HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-03/21/2006-RegularMarch 21, 2006
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, March 21, 2006,
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: Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and
Weitkunat.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Mayor Hutchinson stated citizen participants would each have four minutes to speak.
John Pemicka, 3400 North County Road 25E, Bellvue, requested the Council discuss how City
Plan's population density requirements could be challenged. He stated population density changed
societal behavior patterns and encouraging high density was counterproductive to "keeping this a
Choice City."
Sandy Robbins, 5801 South Shields Street, opposed the Southwest Enclave Annexation and
questioned whether there would be an open discussion on the proposed annexation, given statements
made in the Coloradoan.
Courtney Przybylski, Director of Community Affairs for ASCSU, stated the ASCSU election for
next year's leadership was in progress.
Richard Ney, 2824 Blue Leaf Drive, expressed concerns about the "underhanded" design changes
for Spring Canyon Park late in the process and asked Council to hold staff to the original design.
Cindy Lods, 2601 Brownstone Court, read a letter from her son Taylor, opposing the closing of the
Youth Activity Center (YAC) and presented a petition circulated by her son.
Ian Inghram, journalist for the Boltz paper, asked if the Mayor or Councilmembers would do an
interview for his paper on the closing of the Youth Activity Center.
Randy Fischer, 3007 Moore Lane, stated he had concerns about the design of Spring Canyon Park.
He stated the Southwest Associated Neighbors (SWAN) had worked in good faith with Parks and
Recreation to try to create the best possible park. The resulting design would incorporate passive
and active recreation. People in the neighborhood were concerned when an article appeared in the
Coloradoan about possible design changes that would impact the quality of the park design. He
asked the Council to keep the interests of the neighborhoods and the community in mind and "honor
394
March 21. 2006
the original intent" of the original design and the neighborhoods be kept informed.
Neil Hurst, 5221 Griffith Drive, expressed concerns about the Southwest Enclave Annexation and
stated the residents should be allowed to vote on annexation.
Sandra Holt, 5510 Fossil Ridge Drive East, spoke in opposition to the Southwest Enclave
Annexation and stated annexation would contribute to a large city deficit.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Mayor Hutchinson thanked those who spoke during Citizen Participation. He stated there were
errors in the Coloradoan's coverage of the time line for the Southwest Enclave Annexation. He
stated interviews could be arranged with Council through the City Manager's Office or by e-mailing
Councilmembers through the City's website. He asked the City Manager to summarize the situation
relating to Spring Canyon Park. City Manager Attebery stated he planned to give a thorough update
to Council at the Friday retreat, which would be open to the public. He was aware of the issues and
concerns and his report to Council would address the changed circumstances and provide an update
on bidding and purchasing practices.
Councilmember Kastein stated he had recused himself from previous discussions on the master plan
relating to Spring Canyon Park because he lives adjacent to the Park. He stated it was now possible
for citizens to approach him about their concerns, pending an opinion from the City Attorney. He
would be talking with the City Manager to follow-up on the concerns. City Plan was adopted with
higher density standards in 1997 and he was not a "big fan" of population density. The density
standards were adopted because the land mass of Fort Collins was "swelling" and a decision was
made to curtail that growth by increasing density. Council had approved a Growth Management
Area that placed a "ring" around the City for development and, in his opinion, the density part of
City Plan had therefore "lost some of its momentum." Council was talking about density again and
one of the Policy Agenda items was for the City to talk about economic barriers that City Plan and
the Land Use Code caused. Council would be talking about density to some extent.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated Item No. 20, Resolution 2006-036 Authorizing the City Manager to
Consider Annexations Under the City's Intergovernmental Agreement with Lorimer County
Regarding Cooperation on Managing Urban Development and Item No. 21, Resolution 2006-037
Authorizing and Directing the City Manager to Join the Efforts of Colorado State University, the
Northern Colorado Economic Development Corporation, the Fort Collins Area Chamber of
Commerce, Poudre School District, Lorimer County, and Private Enterprise in Developing a Clean
Energy Cluster for Northern Colorado had revised Resolutions. He also read into the record an
additional WHEREAS clause for Item No. 21.
Brian Schumm, 5948 Colby Street, withdrew Item No. 20, Resolution 2006-036Authorizing the City
Manager to Consider Annexations Under the City's Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer
County Regarding Cooperation on Managing Urban Development from the Consent Calendar.
395
March 21, 2006
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the February 7, 2006 Regular Meeting,
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 034, 2006, Amending the City Code with Regard to the
Posting of Public Notice of the Meetings of the City Council. Committees of the Council and
City Boards and Commissions.
This Ordinance amends various sections in Chapter 2 of the City Code relating to the posting
of public notice of meetings of the City Council, committees of the Council and City boards
and commissions, to reflect a change in the location of the place of posting, and to clarify
existing language about the types of meetings that need to be posted. The Ordinance was
unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 21, 2006.
Based on public input on Second Reading on March 7, 2006, staff withdrew this item for
additional work prior to adoption on Second Reading. The Ordinance has been amended to
require, where possible, the posting of notices on the City's web site, in addition to the
vestibule at the south entrance of City Hall West.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 042,2006, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into
an Agreement for the Financing by Lease -Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 7, 2006,
authorizes the Purchasing Agent to enter into a lease -purchase financing agreement with
Koch Financial Corporation at 4.94 percent interest rate. The agreement is for an original
term from the execution date of the agreement to the end of the current fiscal year. The
agreement provides for renewable one-year terms thereafter, to a total term of five (5) years,
subject to annual appropriation of funds needed for lease payments.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 044, 2006 Amending Section 3.5.4(c)(3)(A) of The City
of Fort Collins Land Use Code.
This ordinance, adopted unanimously on First Reading on March 7, 2006, strengthens the
existing standard for large retail establishments that requires multiple entrances and requires
secondary entrances to be operational.
10. First Reading of Ordinance No 045 2006 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in
the General Fund From the Colorado Department of Revenue. Enforcement of Underage
Drinking Law Program.
Fort Collins Police Services has been awarded a grant by the Colorado Department of
Revenue, Enforcement of Underage Drinking Laws Program in the amount of$51,983. The
grant funds will be used to pay for overtime in possession/illegal sales operations, joint
enforcement activities with Colorado State University Police, and educational supplies and
396
March 21, 2006
implementation through CSU's Office ofAlcohol and Other Drug Prevention and Education
Services Department. The grant period begins April 1, 2006 and ends April 1, 2007.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 046, 2006, Authorizing the Appropriation of Operating
Funds of the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport for the Fiscal Year Be ig nning January
1, 2006, and Authorizing the Appropriation of Unanticipated Revenue and Prior Year
Reserves for Capital Improvements at the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport.
The 2006 annual operating budget for the Airport totals $538,370, and will be funded from
Airport operating revenues, contributions from the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland, and
interest earnings. This Ordinance appropriates the City of Fort Collins contribution which
is a 50% share of the 2006 Airport budget and totals $269,185.
This Ordinance also appropriates the City of Fort Collins 50% share of capital funds for the
Airport from federal and state grants; passenger charges; contributions from Fort Collins and
Loveland; and the Airport General Fund. The capital funds are to be used to construct
improvements to the Airport's ramp area for commercial aircraft, reconstruct taxiway Alpha,
replace taxiway Alpha's lighting system, replace the airfield lighting control system, fog seal
the main runway and replace the markings, and other measures aimed at increasing Airport
safety.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 047, 2006, Authorizing an Addendum to the Existing
Intergovernmental Agreement with the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District. Extending for
Five Years the Time for Annexations of Subdivisions to be Eligible Under the Agreement.
Under the provisions of the existing Intergovernmental Agreement, certain developing
properties in the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District service area have the option of
meeting either City or District water development requirements. The Agreement specifies
that the properties were within the city limits at the time of the Agreement or must be
annexed into the City within five years from the date of the Agreement to be eligible. The
initial five-year period is nearly passed. The Agreement allows for two five-year extensions
to the period under which properties can annex and be eligible.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 048, 2006, Amending Chapter 2. Article IV of the City Code
by the Addition of a New Division 4 Regarding the Urban Renewal Authority.
Chapter 2, Article IV of the City Code currently lists the "Authorities of the City" as
differentiated from the listing of City "Boards and Commissions" contained in Chapter 2,
Article III of the Code. Authorities of the City have different legal status, roles,
responsibilities, and powers that go beyond those of the City Boards and Commissions. On
February 20, 2001, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 026, 2001, creating a new Article
IV of the City Code pertaining to Authorities of the City and included the Downtown
Development Authority (DDA) and the Fort Collins Housing Authority (FCHA) in the listing
of Authorities. The DDA, created by an ordinance of the Council, is a separate corporate
entity from the City. The FCHA, established by the Council in the manner provided by state
397
March 21, 2006
statute, is a body both corporate and politic and is a separate legal entity from the City.
Likewise, the Urban Renewal Authority (URA), established by the Council in the manner
provided by state statute is also a separate "body politic." Therefore, staff believes the URA
should be added to the listing of Authorities contained in Chapter 2, Article IV of the City
Code.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 049, 2006 Authorizing the Lease of City -Owned Property
at 2313 Kechter Road, Fort Collins, Colorado. for Up to Five Years.
The City acquired this property as part of the Affordable Housing Land Bank Program (the
"Land Bank Program"). The property is composed of 15.959 acres of development land and
is improved with a 2,967 square foot single family house and three outbuildings. One of the
goals of the Land Bank Program is to hold land for a minimum of five years. Leasing the
property during this time period generates revenue for the program, eliminates ground
maintenance and discourages vandalism in empty structures.
The lease for 2313 Kechter Road will include the entire 15.959 acres with the single family
residence and the three outbuildings.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 050, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of Non-exclusive
Easement Interests for the Construction of a Sanitary Sewer Line By the South Fort Collins
Sanitation District On a Portion of Fossil Creek Reservoir Regional Open Space.
The South Fort Collins Sanitation District wishes to acquire a permanent right-of-way as well
as temporary construction easements in order to install, maintain, and repair a sanitary sewer
line on the Fossil Creek Reservoir Regional Open Space. The new sanitary sewer and related
easements will parallel an existing right-of-way and sewer line that the District currently
maintains on the property. The new sewer line will replace the existing sewer line which is
not capable of providing adequate service.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 051, 2006, Authorizing the Dedication of Certain Street
Rights -of -Way and the Disposition of Certain Interests in Real Property in Connection with
the Fort Collins Police Services Facility Site and the Spring Creek Farms North Plat.
This Ordinance dedicates certain street rights -of -way in connection with the Fort Collins
Police Services Facility site. These streets surround the Police Services Facility site and are
Charles Brockman Drive, Joseph Allen Drive, Nancy Gray Avenue, and Timberline Road.
It also conveys two utility easements included within the boundary of the Police Services
Facility site.
March 21, 2006
17. Resolution 2006-033 Makin Findings indings of Fact and Conclusions Pertaining to the Appeal of
the Determination of the Administrative Hearing Officer Regarding the Raven View Project
Development Plan and Modification of Standard.
On January 25, 2006, an Amended Notice of Appeal was filed regarding the December 13,
2005 decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer to approve the Raven View Project
Development Plan and Modification of Standard.
On March 7, 2006, City Council voted 6 — 1 to modify and uphold the decision of the
Administrative Hearing Officer. In order to complete the record regarding these appeals, the
Council should adopt a Resolution making findings of fact and finalizing its decision on the
appeal.
18. Resolution 2006-034 Approving Expenditures from the Art in Public Places Reserve
Account in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund to Commission an Artist to Create Art
Elements for the Mason Transportation Corridor Trail Project.
This Resolution approves expenditures of $55,235 for design, materials, installation and
contingency for a project with artist Mario Miguel Echevarria to create sculptural elements
for Mason Transportation Corridor Trail.
19. Resolution 2006-035 Establishing Rental Rates and Delivery Charges for the City's Raw
Water for the 2006 Season.
This Resolution approves rates for the rental and use of the City's raw water supplies. The
Water Utility uses these rates to assess charges for agricultural use, for various contractual
raw water obligations and for raw water deliveries to other City departments. Each year,
prior to the irrigation season, the City's Water Board ("the Board") makes a recommendation
to Council regarding the raw water charges. The Board discussed the proposed rental rates
and charges at its February 23, 2006 meeting. The proposed rate for each type of water is
based on several factors including market conditions and assessments charged by irrigation
companies.
20. Resolution 2006-036 Authorizing the City Manager to Consider Annexations Under the
City's Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County Regarding Cooneration on
Managing Urban Development.
This Resolution authorizes the City Manager to defer annexation of parcels eligible for
annexation if specific criteria are met.
399
March 21, 2006
21. Resolution 2006-037 Authorizing and Directing the City Manager to Join the Efforts of
Colorado State University, the Northern Colorado Economic Development Corporation. the
Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce. Poudre School District, Larimer County, and
Private Enterprise in Developing a Clean Energy Cluster for Northern Colorado.
This Resolution authorizes and directs the City Manager to proceed on behalf of the City to
participate in a Clean Energy Cluster formation and development, and to work with Colorado
State University, Larimer County, Poudre School District, the Northern Colorado Economic
Development Corporation, the Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce, and local business
entities to develop the Cluster's strategic plan and to support the advancement of the plan as
it is implemented.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 034, 2006, Amending the City Code with Regard to the
Posting of Public Notice of the Meetings of the City Council, Committees of the Council and
City Boards and Commissions.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 042, 2006, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into
an Agreement for the Financing by Lease -Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 044, 2006 Amending Section 3.5.4(c)(3)(A) of The City
of Fort Collins Land Use Code.
27. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 043, 2006, Amending Chapter 26, Article III, Division 4
of the City Code Relating to Water Fees.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 045, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in
the General Fund From the Colorado Department of Revenue, Enforcement of Underage
Drinking Law Program.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 046, 2006, Authorizing the Appropriation of Operating
Funds of the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport for the Fiscal Year Beginning January
1, 2006, and Authorizing the Appropriation of Unanticipated Revenue and Prior Year
Reserves for Capital Improvements at the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 047, 2006, Authorizing an Addendum to the Existing
Intergovernmental Agreement with the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District, Extending for
Five Years the Time for Annexations of Subdivisions to be Eligible Under the Agreement.
"11
March 21, 2006
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 048, 2006, Amending Chapter 2, Article IV of the City Code
by the Addition of a New Division 4 Regarding the Urban Renewal Authority.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 049, 2006 Authorizing the Lease of City -Owned Property
at 2313 Kechter Road, Fort Collins, Colorado, for Up to Five Years.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 050, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of Non-exclusive
Easement Interests for the Construction of a Sanitary Sewer Line By the South Fort Collins
Sanitation District On a Portion of Fossil Creek Reservoir Regional Open Space.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 051, 2006, Authorizing the Dedication of Certain Street
Rights -of -Way and the Disposition of Certain Interests in Real Property in Connection with
the Fort Collins Police Services Facility Site and the Spring Creek Farms North Plat.
25. Items Relating to the Airpark Village Annexation and Zoning.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 053, 2006, Annexing Property Known as the Airpark
Village Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 054, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of
Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Airpark Village Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
26. Ordinance No. 052, 2006, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Stormwater Fund for
Funding a Loan to the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adopt and
approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. The vote on the motion was as follows:
Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Consent Calendar Follow-up
Councilmember Manvel commented regarding Item No. 12, First Reading of Ordinance No. 047,
2006, Authorizing an Addendum to the Existinglntergovernmental Agreement with the Fort Collins -
Loveland Water District, Extending for Five Years the Time for Annexations of Subdivisions to be
Eligible Under the Agreement. He stated he had some questions relating to the pricing of the water
and the details of the agreement he would like to have answered prior to Second Reading.
Councilmember Ohlson asked that Item #12 First Reading of Ordinance No. 047, 2006, Authorizing
an Addendum to the Existing Intergovernmental Agreement with the Fort Collins -Loveland Water
District, Extendingfor Five Years the Timefor Annexations of Subdivisions to be Eligible Under the
401
March 21, 2006
Agreement not be on the Consent Calendar on Second Reading so that there would be an opportunity
for discussion. He stated he also had questions on the Ordinance.
Staff Reports
City Manager Atteberry recognized Kathy Collier, the City's Climate Wise Program Manager and
Environmental Planner inNatural Resources, forbecoming Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) certified. He also reported that by the end of the year the City would complete the
undergrounding of all electric utility lines. He reported the cost for snow plowing during the recent
snowstorm was $90,000 and the snow budget balance was $750,000. More than 8,200 lane miles
were plowed and de-iced.
Councilmember Reports
Mayor Hutchinson reported four Councilmembers attended the National League of Cities Conference
in Washington, D.C.
Councilmember Brown reported while in Washington, D.C. he accepted a grant on behalf ofthe City
from the Preserve America Project in the amount of $175,000 to preserve an oral history of the
Soapstone Ranch area.
Items Relating to the Airpark Village Annexation and Zoning. Adopted
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
`EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 2006-038 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the
Airpark Village Annexation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 053, 2006, Annexing Property Known as the
Airpark Village Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 054, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map of the
City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Airpark Village Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
This is a 100% voluntary annexation and zoning of a property approximately 148 acres in size. The
site is an existing, privately owned airport and three abuttingproperties, all generally located north
of East Lincoln Avenue, south of East Vine Drive and west of Timberline Road. Contiguity with the
existing municipal boundary is gained along portions of the west and east property lines. The east
property line abuts the Dry Creek Subdivision.
402
March 21, 2006
BACKGROUND
The property is located within the Growth Management Area (GMA). According to the policies and
agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County contained in the Intergovernmental
Agreement for the City of Fort Collins Growth Management Area, the City will agree to consider
annexation ofproperty in the GMA when the property is eligible for annexation according to state
law.
The parcel gains the necessary one -sixth contiguity along portions of the west and east property
lines. Of the total perimeter boundary, the parcel has 25.53% contiguity with the City limits. This
exceeds the required minimum of 16.66% (one -sixth). The parcel, therefore, complies with the
requirements of the Intergovernmental Agreement — Growth Management Area and is eligible for
annexation.
This is a 100% voluntary annexation for a property located within the Growth Management Area.
The property satisfies the requirement that no less than one -sixth of the perimeter boundary be
contiguous to the existing City boundary. The recommended zoning of E, Employment, is in
compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan, Structure Plan Map and East Mulberry Corridor
Plan. Staff recommends the parcel be placed within the Residential Neighborhood Sign District.
The original Initiating Resolution was considered by City Council on May 3, 2005 and has since
lapsed. The request was re -initiated February 7, 2006 and approved. On May 19, 2005 and again
on July 21, 2005, the Planning and Zoning Board considered both the annexation and zoning
request.
Consistency with Existing Policies
According to the policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County,
contained in the amended (November 21, 2000) Intergovernmental Agreements — Growth
ManagementArea (IGA), the City will agree to considerfor annexation property in the UGMA when
such property is eligible for annexation according to state law. According to Section 8A of the IGA,
as amended:
"It is the City's intent to annex properties within the GMA as expeditiously as
possible consistent with the terms of this Agreement. Except as provided in Section
8(B), the City agrees to consider the annexation of any parcel or parcels of land
located within the GMA which are eligible for voluntary annexation pursuant to the
provisions of Title 31, Article 12 Colorado Revised Statutes. "
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N.• I — Industrial (County); Burlington Northern Railroad tracks and switching yard
S: I — Industrial (County); Existing Industrial Park (For Collins Community Airpark
Subdivision)
E: L-M-N,• Existing Dry Creek Mobile Home Park
403
March 21, 2006
E: I — Industrial (County); Existing Industrial Park (Industrial Business Park
International P. U.D)
W.• I —Industrial (County); Existing Industrial Park (Fort Collins Business Center, Fort
Collins Industrial Park, Fort Collins Community Airpark Subdivision)
The parcel gains the necessary one -sixth contiguity along the portions of the west and east property
lines. Of the total perimeter boundary, the parcel has 25.53% contiguity with the City limits. This
exceeds the required minimum of 16.66% (one -sixth). The parcel, therefore, complies with the
requirements of the Intergovernmental Agreement — Growth Management Area and is eligible for
annexation.
One of the stated intents of the Agreement is to have urban development occur within the City in
order that the provision of urban level services by the County would be minimized. This is a 100%
voluntary annexation. The parcel is not an enclave. On February 7, 2006, City Council approved
a Resolution which accepted the annexation petition and established that the petition is in
compliance with State statutes.
Zoning
A. Employment Zone District
The proposed zoning for the Airpark Village Annexation is E, Employment. As stated in the Land
Use Code:
(A) Purpose. The Employment District is intended to provide locations for a variety of
workplaces including light industrial uses, research and development activities, offices and
institutions. This District also is intended to accommodate secondary uses that complement
or support the primary workplace uses, such as hotels, restaurants, convenience shopping,
child care and housing.
Additionally, the Employment District is intended to encourage the development ofplanned
office and business parks; to promote excellence in the design and construction ofbuildings,
outdoor spaces, transportation facilities and streetscapes; to direct the development of
workplaces consistent with the availability ofpublicfacilities and services; and to continue
the vitality and quality of life in adjacent residential neighborhoods.
B. Mixed -Use Dwelling Units — Condition of Zoning
At the September 6, 2005 Council consideration of the Amendment to the East Mulberry Corridor
Plan, the petitioners voluntarily offered to restrict the extent ofpotential housing types to Mixed -use
Dwelling Units only. These units are defined as:
"Dwelling, mixed -use shall mean a dwelling that is located on the same lot or in the
same building as a nonresidential use. "
ME
March 21, 2006
Citizen input during consideration of the plan amendment identified a potential issue with
neighborhood compatibility. Since Employment zoning offers a more diverse range housing types
than Industrial zoning, the concern was that multi family housing complexes could be constructed.
Such projects could potentially lead to complaints regarding the existing helicopter operations that
are located in the immediate vicinity. This self-imposed restriction was offered as a mitigation
technique to promote neighborhood compatibility by allowing only one particular type of housing
product within the annexation boundary.
C. Residential Neighborhood Sign District
In addition, staff recommends the parcel be placed within the Residential Neighborhood Sign
District which was created for the purpose of regulating signs for non-residential land uses in
certain geographic locations of the City. Although it may appear incongruous to apply the
Neighborhood Sign District to parcels in the Employment zone, the applicant has stated mixed -use
residential dwelling units would be a key component of any future development plan.
Compliance with State Law
As mentioned, the annexation has 25.53% of its perimeter boundary contiguous with existing City
limits which exceeds the required one -sixth as mandated by State law. Further, the parcel is found
to have a community of interest with the City and the parcel is expected to urbanize shortly.
East Mulberry Corridor Plan Amendment
The East Mulberry Corridor Plan (EMCP) was adopted September 17, 2002. The Plan shows two
scenarios for the Downtown Airpark. One assumes continuing operations as an airport while the
other indicates redevelopment. The redevelopment scenario is referred to in the EMCP as the
"Framework Overlay Plan " and calls for combination oflndustrial (60%) and Employment (40%)
zoning to be placed on the Airpark property.
On September 6, 2005, Council amended the "Framework Overlay Plan" of the East Mulberry
Corridor Plan by Resolution 2005-098. This amendment changed the recommended zoning of the
Airpark from a mix of Industrial (60% - northwest portion) and Employment (40% - southeast
portion) to Employment (100%).
Findings of Fact and Conclusion
In evaluating the request for the Airpark Village Annexation and Zoning, staff makes the following
findings offact:
A. The annexation of this parcel is consistent with the policies and agreements
between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins, as contained in the
amended Intergovernmental Agreement — Growth Management Area.
B. The parcel meets all criteria included in state law to qualify for annexation
405
March 21, 2006
by the City of Fort Collins.
C. The requested zone district, E, Employment, is in conformance with the City's
Comprehensive Plan and theAmended "Framework Overlay PlanoftheEast
Mulberry Corridor Plan.
D. Staffrecommends that a condition be placed on the Employmentzone district
such that Mixed -use dwelling units shall be the only permitted housing type
allowed within the annexation boundary.
E. Staff recommends the parcel be placed within the Residential Neighborhood
Sign District based on the applicant's statements that mixed -use dwelling
units will comprise a key feature of future development.
F On February 7, 2006, City Council approved the Resolution which accepted
the annexation petition anddetermines that the petition is in compliance with
State law.
Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board
In matters pertaining to annexation, zoning and amendments to adopted sub -area plans, the
Planning and Zoning Board is authorized only to make recommendations to City Council. Since
these actions are legislative and not quasi-judicial, final authority rests with Council. The Board
took the following actions:
A. May 19, 2005:
Voted 5 — 0 to recommend annexation of the subject parcel.
Voted 4 —1 to recommend the parcel be zoned Industrial.
B. July 21, 2005:
At the request of the applicant, the Board considered additional information and voted 6-0
to recommend the parcel be zoned Industrial (60%) and Employment (40%) in accordance
with the East Mulberry Corridor Plan Framework Overlay Plan.
C. April20, 2006:
Due to City Council amending the East Mulberry Corridor Plan on September 6, 2005, the
Planning and Zoning Board will reconsider its initial zoning recommendation. The
Planning and Zoning Board recommendation will be forwarded to City Council at Second
Reading on May 2, 2006 "
M
March 21, 2006
Mayor Hutchinson stated the Council would vote separately on the three items.
City Manager Atteberry stated this agenda item related to an annexation and was not intended to be
a discussion of the closure of the Downtown Airport.
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, presented visual information relating to the 148 acre site north of East
Mulberry Street, west of Timberline Road, south of Vine Drive and the railroad, and east of Lemay
Avenue. He stated the property was part of the old Airpark Industrial Park platted in the County in
the early 1960s. He presented an aerial photograph showing the relationship of the 148 acres to the
surrounding environment (the industrial park to the southwest, the Dry Creek Mobile Home
Residential Park zoned LMN to the north, Timberline Road and Industrial Boulevard, and the platted
industrial park). He showed a zoning map indicating what was zoned in the City, the 148 acres
proposed for E zoning and what was zoned in the County. He stated the property was in the Growth
Management Area, the contiguous boundary exceeded the state minimum of one -sixth, and the East
Mulberry Corridor Plan was amended in September 2005 to recommend 100% Employment zoning
for this property. The zoning recommendation carried a condition that the residential development
under E zoning should be restricted to mixed -use dwelling units only (as defined in Article 5 of the
Code). Staff recommended it be placed in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. He stated
the property was not part of an enclave and it did not create an enclave. If the parcel was annexed,
the next step would be a development proposal that would go through the development process. The
standards of the Employment zone district in Article 4 would apply as would the general
development standards of Article 3.
Mayor Hutchinson stated audience participants would each have three minutes to speak. He stated
it was important for comments to be addressed to the subject at hand. Council was obligated to
consider what had been brought forward relating to the annexation. This was not a decision relating
to closure of the Airpark and there would be an intensive process for any future land use proposal.
He asked that comments be addressed to the Resolution and two Ordinances being considered by the
Council.
City Attorney Roy stated part of the agenda item related to the zoning for the property and this
entailed land use in a "broad sense." This was not about a specific development proposal. He stated
there would be a Second Reading on both of the Ordinances. The first Ordinance would authorize
the annexation of the property and the second Ordinance would place the property in a zone district.
The second Ordinance dealt with a determination of the appropriate zone district and, in a broad
sense, what kinds of land uses (Employment or other) were appropriate. This was not about whether
the Airport would continue in existence nor about any specific development proposal. Once the
property was zoned a development proposal would be submitted and processed separately.
Michael Hanson, owner of Century Helicopters, Inc. and Parradian Technology, stated he did not
oppose the annexation but did oppose Employment zoning. He stated the Planning and Zoning
Board disagreed with Employment zoning but the developer then went directly to Council in
September 2005 to amend the East Mulberry Corridor Plan to allow for the Employment zoning.
He stated Employment zoning was not compatible with existing land uses in the area. The whole
airpark property was an Industrial zone and his helicopter operation and manufacturing uses were
407
March 21, 2006
not compatible with Employment zoning as there were noise and safety concerns related to the
helicopter operation. The Planning and Zoning Board agreed the property should not be zoned
Employment and should instead be hndustrial. His group was "blindsided" by Council's action to
amend the Corridor Plan to allow for Employment zoning. Council should reconsider the zoning
based on the existing land uses in the area. He requested Industrial zoning.
Robert Dean, helicopter operation owner, stated this zoning would determine the land use.
Employment zoning would allow higher residential density that would be incompatible with existing
Industrial land uses. At least three helicopter operations would remain. The zoning would "set the
stage" for people to think this was a `residential capable development." This would set the stage for
high rise buildings with a residential component and there would be a "conflict" due to noise. He
stated the zoning would affect the land use and the Airport would almost certainly close with
Employment zoning because it would not be an "economic use compared to what else can be built
there."
Councilmember Ohlson stated he believed it would be appropriate to allow people to speak to the
closing of the Airport as related to the annexation and the zoning. The annexation and zoning would
affect the closing of the Airport and he would be willing to hear comments from those who came to
speak about that issue.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the comments so far related to the issues that were on the table. Council
had received many a -mails from people who thought that Council would be deciding whether to
close the Airport and this was not the decision that was before the Council.
Jane Peters, pilot, stated the Airport would be impacted by Council's decision. If the Airport was
annexed then it would shut down. She presented slides relating to the airpark. She stated the airpark
was for general aviation, it asked "nothing" of the City, it had a $10.7 million impact on the
economy, there would be 240 jobs lost, and 18 businesses would close or leave. She spoke regarding
the aviation activities at the airpark that cost the City nothing.
David Nabors, 109 South Taft Hill Road, stated if the property was developed, "cracker boxes"
would be built there. This would be a long term decision and he reminded Councilmembers they
served at the pleasure of their constituents. Annexing the property would be "letting the developers
take over" and eventually close the runway. The Airport was part of a "city of dreams" and
contributed to the economy but jobs would be lost if the Airport closed.
John Pernicka, 3400 North County Road 25E, Bellvue, stated at least one of the parcels was not
owned by the requester and was part of the common area of the Fort Collins Industrial Park. It had
multiple owners (more than 10) and more than 50% of the landowners must request annexation. He
never received any notification for any of the meetings or hearings other than this meeting. Noise
exposure was cumulative and high noise levels could cause hearing loss, pain or even death. He
stated a large flyway would be needed if there was residential development at this site because of the
noise from helicopters.
M.
March 21, 2006
Loren Maxey, vice-president of Community Airpark Association, property owner of 80 acres, stated
the Airport would close on December 31, 2006. The Airport had not been profitable for a number
of years and stockholders did not want to liquidate more assets just to keep in open.
(First name not stated) Goldberg, treasurer and tax counsel for the Community Airpark Association,
stated the tax returns for 2003 and 2004 showed significant losses. Operations and repayment of
loans had been financed partly by the sale of land and water rights. There was a mandate from all
of the shareholders for the sale.
Mikal Torgerson, 223 North College Avenue, stated there had been questions regarding whether the
Planning and Zoning Board process was sufficient and it was sufficient. This project was originally
submitted with the annexation, zoning and subarea plan as one package. It became apparent at the
Planning and Zoning Board hearing those two efforts should be separated. The plan amendment
went through the proper process and was approved by Council to show Employment zoning for the
subject property. He stated when the applicant sought to revive the annexation request, the applicant
was notified "at the last minute" the annexation and zoning was to be considered as a new
application and another Planning and Zoning Board hearing might be required. It would be an
"undue burden" on his client (because of timing and a purchase contract) to have to go through
another Planning and Zoning Board hearing since this was the same annexation request. The
helicopter issues that were raised were an Overall Development Plan (ODP) or Project Development
Plan (PDP) issue. The applicant was aware of the helicopter issues and had met with all of the
helicopter operators. The applicant was proposing an adjacent helicopter flight zone and those issues
would be dealt with in more detail at the time of ODP and PDP stages. He stated the applicant was
also proposing an avigation covenant to put all new residents on notice that helicopters operate
frequently in the vicinity and limit their rights to sue about helicopter noise. Helicopter noise would
be about the same as train noise. The project could be properly designed to mitigate helicopter noise
concerns and such details would be addressed during development review. There would be
helicopter noise in both the I and E zones.
Randy Treadwell, Fort Collins resident, stated when Christman Field was closed on CSU property
in the late 1960s, the decision was made to go in with Loveland for an airport. The aviation
community was "unhappy with that decision" and, on its own, started this Airport. He did not think
the aviation community "would let this Airport die."
Bill Browder, owner ofGeo-Seis Helicopters, Inc., 116 North Raquette Drive, stated he had operated
out of this Airport for 23 years. Mr. Torgerson indicated the applicant had met with all the helicopter
operators but he had never spoken with the applicant. He operated up to 28 helicopters and had an
FAA -approved heliport. He was aware of noise concerns and the helicopter noise levels would never
meet the current decibel requirements of the zoning code. He operated a number of transport
helicopters that had "horrendous" decibel levels. He intended to stay at this location with the largest
helicopter operation in Colorado.
Lloyd Goff, developer ofAirpark Village, asked the Council to annex the propertywith Employment
zoning to set the foundation for a "huge job generator for decades to come." This site was so large
it would require "national marketing" of the theme "Beyond Oil" for a research campus. He hoped
,M
March 21, 2006
the project would help find solutions to "America's addiction to oil." Billions would be invested in
research and this project would help the City "land some of that research." There was also a
potential to involve the agricultural community in this kind of research. Over a period of 15 to 25
years this site could accommodate about 5,000 new jobs. For every job created on -site there was an
economic generator effect of two jobs that would be created in the local community for supporting
services. A residential component was needed because residential was the "only really healthy
market around right now." There was not enough commercial demand in Fort Collins to enable a
project of this size to "get off the ground" so the residential part was needed to support the carrying
costs. Both the Industrial and Employment zoning had residential. The demand for housing was
about 100 units per year and it would take decades to build out this project. This "vision was not
without its critics." The applicant had communicated with 250 neighboring businesses for nine
months and a "tiny few" were opposed to the project. The applicant was offering a flight path and
avigation agreement for the helicopter businesses. Employment zoning was requested to allow the
creation of a job generator.
Susanne Durkin -Schindler, 1342 Stonehenge Drive, stated Council might be wondering why the
Airport was closing when it was generating over $10 million in economic impact. There are 78
airports in Colorado and the first 13 are busy commercial service airports. This was a general
aviation airport, as was Fort Collins -Loveland Airport. Some general aviation airports in Colorado,
such as Centennial Airport with 976 aviation operations a day, were extremelybusy. The Downtown
Airpark ran 24 general aviation operations each day, even though it ranked 11 th on the list of general
aviation airports. The Airpark itself employed only one full-time person. The 240 jobs quoted
included the fuel delivery person (who delivered elsewhere and would not lose his job) and spin-off
jobs at motels and other businesses. The general revenue to the Airpark was only $414,000.
Alan Krcmarik, financial analyst for Airpark Village, stated this would be a significant revenue
generator for the City and explained how the financial analysis was done. There could be 4,000 jobs
over the next 15 to 25 years and millions of dollars would be generated that would significantly
exceed the dollars generated by the current airpark.
Troy Jones, M. Torgerson Architects, consultant for the developer, stated this would be a mixed -use
development that would include residential. The majority of the residential would be on the north
end of the project with residential floors above commercial uses. Residential was in character with
the surroundings, noting there were two mobile home parks to the east, additional future residential
east of the mobile home parks, and Andersonville and Alta Vista to the west. There was existing
Industrial and Employment uses to the south. The R&D portion of the project would be to the south.
The applicant wanted Employment rather than Industrial zoning because there would be a 75% to
25% ratio of primary uses versus secondary uses. This would work well to ensure the R&D anchor
and to allow mixed -use residential. He stated 60% would be commercial uses and 40% would be
residential uses within the mixed -use scenario. Both the Employment and Industrial zones allowed
mixed -use residential. He stated the Employment zone allowed more than mixed -use residential but
that the project would be voluntarily limited to mixed -use residential. He stated this would be a
condition of the zoning. He stated there were seven public meetings to which all vicinity business
owners were invited, five newsletters were mailed out, and there were four polls. He and Mikal
Torgerson had met with Bill Browder and John Pernicka.
410
March 21, 2006
Ron Mills, consultant for the developer, commented the applicant's attorney had certified the
Airpark had ownership of Tract D and the applicant had not seen any documentation from the
opponents to prove otherwise.
Gerald Eberhardt, 902 Teal Drive, flight instructor, stated rezoning the Airport would close it and
residential and Employment zoning were not compatible with the Airport. It appeared this was not
a 100% voluntary annexation and rezoning. There were users willing to purchase and operate the
Airport as a profitable business. He conducted an average of 10 operations each day at the Airport.
The Fort Collins -Loveland Airport plan described a scenario in which the Downtown Airpark would
close. The projected growth rate at the Fort Collins -Loveland Airport was more than double the
FAA's projected forecast of a 4% growth rate for general aviation. Keeping the Downtown Airpark
open would help with noise and traffic at the Fort Collins -Loveland Airport. Rezoning would
effectively lead to the closure of the Airport because there could not be an airport unless there was
Industrial zoning. He asked if the City would want the annexation if the developer backed out. If
the answer was no, it was "dangerous" to do an annexation that depended on a single developer
completing a purchase and development.
Steve Vessey, Community Airpark Association stockholder, stated it was not a unanimous vote to
shut down the Airport or to sell the stock to Airpark Village. The majority stockholder voted in
favor and many other stockholders did not vote in favor. There were many operations at the airpark
every day, possibly in excess of hundreds. Council and the City Attorney should talk with Mr.
Pemicka, who had done decibel studies on helicopter noise in the area. It was a "poor decision" to
close the Airport. He had been denied a copy when he had requested the financial report of the
Community Airpark Association.
Councilmember Ohlson asked Mr. Jones for more information comparing the I and E zones. Troy
Jones stated his 75%/25% slide showed what could be done in the E zone as far as a land use mix.
Councilmember Ohlson asked Mr. Jones to summarize the differences between the I and E zones.
Troy Jones stated there was a lot of overlap as far as light industrial and employment uses. There
was heavy industrial in the I zone that could not be done in the E zone. He stated in the I zone there
could be mixed -use residential up to 50% of the square footage of a building as long as it was on
upper floors over primary uses. In the E zone there could be mixed -use residential up to a four-story
building (up to 75% of the building in residential uses). The primary and secondary uses were
differentiated in the two zones. In the Employment zone, secondary uses were limited to 25% and
there was no primary/secondary use mix requirement in the Industrial zone.
Councilmember Ohlson asked what would be lost in the way of specific uses if there was no I
zoning. Shepard stated, if the parcel was zoned E, there would be none of the more "intensive
range" of uses permitted in the I zone. The I zone had more intensive permitted uses than the E
zone. He stated the E zone and the 75°/u/25% mix were originally designed for office parks and their
accessory uses so they would not be dominated by secondary uses. The area around Horsetooth and
Timberline Roads was a "classic" E zone mix. Zoning E would mean a loss of the "really intense
industrial character" that was a permitted use in the I zone.
411
March 21, 2006
Councilmember Ohlson asked for a rationale for supporting E zoning when some Industrial was
needed. Shepard stated Council determined several months ago that there was a voluntary offer by
the applicant to restrict the amount of residential in the E zone to less than what would be permitted.
There was a condition in the zoning ordinance to restrict the development to mixed -use dwelling
units as the permitted allowable residential land use in the Employment zone. The Employment
zone usually allowed single-family detached, two-family, multifamily duplexes, multifamily
apartments, mobile home parks, group homes, and boarding and rooming houses. The Industrial
zone would only permit mixed -use dwelling units and boarding and rooming houses. An argument
was made last September that residential was a "kick start" and "catalyst" needed on this property
for reasons stated by the applicant and the Industrial zoning would not offer that ability.
Councilmember Manvel stated one of the speakers indicated the Airport must close if the property
was zoned Employment instead of Industrial. Shepard stated an airport was a permitted use in the
I zone. Even if it was not allowed in the I zone, the Airport would be a legal nonconforming use in
the I zone.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the legal nonconforming use could remain even if the Airport was
to change hands. Shepard replied in the affirmative and stated this would run with the land use
rather than the property owner.
Councilmember Manvel asked if improvements could be made to the Airport if it was a legal
nonconforming use. Shepard stated this would be the case in the I zone since it was a permitted use.
He stated if the property was zoned E it would remain a legal nonconforming use with the ability to
expand up to 25%, subject to Planning and Zoning Board approval based on a set of criteria.
Councilmember Roy stated there were comments about noise exceeding decibel levels set out in the
City Code. He asked how annexation might affect the legality of decibel levels greater than those
allowed under the Code. City Attorney Roy stated he would like to do further research prior to
Second Reading. He noted there were two kinds of noise ordinances and one had decibel limits.
There was an exception to the noise ordinance for the operation of aircraft or other activities which
were subject to federal law with respect to noise control. The question was whether or not the noise
ordinance would be applicable to aircraft flying over the various zone districts of the City, since each
zone district had its own maximum decibel limit.
Councilmember Kastein asked the City Attorney to summarize a memo sent to Council relating to
ownership of the property and the percentage of owners that must request annexation. City Attorney
Roy stated the statute required the petition for annexation be signed by more than 50% of the owners
of the property to be annexed and they must own more than 50% of the land area. He stated there
was a certification from the attorney for the petitioner stating this requirement had been met. He
stated the City generally relied upon such certifications. It had been called into question and Mr.
Pernicka and his attorney provided some court documents. In his review of those documents he did
not find anything that spoke to the ownership of the parcels. The attorney (Doug Konkel) was asked
to point out where the determination of ownership was made in the court action. The attorney had
not provided any information to the City Attorney's Office with regard to the issue. Mr. Pernicka
had indicated there were up to 10 people claiming ownership of Tract D. If this was the case, it may
412
March 21, 2006
be that 50% of the land owners did not sign the annexation petition. The attorney for the applicant
had recertified the petition, and, in the absence of conclusive documentation to the contrary, the City
Attorney's Office had taken the position the annexation was valid unless a court determined
otherwise.
Councilmember Manvel asked if this meant if one property was owned by 100 people, they would
all be counted as separate owners i.e., if everyone who was a part owner of the property must be
counted. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney, stated no information had been presented to indicate
that Tract D was even owned by the applicants and, at this point, there was simply an "allegation."
It was alleged that all of the owners of lots in the development would be tenants -in- common in
connection with the ownership of Tract D. This was an allegation but there was no court decree to
that effect. If the allegation was proven true then this would become an issue for the validity of this
annexation. The City had the recertification from the attorney who had reexamined the records and
stood by his certification that more than 50% of the landowners owning more than 50% of the land
had signed the petition. In the absence of any information to the contrary that would contradict that
certification, the City Attorney's Office felt compelled to move forward with the annexation.
Councilmember Manvel asked what would happen if the Council moved forward on the basis of the
certification and it was later proved to be incorrect i.e., if this would be grounds for upsetting the
Council's action. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated there was a 60-day review period available
to persons who were aggrieved or complaining about the annexation. He stated a pleading could be
filed in court within the review period to challenge the annexation.
Councilmember Kastein stated the Council had heard if this area was annexed with Industrial zoning,
it could potentially remain in use as an airpark and if it was annexed with Employment zoning, it
could still remain an airpark as long as any improvements were within 25% of the existing land area
of the airpark. He stated Jane Peters indicated in her presentation, and many people had said,
annexation equated with closing the Airport. He asked Ms. Peters to speak to that issue. Jane Peters
stated the understanding of the opponents was it would close as an airpark.
Councilmember Kastein asked how Council's action on annexation would affect the closure. Ms.
Peters stated the understanding of the opponents was if the land was annexed, the developer would
go forward with closing the airpark.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the land to the south was County property and if the strip being
annexed would coincide with the runways. Shepard stated the map in the Council's packet showed
County property in white and this property was not part of the annexation.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the helicopter businesses were in the strip to be annexed or were
part of the County. Shepard stated they were in the County and not a part of the annexation.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if City decibel levels would apply since the helicopter businesses
were in the County. City Attorney Roy stated he understood the question to be whether the noise
ordinance would apply to noise sources in the County. He stated the District Court in Larimer
County had ruled it did apply.
413
March 21, 2006
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if this meant where they crossed over into the City the noise
became subject to the City enforcement process. She asked if both E and I zoning would allow
helicopter operations. Shepard stated helicopters and helipads were allowed in both zones but
airports were allowed only in the I zone.
Councilmember Roy asked Mr. Goldberg about the significance of the "bombshell" revealed to the
audience about the closure of the Airport. Mr. Goldberg stated the Airport would not continue after
December 31, 2006. He indicated in his earlier testimony the results of operations for the Airport
without the sale of water rights and assets unrelated to the Airport would place the Airport in a
situation where the deficits could no longer be covered because most of the surrounding ground had
already been sold. It was no longer an option to cover deficits by liquidating other assets.
Continuation of this situation would result in losses that could not be financed byborrowing on other
assets.
Councilmember Roy asked how many members were on the board that made this decision. Mr.
Goldberg stated there were three members serving on the board.
Councilmember Roy asked if the three boardmembers could unilaterally make the decision to close
the Airport. Mr. Goldberg stated it was a privately owned airport and economics were a motivating
factor.
Councilmember Roy asked when this decision was made. Mr. Goldberg stated it was a recent
decision to close the Airport whether or not the annexation was approved.
Councilmember Roy asked if it was Mr. Goldberg's opinion the planned action would mean the
Airport would have to close. Mr. Goldberg stated the intention was to close the Airport if it
remained under control of the current decision makers. Notice was being given now that this was
the intent. If the property was not sold by December 31, the decision makers were bound by the
economics of the situation to close the Airport.
Councilmember Brown asked Mr. Goldberg if the majority of the stockholders had voted to sell the
Airport. Mr. Goldberg stated the majority of the shares voted at the meeting where the decision
regarding the ratification of the contract with Mr. Goff was sought met the requirements to ratify that
contract.
Councilmember Ohlson asked Mr. Pemicka to show his slides on noise decibels. John Pemicka
stated Councilmembers had a copy of his presentation. His main point was the developer had totally
disregarded the meetings held with him and Bill Browder regarding the noise issue. The allowed
decibel level for hidustrial land uses was 10 decibels more than what was allowed in the
Employment zone. This represented a sound level 10 times more intense and "guaranteed to cause
hearing loss." He provided data on all helicopters operating out of the Downtown Airpark. He also
showed the distances at which the decibel levels were measured to show the limits of a flyway to
ensure that anyone outside the flyway would be exposed to sound levels less than 80 decibels. The
safe fly zone for one of the smallest helicopters would be 2,200 feet wide and 8,800 feet long on a
land area of 404 acres (greater than the proposed development). Anyone inside that area would be
414
March 21, 2006
exposed to sound levels greater than 90 to 95 decibels. This was "guaranteed" to cause hearing loss.
The City should not "put people in harm's way." He had provided the federal guidelines for
transportation noise and the people in the Dry Creek Mobile Home Park were being exposed to
sound levels that were over 100 times the City requirements for mixed residential use. This was
"criminal negligence" on the part of the City. Putting in a research facility over which helicopters
would fly with a 95 decibel noise level was "criminal."
Mayor Hutchinson asked staff to state how the noise information should be considered by the
Council in relation to this issue.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he did not want to see discussion limited just because it was
"uncomfortable" for Council to hear.
Mayor Hutchinson stated this was detailed information and it was important to know how it related
to what Council was considering. City Attorney Roy stated, from a legal standpoint, there were three
issues that had been addressed. One issue was the possible enforcement of the City's noise
ordinance in the current situation or at the time of redevelopment when the noise source was the
existing airpark or helicopter noise from a source outside the future City limits. Mr. Pernicka raised
the issue of City liability for allowing residential development in proximity to an airpark. The
liability analysis was more "complex" than what had been suggested. The third issue was most
relevant to these proceedings i.e., the compatibility of the kind of development that can occur in the
E zone or the I zone with existing and future surrounding development. The Land Use Code had
criteria for zonings and rezonings in areas less than 640 acres in size. The two basic criteria were
the selected zone district should either be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan or
warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject
property. There were additional considerations Council may entertain. The factors Council could
consider in deciding zoning included whether, and the extent to which, the proposed amendment to
the Zoning Map was compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and
was the appropriate zone district for the land; whether, and the extent to which, the proposed
amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but
not limited to water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the
natural functioning of the environment; and whether, and the extent to which, the proposed
amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. He suggested with regard to
the zoning decision the Council bear those criteria in mind and determine how the testimony that had
been heard affected Council's decision about what was the most appropriate kind of land use to be
authorized for this property.
Councilmember Kastein asked when appropriate levels of noise would be discussed in the
development review process. Shepard stated this discussion would occur at the Overall
Development Plan stage. The City could bring to bear some of the buffering and compatibility
standards in Article 3. There were buffering standards that applied when residential land uses were
proposed next to existing Industrial uses and there were compatibility standards that would be
applied in a "macro" way during the ODP process.
415
March 21, 2006
Councilmember Kastein asked how the avigation covenant would affect the applicability of City
standards. Shepard stated it would not impact his review of the plan at all. City Attorney Roy stated
that was a reasonable approach.
Councilmember Manvel stated he understood the helicopter properties were in the middle and upper
area near the proposed residential. Shepard stated that was correct.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the helicopter operations would be acceptable if Employment
Zoning was approved and residential was built nearby, given the compatibility standards. Shepard
stated this would be reviewed closely and the City might seek expert advice regarding noise. He
could not make a "declarative statement" on this at this point.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the existing helicopter operations had some rights to continue to
use the air space. Shepard replied in the affirmative.
("Secretary's Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point.)
Mayor Hutchinson asked for clarification on how the noise issue should enter into the decisions
about the annexation and zoning. City Attorney Roy stated he had given some general criteria to the
Council previously. He understood the question to be how Council should factor in the discussion
and input regarding noise in the surrounding area in deciding the appropriate land use for the area.
Council should not be deterred by liability concerns because of governmental immunity and other
principles. The one criterion relating to compatibility made noise an issue for the Council to
consider. If Council believed the level of noise typically generated by the kinds of uses that surround
this property (existing and future) were such that it was inappropriate for a substantial amount of
residential, then this was a decision Council should make with regard to the compatibility of the
proposed land use. If Council felt the City's buffering requirements utilized when a particular
development proposal comes before the City should be adequate to mitigate those kinds of adverse
impacts, Council may reach a different conclusion about the appropriateness of a zone district that
allowed substantial residential development. It was a question of compatibility and whether or not
the Council believed the City's land use standards could adequately deal with these kinds of
particular impacts for whatever use would be approved for the property.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if staff had looked at the buffering requirements with regard to making the
compatibility work in this situation. Shepard stated the compatibility standards were a sliding scale,
they were qualitative (i.e., they required a certain amount of landscaping), they were quantitative
(i.e., they required a certain amount of distance). The existing land use in question was Industrial
and required the most of both the qualitative and quantitative standards. For an airport classified as
Industrial there would have to be a minimum of 25 feet of buffer and a minimum of six trees. This
could be accomplished through screen walls, berms, and berms with fences on top of the berm. The
distance could be reduced if buffering was increased or the buffering could be decreased if the
distance was increased. The standards were not written with helicopters or airplanes in mind.
Mayor Hutchinson stated it appeared there were many ways to effect the buffering and compatibility
standards. Shepard replied in the affirmative.
416
March 21, 2006
Mayor Hutchinson stated there would be three separate motions.
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt
Resolution 2006-038.
Councilmember Kastein stated this Resolution made a statement the requirements had been met for
this area to be annexed.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt
Ordinance No. 053, 2006 on First Reading.
City Attorney Roy asked the intent of the motion makers with regard to the scheduling of Second
Reading of the Ordinance.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the ordinance was currently scheduled for Second Reading on May 2nd.
He noted Mikal Torgerson had pointed out this may be unnecessary and a hardship to require the
Planning and Zoning Board to reconsider the zoning condition that had been previously decided.
He asked what the Council would like to do with the scheduling of Second Reading.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he would like to know the City Attorney's recommendation. City
Attorney Roy stated, under the circumstances, it would be acceptable to have the ordinance come
back for Second Reading on April 4th.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if this was a judgement that the original Planning and Zoning Board
consideration was still relevant. City Attorney Roy stated the annexation was on hold for a period
of time due to issues with the petition. The Code provided that the zoning ordinance must go to the
Planning and Zoning Board for a recommendation before Council acts on it. Staff had made a
determination this was a "new petition" and it should be sent back to the Board. This may or may
not be a "new petition" and, in fact, the Board had considered this twice. He believed the
requirements of the Code were satisfied and everyone had an opportunityto speak before the Council
and the Planning and Zoning Board regarding the appropriate land use. He saw no legal reason to
delay the ordinance, assuming the Council had heard sufficient testimony to make a decision.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if the scheduling of the Second Reading should be included in the motion.
City Attorney Roy suggested that the motion be clarified to specify the Second Reading date.
Councilmembers Weitkunat and Kastein stated they would entertain adding a Second Reading date
of April 4, 2006 to the motion.
417
March 21, 2006
Councilmember Kastein stated most of the audience discussion focused on a desire to keep the
Airport open. In his view, the City's acceptance of the annexation request would not close the
Airport. The Airport could continue if the property was annexed, whether the zoning was I or E.
The property could redevelop if the City accepted the annexation request. If the City did not accept
the annexation request (which would be against Council policy), the airpark could remain an airpark
or it could redevelop under County standards. Council's decision should not be that difficult given
those facts. It was not true the City's action would close the Airport.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated annexation of the East Mulberry area was a primary City direction.
This piece met the contiguity requirements and annexation would help make the Mulberry Corridor
a reality. She believed annexation was appropriate.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt
Ordinance No. 054, 2006 on First Reading and to schedule Second Reading for April 4, 2006.
Councilmember Ohlson stated it was "sad" to see the Airport close but this was not really the City's
business. He hoped the City would work with the existing businesses and the neighbors on whatever
changes would take place.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated most of the uses would still be allowed and an airport could
continue if the proposed development did not come to fruition. The Airport could continue as a
nonconforming use. The Employment district met many of the goals of the City as it was intended
to provide a variety of workplaces and included light industrial, research and development, and
housing. Many of the people who work in industrial areas live in the area and the Employment zone
would allow that. Residential would be limited and this was not blanket housing as allowed in the
LMN zone. It would be limited to second story housing above commercial uses. This would be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and compatibility standards could be met. The City had
strong compatibility standards and the development would have to provide adequate buffering for
the existing uses. The City could not be the "savior" for the Airport.
Councilmember Manvel stated he understood the avigation easement maybe difficult to enforce with
future property owners. He had some concerns about allowing housing near these existing uses. and
he didn't want to see any future development push existing businesses out of the industrial part of
East Mulberry. He was hesitant to encourage a lot of residential and he was concerned Employment
zoning would do that.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated Section 2 of the ordinance had a restriction stating the residential
development would be limited to mixed -use dwellings as defined in the Land Use Code.
nu
March 21, 2006
Councilmember Kastein stated the avigation agreement would be recognition by the property owners
of the proximity of a heliport.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the language relating to the avigation agreement came out of Council's
September discussion.
Councilmember Roy stated Fort Collins "needed to dream" and this area was a "fertile spot" for this
community to change. He stated he hoped that going forward would allow current "success stories"
on East Mulberry to continue.
Councilmember Kastein stated it was regrettable there was "angst" among business owners. It was
a business decision on the part of the Airport owners to close the Airport and Council was not taking
a side on the closure. The request for E zoning matched the subarea plan. There was disagreement
about noise levels but this issue would be addressed in the development review process.
Councilmember Brown stated he hoped the City would take a strong look at noise impacts as this
proceeded through the development process.
Mayor Hutchinson stated he appreciated the discussion.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Items Relating to a Loan to the Urban
Renewal Authority (Options 1 and 2): Option 1. Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"FINANCL4L IMPACT
The City will use up to $150, 000 of reserves in the Stormwater Utility to provide a loan to the Fort
Collins Urban Renewal Authority (the "URA'). The URA will pay interest annually at a rate based
upon the five year treasury note plus fifty basis points (approximately 5.25%). The entire loan is
expected to be repaid within ten years.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On January 24, 2006, Council discussed options for financing URA projects until the tax increment
revenues materialize in 2007. Staffwas directed to consider the type ofpublic improvement created
by the project and obtain a loan from the related source. For example, if the improvement being
funded by the URA in the expansion of utility infrastructure, then the Utilities' reserves should be
the funding source. On the other hand, if the improvement is a general government infrastructure
(sidewalks, curb and gutter, street right of way, etc), then the reserves of the City's General Fund
EW
March 21, 2006
would serve as the funding source for a loan. Based on the types and scale ofprojects that would
likely occur in the North College Plan Area, the total amount of financing that the URA could
currently service was determined to be $500,000.
Two Options are under consideration:
First Reading of Ordinance No. 052, 2006, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Stormwater Fund for Funding a Loan to the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority; OR
2. First Reading of Ordinance No. 052, 2006, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
General Fund for Funding a Loan to the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority.
BACKGROUND
On September 20, 2005, Council, acting as the URA Board, approved the use of URA funds to
reimburse Valley Steel for an extension of a sanitary sewer line serving its property and several
other properties along Hickory Street. The amount of assistance was established at an amount not
to exceed $150,000.
Since the Valley Steel improvement was for utilities infrastructure, staffpresented an agenda item
to the Water Board on February 23, 2006 The item sought the recommendation of the Water Board
regarding a possible loan from Stormwater Utility Reserves in the amount of $150, 000for the Valley
Steel utility improvement. The Water Board voted 5-5 on the item. Some Board members agreed
the Utilities should be used. Other Board members felt strongly that this action would set a
precedent for using the Utilities as a "bank" for activity that was not initiated by the Utilities but
was undertaken at the direction of another legal entity, the URA. During the discussion following
the vote and seeking a second motion, some dissenting Board members indicated they could support
a recommendation if language was inserted stating that this was a one-time action to assist the URA
during its inception.
Given that future projects may not include utility infrastructure, staff views this as an opportunity
for the Utilities to participate in the URA and provide an alternative to the General Fund for the
start-up capital needed during the early years of the North College Plan Area.
Because the proposed loan does not meet the requirements for City investments, Option I requires
a Council finding that this use ofStormwater reserves will serve a specific utilitypurpose beneficial
to the ratepayers of the Stormwater utility. Staff believes this is true because the specific utility
improvement created by the Valley Steel project will enable development to occur, which in turn will
generate significant Stormwaterplant investmentfees that will be utilized to address the deficiency
in Stormwater infrastructure that currently inhibits future development. Through expansion ofthe
customer base and the equitypurchase that occurs with development of the related infrastructure,
all ratepayers will enjoy the benefit ofgreater efficiency for the overall Stormwater system.
Ent]
March 21, 2006
OPTIONS:
Option First Reading of OrdinanceNo.052,2006,AppropriatingPriorYearReservesinthe
Stormwater Fund for Funding a Loan to the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority.
Attached is a loan agreement that would provide the funding from the Stormwater
Utility Reserves. The Stormwater Fund retained earnings reserved for capital
improvements currently contain approximately $16, 000, 000. A new appropriation
would be required to use the reserves for this purpose. The maximum total amount
for this loan ($150,000) could be appropriated. Monies required for the
improvement would be released within 60 days after the issuance of the certificate
ofacceptance for the project. The Loan would run for ten years but could be prepaid
at any time. Any installments would go to pay interest first, then principal.
Option First Reading of Ordinance No. 05Z 2006, Appropriating Prior YearReserves in the
General Fund for Funding a Loan to the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority.
The estimated General Fund Reserves for Financial Uncertainties available to fund
the required contribution are currently estimated to be $3,200,000, Again, a new
appropriation would be required to use the reserves for this purpose. The maximum
total amount for this loan ($150,000) could be appropriated. Monies required for
the improvement would be released within 60 days after the issuance of the
certificate of acceptance for the project. The Loan would run for ten years but could
be prepaid at any time. Any installments would go to pay interest first, then
principal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Since the City is experiencingfinancial and budgetary challenges, diversified sources offundingfor
start-up capital necessaryfor the projects of the URA are advisable. If, however, Council desires
to utilize just the General Fund, Option 2 may be implemented. "
City Manager Atteberry introduced the agenda item.
Chuck Seest, Finance Director, presented background information regarding the agenda item. He
stated this item related to the tax increment revenue being generated for the Urban Renewal
Authority. Collections would lag a year or more and initial financing was needed for the projects.
Council had directed staff to pursue a diversified source of funding and to look for an internal source
of funding. There was also discussion about matching the improvements with the funding source
within the City i.e., to use General Fund for sidewalk improvements and to use a loan from the
Utilities for utility improvements. He presented a map of the area for the Valley Steel project on
Hickory Street and stated the Urban Renewal Authority was financing the sewer line down the
middle of the street that was under construction. The Urban Renewal Authority approved this
project on September 20. The sewer line would serve Valley Steel and an estimated six adjacent
properties. This was a utility improvement and staff was pursuing a loan from the Utilities. The
421
March 21, 2006
Water Board had a split decision on its recommendation. Some members agreed with the idea of
a diversified approach in which the Utilities would bear a portion of the burden, and others did not
want to set a precedent to use the Utilities as a "bank" for something that was not directly under the
direction of the Utilities. He stated two options for financing were presented for Council
consideration: funding from the Utilities or funding from the General Fund.
Councilmember Manvel stated one of the questions asked by the Water Board was why the loan
would come from the Stormwater Fund instead of the Wastewater Fund. Seest stated staff discussed
whether to recommend loans from a specific utility, which could result in loans coming from all
three utilities. The clear need in this particular plan area was for stormwater infrastructure in
connection with the Dry Creek improvements. Staffbelieved there was a strong enough "nexus" that
it made sense for the loan to come from the Stormwater Fund for utility improvements in the area.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the rationale for using the Stormwater Fund was if this
development went forward it would encourage further building on the properties in the area, which
would increase the amount of contributions to the Stormwater Fund. Seest stated was the rationale.
Councilmember Kastein asked what would happen if the $150,000 could not be paid back. Seest
stated this was tax increment financing and the City's money would not be put in until the project
was completed. The payment stream would come off at about $23,000 per year in TIF that would
be generated from the overall Valley Steel expansion project. It was secured since it was property
tax. If Valley Steel went out of business and was not replaced by another business, there would be
a deterioration in the value of the property, although it would still generate some tax increment
because it was new construction. He did not envision a total default situation or that the terms might
need to be lengthened.
City Manager Atteberry asked if the Stormwater Fund would be liable in a default situation. Seest
replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Kastein asked if there would be a default agreement that would allow the City to
take over the ownership of the property if the loan was not repaid. Seest stated this particular
improvement would cost roughly $120,000 to $130,000 and the overall project was being valued at
about $900,000. The City's security was that the Urban Renewal Authority would have title against
the improvement. Once the loan was paid off, the title would revert to the Utilities.
City Manager Atteberry asked about the risk level for this loan. Seest stated this was a low risk loan
because there were flexible terms over 10 years. There was additional activity within the overall
plan area and the City was making only one commitment. The City would be receiving tax
increment from the other development. Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director, stated there had been
discussions with banks about the loan and banks were willing to loan the money at a higher cost.
Seest stated the banks were willing to make the loan without any guarantee or City backing. Frank
stated the banks were comfortable that tax increment would be generated to cover the loan. City
Attorney Roy stated it was important to understand that this loan was not secured in the same sense
as a commercial loan and this would be a "good faith" commitment on the part of the City to have
the URA repay the Stormwater Fund. The finding was important and it stated the making of the loan
422
March 21. 2006
served a utility purpose because, in the unlikely event of a default, it would become an expenditure
by the Stormwater Fund for this improvement.
Councilmember Manvel stated, rather than a connection because of the type of improvement, the
connection with the Utilities appeared to be that improvements to the property would increase the
value of the property and increase development in the area. Seest stated the distinction was what
improvement the URA was being asked to fund. If this was a curb and gutter improvement, there
would be no tie-in to the Utilities. This was a utility improvement. It was a different utility
improvement than what was being recommended as the source of the financing.
Councilmember Manvel stated he did not understand the connection to the Stormwater Fund. He
asked why this "stretch" should be made instead of financing from the General Fund reserves. Seest
stated the intent was to alleviate the pressures on the General Fund and seek diversified funding and
this was an opportunity to pursue the diversified funding directed by Council.
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance
No. 052, 2006 (Option 2: General Fund) on First Reading.
Councilmember Ohlson stated it was a "stretch" to say this related to the Stormwater Utilities. He
supported having the loan come from the General Fund.
Councilmember Roy asked for additional discussion about future development in that area.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he could not support using the Stormwater Fund for the loan in spite
of the arguments in the agenda item summary. He stated the loan should come from the General
Fund.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the Water Board was evenly split on this issue and it was not clear
cut. She stated one of the criteria was a "nexus" to the Utility. The Utility expansion in the north
meant there was an overall connection to the Utility. One of the criteria was whether or not it would
be beneficial to the taxpayers. This improvement would allow development to occur and it would
generate significant stormwater plant investment fees that would be utilized to address the
deficiencies in the stormwater infrastructure that currently inhibited future development in north Fort
Collins. She viewed this as a connection with the Utility.
City Manager Atteberry stated the General Fund could make this loan but staff was recommending
the Stormwater Fund make the loan. If Council decided that the loan should come from the General
Fund, this would be workable and would not put the General Fund at significant risk.
Councilmember Kastein questioned whether this could also generate significant street oversizing
fees that could be utilized to address deficiencies in the Street Oversizing Fund. He asked if that
would be just as "reasonable" and a justification for borrowing from that fund. Seest stated street
oversizing fell within the governmental range of funds. A distinction was made between the
"governmental services" and the Utility services. Most governmental funds were either directly or
423
March 21, 2006
indirectly supported by the General Fund. Loans had been made in the past from the Street
Oversizing Fund for governmental purposes.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the same argument could have been made to use any Utility fund.
Seest replied in the affirmative. Staff was looking for the "nexus" and the deficiency that could be
remedied to bring on additional development. As more development occurred in the area the Dry
Creek improvements would be accelerated.
Councilmember Roy asked why the City would not take advantage of a loan from outside the City
government. Frank stated the cost of the loan would be higher through a bank than through the City.
Seest stated staff looked at whether there would be a sizable funding stream that would support a
bond. Pursuing financing on a project -by -project basis tended to become more expensive. The
interest from the bank would be 7.25% and the interest on the City loan would be 5.25%. Frank
stated Section 4 of the ordinance was intended to state that if the URA would issue bonds, this loan
would be paid off first. Seest stated as the URA matured, the TIF revenue streams would be reliable
and sizable. At this point it would be difficult to pursue a bond.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he would like to see minutes from boards and commissions included
as background information in the Council material when there was a split board decision on a
recommendation.
Councilmember Brown asked if there would be consideration of the other option if the Council
defeated this motion.
Mayor Hutchinson stated if the motion failed the Council would seek an alternative.
Councilmember Roy asked if the City Attorney had any concern about Option 1. City Attorney Roy
stated the choice was up to the Council.
Mayor Hutchinson stated he believed that the proper "nexus" had been established. He stated he
would not support the motion.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Manvel and Ohlson. Nays:
Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Roy and Weitkunat.
THE MOTION FAILED
Councilmember Weitkunat made amotion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adopt Ordinance
No. 052, 2006 (Option 1: Stormwater Fund) on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown,
Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Ohlson.
THE MOTION CARRIED
424
March 21. 2006
Ordinance No. 043, 2006,
Amending Chapter 26, Article III, Division 4
of the City Code Relating to Water Fees. Adopted as Amended on Second Reading
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ordinance No. 043, 2006 was adopted on First Reading on March 7, 2006 with a vote of 5-2 (Nays:
Brown, Kastein). It revises single family and duplex water rates effective May 1, 2006. The
Ordinance reduces the fixed monthly fee from $12.72 to $9.54 (including 6% payments in lieu of
taxes) for single family customers. It also enacts a three-tier rate with 15% between the steps, a
change from the currentfour-tier rate which has 20% increases between tiers. Customers using less
than 8, 000 gallons or more than 50, 000 gallons per month will have moderate reductions in costs.
Customers using between 8,000 and 50,000 gallons per month will have moderate increases in
costs. "
City Manager Atteberry introduced the agenda item.
Mike Smith, Utilities General Manager, stated staff would have a brief presentation to make
Teresa Bryant, Utilities Finance/Budget Manager, reviewed the proposed ordinance and presented
an overview of how the rates would be structured for single-family and duplex customers. She stated
the single-family fixed charge would be $9.54 and the duplex fixed charge would be $11.66. The
volume charges for the single-family would break at 7,000 and 13,000 and for the duplex would
break at 9,000 and 13,000. The third tier was for all usage over 13,000 gallons. She presented a
table comparing the existing 4-tier single-family rate with a $12.72 fixed charge to the proposed 3-
tier $9.54 fixed charge. She presented a chart showing the difference between the current rate and
the proposed rate. There would be a moderate increase to the cost at 8,000 gallons up to 50,000
gallons. At 50,000 gallons there would be a minor cost reduction to users.
Kevin Westhuis, 2944 Telluride Court, stated the concept was flawed because one group would
subsidize another. He stated some lower income people would be subsidizing wealthier people. A
"cross subsidizing" rate structure was not equitable. There was one group of people who believed
they could "conserve their way" to delay the expansion of Halligan Reservoir. At the same time the
City was trying to design a "conservation rate" to build Halligan Reservoir. There was no water
shortage situation this year. Tiered rates to signal conservation were not needed at this time. The
community was responsive to conservation needs when there was a water shortage but people should
not be penalized with tiered rates for a necessary commodity that was renewable and recyclable.
Councilmember Kastein stated the policy agenda states the usage goals are 185 gallons per person
per day and actual usage had been around 155 gallons since the tiered water rate structure was
instituted. Usage was over 200 gallons before the tiered rate structure. Tiered rates were put in place
because there was a water shortage due to drought. The intent of the tiered rates was to limit the
425
March 21, 2006
demand for water. There was no water shortage this year. He asked what the CBT allocation would
be for this year. Smith stated the early figure for allocation was 60% and the actual figure would be
revisited on April 1.
Councilmember Kastein asked how that allocation compared with last year. Smith stated the
allocation for last year was 70%.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the supply of water would be adequate. Smith stated the City
would have "plenty" of water this year.
Councilmember Kastein stated he had asked staff for an analysis about the dangers of reducing the
rate in everyone of the tiers. This would encourage people to use water and the water was available.
He questioned why the water should not be used. Staff analysis indicated it was "dangerous" to do
so because it was unknown what the effect would be of lowering the price. He stated there would
be a risk of actually being short in revenues. He asked staff to summarize the staff analysis that had
been done. Smith stated trying to create a rate to promote water use was difficult when so much
effort had been made to educate people about water use. It was also difficult to predict the elasticity
of price and water use. Staff did not believe a rate could be devised to guarantee water use would
be increased sufficiently for revenue requirements to be met. It was unknown how people would
react to the change after the successful education program about conservation. It was unknown if
people would respond to a new message. Staff did not believe it was bad to do better at the goals
than expected. The public had responded to the conservation message and wet weather could also
push down water use. Staff was not comfortable saying how much of the reduction in water use was
due to the rates, the weather, or watering restrictions. It was difficult to predict how people would
respond to the new rates.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the effect of"punitive" water rates was about a 10-12% reduction over 10
years. The reduction in gallons per capita was 22% and the tiered water rates may have accounted
for about one-third of the water savings.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if this was a "best guess" based on a variety of variables. Smith
replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the goal could be met if the price was less.
Councilmember Kastein stated if the price was less, people would theoretically use more water. He
stated staff indicated people would not necessarily change their water use if the rates came down and
the result would be the Utility would be short in revenue. He believed that the City had a "knee jerk
reaction" four years ago.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked ifthe rates could change in mid -year if revenues were high because
people increased their water use. Smith stated rate structures were usually not changed very often
and rates were increased to generate more revenue. There could be swings of 10-20% in revenue
because of the weather. Extra revenue goes into reserves for use in wet years when the revenues
were below normal. The rates were projected for the average year.
426
March 21, 2006
Councilmember Weitkunat stated if the base rate of the fixed cost changed, the price per gallon
would go down. She asked for a comparison for using three tiers with the $12.72 fixed charge
compared to the $9.54 fixed rate. Smith presented a graphic showing the proposed $9.54 base
charge and the 3-tiered structure with a base charge of $12.72. He stated at 9,000 gallons there
would be an increase and above 9,000 gallons there would be a decrease in the monthly bill.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the way to have everyone pay less with the current system depended on the
fixed cost since everyone would pay the fixed cost.
Councilmember Manvel stated there was no way to ensure that everyone would pay less. If someone
paid less, someone else would pay more. Smith stated when a rate structure changed, someone
would have to pay more and someone would pay less.
Mayor Hutchinson stated part of the confusion was there were no classes of users and that the
different kinds of users were represented in all of the tiers.
Councilmember Kastein stated a fixed fee of $12.72 would give a break to people with irrigation
needs in the summer.
Councilmember Manvel stated the people who did not have irrigation needs would pay for that break
for those with irrigation needs. He asked if the existing tiers were 20% tiers. Smith replied in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Manvel asked how many steps there were with the tiers. Smith stated there were
three steps in the four tiers.
Councilmember Manvel asked if that was an increase of 107% increase. Bryant stated there was a
difference of 72% between the lowest tier and the highest tier.
Councilmember Manvel asked what the historic rate was that made people angry.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the fifth tier was a "serious problem."
Councilmember Manvel stated the new system would be a fairly "flat' tiered system compared to
the tiered system that caused problems.
Councilmember Brown stated the proposal would increase rates for the people between 8,000 and
50,000 gallons. He asked if a 3-tiered structure with a $12.72 base rate would mean almost everyone
would get a break. Smith stated the break would be at 7,000 to 8,000 gallons.
Councilmember Brown stated he wanted the rates to be fair. Smith stated there was not a lot of
difference between the existing 4-tier rate at $12 and the proposed 3-tier rate at $9. He stated of all
of the options that had been reviewed it would come closest to the existing rate of any of the options.
427
March 21, 2006
Councilmember Brown asked if the 3-tier, $12 structure would mean a savings. Smith replied in the
affirmative. He stated raising the fixed cost would lower the per gallon charge for the higher users.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the 3-tier, $12 structure would meet the City's revenue needs.
Smith replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Kastein asked if it also projected use at about 150 gallons per person per day. Smith
stated was the assumption. Staff believed over the next few years the water use would gradually go
up, taking into account the weather.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the Utilities would recommend people begin watering now. Smith
stated Utilities staff made efforts to advise people about proper watering, including watering in the
dry months of the winter for shrubs and trees. He stated Parks and Recreation and Forestry probably
also received many calls about proper watering.
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Ordinance No.
043, 2006 on Second Reading.
Councilmember Manvel stated there had been some discussion that this was not much of a change
from the current rates. He had received a -mails from citizens complaining about tiering and the
impact on large water users. He had a graph showing the existing and proposed rates, the water bills
at each level, and the cost per 1,000 gallons for the various types of users. In the proposed system,
because of smaller tiering, the price per 1,000 gallons decreased. This would not be a large effect
but people with big lots should feel like this was fairer. The proposal would not penalize people
with large lots. The proposed rates had a conservation component because people would try not to
get to the 7,000 gallon level. The small steps with a 32% increase from the bottom to the top would
not have much impact. He believed it was a fair system and a serious compromise.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to amend the main
motion to change the 3-tiered water rate from a $9.00 fixed charge to a $12.72 fixed charge and to
make the corresponding changes to the tiers.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated her concern has been the middle user. She stated the 3-tier
structure with the $9 fixed charge was no different than the old tier system. Something should
change for the middle users as most people were in the 10,000 to 30,000 gallon range when they
watered their lawns. The tiered levels were enough to promote conservation and people would be
charged fairly and consistently for the water consumed. It would also meet the existing revenue
needs to keep the system going. She stated she viewed this as a more equitable fee structure.
Councilmember Ohlson stated the idea of the original motion was that this is a semi -and climate.
He would favor having everyone pay the same per 1,000 gallons of water with no base fee. The base
fee was the largest in the State and a high base fee would punish the low water users. To have the
higher users pay less it was necessary to charge those who conserve or cannot afford it more. If the
Council went in this direction he hoped the federal regulating agencies would note in the Halligan
EM
ufy! .� MMIOU
permit process that the City had one of the highest base fees, which was not a conservation rate.
This direction would be financially unfair, it would be financially regressive, and it would be a
"pretend" conservation rate. Higher users would be paying less per 1,000 gallons than the smaller
users in the 20,000 range.
Councilmember Manvel stated there would be an economy of scale.
Councilmember Ohlson stated even the $9 fixed charge would be too high and he preferred $0 to $3
per month. The higher users would be paying less per 1,000 gallons than the lower users. It would
be a "step backwards" to support the motion to amend. He would not hesitate to "flip" the fee
structure at the first opportunity.
Councilmember Kastein stated it was true the cost per 1,000 gallons would be less for larger users
when the fixed cost was figured in. It would not be true if the fixed charge was left out. He would
rather see the $12 base fee. He asked if Councilmember Ohlson would actually say to federal
authorities the City was not conserving water and Halligan should not be approved. Councilmember
Ohlson stated he would do so.
Councilmember Kastein asked if Councilmember Ohlson would "stand in the way of Halligan" over
this issue. Councilmember Ohlson replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Kastein stated he thought the $12 base fee was fair. Raising the fixed fee back to
what it was last year would give people a break if they had irrigation needs. The water supply was
available for use. When the tiered rates were established, the direction was given that rates would
be adjusted when the supply made that possible. The fixed fee of $12 would give people a chance
to use more water if they had a need to do that.
Councilmember Manvel stated somebody would pay more if some people paid less. The question
was whether people who use water should pay for water or if people who do not use water should
pay for water. The fixed cost needed to be figured in. The question was the cost to the systemThe
City's base fee was out of line with the fees of 12 other Front Range communities. The other
communities on the list had a base fee of $7 or less. He thought the higher base fee was an "excuse"
to charge everyone with small bills more so that the large bills could decrease. This was not
conservationist and was not fair.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated there was a price to doing business. She stated it cost $28 peruser
fixed cost to operate the system. It was not a "punishment" to charge for the cost to operate the
system. She stated $12 for the use of a state-of-the-art system was not unreasonable. The charge
for the gallons used rather than the fixed rate made the difference in the total bill. She wanted to
make it fair and equitable and she believed it was fair and equitable for everyone in the community
who was a water user to pay for the system equally. There was a cost involved no matter how much
water was used.
Councilmember Manvel stated these adjustments would benefit some people and "punish" or cost
others. He was not advocating no fixed cost. His question was the cost of adding someone to the
429
March 21. 2006
system and he did not think this cost would be $28 per month. He stated $9 would be a compromise
and reasonable but $12 would not be a compromise. He was disappointed in the last minute move
away from a compromise solution.
Councilmember Roy stated he was disappointed in the current direction. The original proposal was
"progressive" and would be in line with other communities. It would now be more difficult for him
to support Halligan Reservoir. The original motion would give relief to the "least able" in the City,
maintain a tiered water structure and continue to issue a conservation message to the federal
government. It would also mean consistency. He stated he would not support the motion to amend.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the amendment was to change the base fee to $12.72.
The vote on the motion to amend was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson,
Kastein and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Manvel, Ohlson and Roy.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Councilmember Ohlson requested staff provide him with the names of decision makers and dates
for the approval process on Halligan Reservoir.
Councilmember Manvel commented that there was no question this was a "less conserving" rate.
This would make a statement that the City did not need to conserve. This message would resonate
with federal decision makers who would question the need for a reservoir. This was a "bad mistake"
and would not lead to the stable outcome desired by the Utilities.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the intent was to be fair and equitable. The original proposal was
no different than the existing plan. People in Fort Collins understood conservation and she was
"disturbed" this would be used as a tool "jeopardize" Halligan Reservoir. Halligan Reservoir was
"the future" and the amended proposal would be a conservation rate. She stated Halligan Reservoir
was necessary.
Councilmember Roy stated this decision would be "temporary" and there would be "damaging"
effects for the future.
Councilmember Kastein stated this would represent improvements over last year. The base rate
would remain the same as last year, one of the tiers would be removed, people would be given a
chance to use water for irrigation this summer, and the tier rate structure would be maintained to
drive conservation measures. The rate structure could be adjusted as mandated by water supply. It
would be a "gross mistake" for Councilmembers to oppose Halligan Reservoir, given the City's
investment of $5 million in that project.
Councilmember Manvel stated water rates would be lowered for large users and water rates would
be raised for small users.
430
March 21, 2006
Councilmember Ohlson stated there were consequences to actions. He did not support any kind of
dam or reservoir enlargement. The $9 base charge was as far as he could go. The amended proposal
would penalize small users and this decision would be revisited in the near future. He did not
support building dams so the population of Colorado could double.
Councilmember Brown stated there was a misconception that a certain class of people used a lot of
water. Large water users were from all strata. He was looking at fairness and covering the $28 cost
per month per household. Every municipality had different circumstances for fixed costs and per
gallon charges. He believed the amended proposal would be a good decision and it was a
compromise on his part because he favored a flat rate. He recognized tiered rates were necessary for
water conservation.
Mayor Hutchinson stated it was important to have a good dialogue on issues. It was important to
focus on the issue that was before the Council rather than future issues. The amended proposal met
all of the criteria including conservation and fairness.
The vote on the main motion as amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown,
Hutchinson, Kastein and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Manvel, Ohlson and Roy.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Resolution 2006-036,
Authorizing the City Manager to Consider Annexations Under the
City's Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County Regarding
Cooperation on Managing Urban Development, Adopted
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Resolution authorizes the CityManager to defer annexation ofparcels eligible for annexation
if specific criteria are met.
BACKGROUND
The Intergovernmental Agreement between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins requires
that all parcels within the Growth Management Area eligible for voluntary annexation be annexed
into the City as soon as possible.
In most cases, annexation requirements found in the present IGA have brought eligible County
properties into the City with a relatively seamless transition in service. However, there are
circumstances where the City and the property owner would be better served by postponing
annexation until such time that a full range of City services can be efficiently provided. A good
example would be the situation where an individual lot located at the perimeter of a large
subdivision becomes eligible for voluntary annexation. Providing city services, such as utilities to
431
March 21, 2006
this individual lot, would be highly inefficient, and also potentially confusing for police and
emergency responders.
The proposed resolution gives the City Manager the authority to postpone Council consideration
of an annexation if the subject property meets one or more of the following conditions:
1. The property is too difficult or costly to serve with a full range of City services; or
2. The property is a single lot within an existing subdivision; or
3. The property is part of an enclave which is eligible in its entirety for involuntary
annexation, or apart of a parcel that the City anticipates will soon become such an
enclave."
Mayor Hutchinson stated this item was pulled from the Consent Calendar by a citizen.
Brian Schumm, 5948 Colby Street, stated he thought this was an important agenda item that had
impacted him in the past. As written, it would be a step forward but it needed to be tightened.
Council had been given some revised wording for the Resolution. The intent appeared to be to allow
the City Manager discretion to not consider some annexation requests referred by the County. Most
of the matters that would come before the Council would be a quasi-judicial process and the issue
was whether the process would occur at the County or at the City. The standards under the City
Code were much higher standards. He questioned why the City would not take an opportunity to
control the process. If the City chose not to process the annexation under the City standards, it
would be considered under the PD zoning at the County. The County Code was very specific and
provided that if the County processed something, and if it met all of the requirements to be referred
to the City and the City referred it back to the County, then the County must use the City standards.
Although it was written that the County must follow the City standards in such cases, this was
typically not done. There were no standards under PD zoning in the County. He questioned why
the City would not want to review something if it had an opportunity to do so when the County
would review it under lower standards and there was a high probability it would be annexed by the
City at some point.
Councilmember Kastein asked if staff would like to respond to Mr. Schumm's statements. Greg
Byrne, CPES Director, stated criteria were set forth in the Resolution for not annexing an individual
lot or small parcel of property.
Councilmember Kastein asked about the argument that the County may ignore the City's standards
and apply its own standards. Bryne stated that was a County issue. At times the County accepted
the City's recommendations and at other times they did not. The County reviewed applications
under the County Code rather than the City Code but the County made an effort to develop to the
City's standards.
Councilmember Kastein asked Mr. Schumm for his specific recommendations. Mr. Schumm stated
it did not make sense for the City to refer things back to the County if there was a high probability
the parcel would be annexed. He stated he had comments on the specific criteria.
432
March 21, 2006
Mayor Hutchinson stated the Leadership Team reviewed the criteria and made changes. City
Attorney Roy stated the main changes had to do with clarifying the fact this would not give the City
Manager the authority to tell the County the City did not want to annex enclaves. Mr. Schumm
apparently had concerns about the criteria the City Manager would use in identifying parcels eligible
for voluntary annexation that should not be annexed.
Mr. Schumm stated an annexation may not be voluntary because the IGA and the City and County
Codes required the annexation to be done. He spoke about the case of the Whitman property and
an earlier situation with his own property. He stated this was a complex issue.
Councilmember Kastein asked if these were new criteria. Byrne stated it had been the staff practice
not to present to the Council annexations that fell under such criteria. He stated Mr. Schumm had
in the past, questioned the staff s "wisdom" in making such determinations. The purpose of this
agenda item was to seek Council direction on criteria to be used in making those kinds of
determinations. City Attorney Roy stated the IGA between the City and the County provided the
City would consider voluntary annexations that were eligible for annexation. There was another
provision that said that if a property in the County had contiguity and might be eligible for
annexation, and if a person wanted to develop that property, then the County must refer the applicant
to the City to determine if the City wanted to annex the property. The question was whether the
Council wanted to look at every one of those determinations or whether it wanted to give staff the
discretion to make a judgement call on some of those situations based on the criteria set forth in the
Resolution.
Councilmember Kastein asked about Mr. Schumm's issues with the criteria. Mr. Schumm expressed
his concerns with the criteria. When a rezoning request was referred by the County to the City, the
Council should see it because it involves the Structure Plan. City Manager Atteberry stated he had
a meeting scheduled with the County Manager and would ask if this was a concern for the County.
Byrne stated, as a rule, the City would like to have properties eligible for annexation develop to City
standards. He would stand by previous decisions that had been made on exceptions. The intent of
this agenda item was to establish some criteria for future decision making.
Councilmember Manvel asked how many matters were referred back to the County. Byrne stated
he would expect one or two situations each year.
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Resolution
2006-036.
Councilmember Kastein stated this was a start at establishing criteria. It was a good idea for the City
Manager to talk to the County Manager about this issue.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he assumed staff would bring future improvements to the criteria and
process.
Councilmember Manvel questioned the need for a new procedure to handle one case a year. City
Manager Atteberry stated this would formalize a practice that had been questioned by Mr. Schumm.
433
March 21, 2006
City Attorney Roy stated it was important for staff to know they had Council approval to make some
determinations.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Other Business
Councilmember Ohlson requested follow-up information on an action plan and timetable to let
people know that there was a $35 surcharge on traffic tickets to get people to slow down. He stated
he would also like follow-up information on more enforcement downtown of the skateboard and
bicycle dismount zones.
Councilmember Roy stated there would be a presentation at the Senior Center on March 22nd on
"Fort Collins In Motion: The Future of Transit in Our Community." There would be a District 6
meeting on March 25th concerning the possible creation of the library district. He also noted he had
received calls from citizens concerned about their ability to use parking in front of their homes in
the downtown area. He asked for Council support to look at how citizens could use the space in
front of their homes when there were no garages and parking was full. City Manager Atteberry
stated funding to address Councilmember Roy's concerns about parking was not in the 2006-2007
budget. There had been a proposal for a neighborhood parking enforcement program that was not
funded. He was concerned staff could not deliver on any expectations for higher enforcement or a
permit process. He suggested he would like to discuss this issue further with Councilmember Roy.
Councilmember Roy stated he would like to set up a meeting with neighborhood leaders to discuss
their concerns.
Mayor Hutchinson stated there would be a Council retreat at the Edwards House on April 8th.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
i
Mayor
ATTEST:
t ) , City • I
` -
434