night for that discussion.
Councilmember Kastein suggested having that discussion at this meeting.
Councilmember Tharp asked if the Council would be limited to the questions.
Mayor Martinez stated 12 questions were on the recommended list of questions and that Council
could choose to ask any of those questions or other questions. City Attorney Roy stated he would
provide advice to the Council before the questions were finalized. He stated the Council may need
320
December 7, 2004
to consider whether they wanted to make the questions public and have the candidates aware of the
questions before the interviews.
Mayor Martinez asked when the Council should decide on the questions. City Attorney Roy
suggested adjourning to Friday night.
Mayor Martinez asked if an Executive Session would be needed for that. City Attorney Roy stated
he would advise the Council on that prior to the Friday night meeting.
The consensus was to meet on Friday at 6:30 p.m. to discuss the questions to be asked.
Councilmember Tharp suggested giving direction to the citizen and administrative committees on
whether to conduct interviews in public.
Councilmember Hamrick stated they should follow the same process as the Council.
Councilmember Tharp made a motion, seconded by CouncilmemberRoy, that the citizen committee
and administrative committee decide for themselves whether to conduct the interviews in private.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Kastein, Martinez, Roy,
Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Hamrick.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adjourn the meeting
to Friday, December 10, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED..
The meeting adjourned at 1:00 a.m., Wednesday
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Ii 11Mayor
321