Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-10/16/2007-RegularOctober 16, 2007 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council -Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m. A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, October 16, 2007, 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, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy, and Troxell. Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy. Citizen Participation Eric Sutherland, 631 Laporte, stated a key provision in the Electric Energy Supply Policy specifies that the Fort Collins Utilities is to continue diversifying the portfolio of energy sources in the City and to increase the City's percentage of renewable energy to 15% by 2017. Utilities is currently claiming to achieve part of that goal through renewable energy credits and he did not believe that was a good practice. He urged Council to discontinue the practice of buying renewable energy credits as the practice does not help reduce greenhouse gas vectors or reduce resource depletion vectors. Joe Kissel, 913 West Oak, urged Council to adopt a resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from the war in Iraq. Israel Broner, 2224 Rollingwood Drive, stated the ordinance that established the "3-unrelated" rule is difficult to understand and should be repealed. Cheryl Distaso, 135 South Sunset, urged Council to adopt a resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from the war in Iraq. Nancy York,130 South Whitcomb, requested Council to adopt a resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from the war in Iraq as it was far too costly in terms of both money and lives. Vivian Armendariz, 820 Merganser Drive, requested Council to allow the use of candles when a vigil is held in Old Town Square. Cyndy Tiley, 4412 East Mulberry Street, stated she has multiple sclerosis and needs to use Dial -A - Ride. She requested continuation of paratransit services for herself and others who rely on the service to navigate the city. October 16, 2007 Citizen Participation Follow-up Mayor Hutchinson stated the Platte River Power Authority provides electric power to Fort Collins, Longmont, Estes Park and Loveland. The policy of renewable energy needs that could be provided through renewable energy credits has been changed from 83% to 50%. Renewable energy credits are audited. Renewable energy is more expensive to produce and the renewable energy credits are used to pay for energy from renewable sources to be placed into the power grid that supplies electricity to all of the PRPA customers. Councilmember Troxell stated the "3-unrelated" rule should be reviewed and a determination should be made as to any unintended consequences to either renters or landlords. Councilmember Ohlson stated the "3-unrelated" rule has been in effect only 10 months and had been debated for several years before it was passed. Many neighborhoods in his district have been postively impacted by the rule and it is working as it was intended. Councilmember Roy noted his district also has seen positive results from the "3-unrelated" rule and it appeared to be encouraging families to move into neighborhoods that had previously had many problems. Agenda Review City Manager Atteberry noted Item #15 First Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 2007, Amending the City Code to Increase the Capital Improvement Expansion Fee, Street Oversizing Fee and Neighborhood Parkland Fee to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services had an amended title to the ordinance. In Item #23 Items Relating to the Prospect Road/I-25Interchange Rezonings, he recommended pulling Resolution 2007-098 Amending the City Structure Plan Map Pertaining to the Northeast Corner of Prospect Road and 1-25 and First Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2007, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classifications for that Certain Property Known as the Northeast Corner of East Prospect Road and 1-25 Rezoning and to consider an amended Resolution 2007-099 Amending the 1-25 Subarea Plan. A work session will be scheduled to consider the pulled items. CONSENT CALENDAR CONSENT NON -BUDGET ITEMS 6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 106, 2007, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds and Authorizing the Transfer ofAppropriated Amounts Between Funds or Proiects. The purpose of this annual "clean-up" ordinance is to combine dedicated revenues or reserves that need to be appropriated before the end of the year to cover the related expenses that were not anticipated and, therefore, not included in the 2007 budget. The unanticipated revenue is primarily from fees, charges, rents, contributions and grants that have been paid to City departments to offset specific expenses. Prior year reserves are primarily being appropriated 206 October 16, 2007 for unanticipated operation expenses from reserves that are set aside for that purpose. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 2, 2007. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 107, 2007, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue and Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund to Purchase an Armored Rescue Vehicle for Police Services. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 2, 2007, appropriates federal grant funding Police Services has received to purchase an armored rescue vehicle. This vehicle will significantly improve the safety of citizens and police officers in encounters with armed suspects by giving police the ability to move people out of dangerous areas, block armed offenders from the ability to shoot at citizens, and safely transport police officers on their approach to dangerous scenes. 8. Items Relating to the Old Oak Estates Annexation and Zoning_ A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 108, 2007, Annexing Property Known as the Old Oak Estates Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 109, 2007, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Old Oak Estates Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 2, 2007, annex and zone propertylocated at 5227 Strauss Cabin Road, located approximately one-halfmile south of Harmony Road. This is a 100% voluntary annexation. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 110. 2007, Desi ngnating the Parsons/Morgan House and Attached Garage, 723 West Olive Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. Ordinance No. 110, 2007, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 2, 2007, designates the Parsons/Morgan House and Attached Garage, 723 West Olive Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark. The owner of the property, Myme Watrous, is initiating this request. 10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 111.2007, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue from the Bureau of Justice Assistance in the General Fund for the Latimer County Drug Task Force. This Ordinance appropriates grant funds received by the City for the Larimer County Drug Task Force from the Bureau of Justice Assistance. These funds are to be used to fund the investigation of illegal narcotics activities in Larimer County. 207 October 16, 2007 11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 2007, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves In the Street Oversizing Fund for Transfer To the Capital Projects Fund - North College Avenue Immovements Project to Be Used for to Acquire Property Necessary for Future Improvements alone North College Avenue. The Fort Collins Master Street Plan provides for the eventual relocation of East Vine Drive from its present location to a somewhat parallel location to the north. The designed realignment location on North College Avenue will be opposite and east of Pinon Street. There is a Building on Basics (BOB) Capital Improvement Project planned to improve North College Avenue from Vine to Conifer, including the purchase of additional right-of-way, scheduled in 2011. However, it has been determined that the best location for two proposed water transmission lines running generally east -west to cross North College is at the same location as the proposed realigned East Vine Street. One of the proposed water transmission lines is a joint venture between ELCO (East Larimer County Water District) and NWCWD (Northern Weld County Water District), known as NEWT. The other line is for the City of Greeley, known as GWET. The construction of these two lines is scheduled to begin in early 2008. The owner of a tract of land on the east side of North College Avenue needed for this relocated street has offered that parcel for sale to the City. The requested price has been determined by staff to be within fair market value. hi order to have funds to acquire this needed tract prior to the BOB funding, $225,000 must be appropriated from Street Oversizing to acquire this parcel. 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 2007, Authorizing the Lease of City -Owned Property at 211 South Bryan Avenue for Up to Ten Years. The Fort Collins Baseball Club (formerly the Fort Collins Youth Baseball Association), a local non-profit that provides recreational and competitive baseball programming to more than 3300 players ranging in age from 5 to 18 years old, resides and operates out of an approximately 1,495 square -foot City facility located near the baseball diamonds at City Park. The City has leased this facility to the baseball club at no cost since 1983 in recognition of the community benefits derived from the organization's recreational programming. The term of the current lease is expired and the Baseball Club wishes to renew its lease arrangement with the City for up to ten years. Staff believes that it is in the best interest of the community to renew this no -cost lease. 13. Resolution 2007-094 Authorizing a Revocable Permit to Kurt E. Zimmerman for Access to a Stock Water Tank Located on Soapstone Prairie Natural Area. This Resolution authorizes a revocable permit to Kurt E. Zimmerman to allow him to continue to use overflow water from a City livestock watering system on Soapstone Prairie Natural Area to water livestock on the Zimmerman property. This will not require a physical change on the City's property and will allow an informal arrangement that had not previously been documented to continue. 09 October 16, 2007 14. Resolution 2007-095 Amending Resolution 2007-062 to Extend the Deadline For a Task Force of Citizens to Make Recommendations Regarding the City's Holiday Display Policy, The Holiday Display Task Force was appointed by the City Manager in early August 2007 for the purpose of reviewing the City's current Holiday Display Policy and recommending possible modifications to the policy. The Task Force held its first meeting on August 22, 2007. Since then members have met regularly and investigated a number of options, with the goal of developing a recommendation to City Council by the designated deadline of October 31, 2007. The Task Force was originally scheduled to present its recommendations to Council at its regular meeting on November 6, 2007. The agenda schedule for that meeting necessitates that the materials for the meeting be submitted by noon on October 17, 2007, effectively eliminating two full weeks from the Task Force's original schedule. The presentation of the Task Force's recommendations to City Council has been tentatively rescheduled to November 20, 2007, pending Council's approval of this Resolution, in order to give Task Force members time to complete the group's recommendations. While the Task Force fully intends to submit its recommendations as required for the November 20, 2007, Council meeting, extending the deadline to the end of the year will allow additional flexibility should Council wish the Task Force to develop any follow-up recommendations as a result of the November 20, 2007, discussion. Therefore, the proposed Resolution will extend the Task Force's deadline to December 31, 2007. CONSENT BUDGET ITEMS 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 2007, Amendin the e City Code to Increase the Capital Improvement Expansion Fee, Street Oversizing Fee and Neighborhood Parkland Fee to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services. This Ordinance increases the fee schedules for the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees and Neighborhood Parkland Fee by the estimated 2007 changes in the Denver -Boulder -Greeley Consumer Price Index ("CPI"). Costs in the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees ("CIEF") Study and the fee schedule for the Neighborhood Parkland Fees were calculated using costs from 1995. The fees were last adjusted in 2006. This Ordinance increases the CIEF and the neighborhood parkland fees by the estimated 2007 increase in the CPI of 2.50%, and the Street Oversizing fees by 4.85%, which reflects the projected increase reported in the Engineering News Record. 16. Items Relating to the 2008 Downtown Development Authority Budget. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 115, 2007, Appropriating Downtown Development Authority Operating Funds and Fixing the Mill Levy for Fiscal Year 2008. 01' October 16, 2007 B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 2007, Appropriating Revenue in the Downtown Development Authority Debt Service Fund for Payment of Debt Service for the Year 2008. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 117, 2007, Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Capital Improvements Within the Downtown Development Authority Operations and Maintenance Fund Related to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Downtown Development Authority Taxable Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2004A. The Downtown Development Authority Board of Directors (the 'Board") adopted its proposed budget for 2008 totaling $6,709,104 on September 13, 2007. The Board determined the mill levy necessary to provide for payment of administrative costs incurred by the DDA at its regular meeting of September 13, 2007. Ordinance No. 115, 2007, appropriates the DDA operating funds and sets the mill levy. Ordinance No. 116, 2007, appropriates funds for 2008 DDA debt service payments from the tax increment received by the City. Ordinance No. 117, 2007 authorizes the transfer of appropriations of $1,000,000 from the City of Fort Collins Museum project to the funding of Beet Street for 2008. 17. Resolution 2007-096 Adopting a Revenue Allocation Formula to Define the City of Fort Collins' Contribution to the Poudre Fire Authority Budget for the Year 2008 for Operations and Maintenance. This Resolution establishes a Revenue Allocation Formula between the City of Fort Collins and the Poudre Fire Authority to contribute funding for maintenance and operating costs of Poudre Fire Authority. ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 106, 2007, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts Between Funds or Projects. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 107, 2007, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue and Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund to Purchase an Armored Rescue Vehicle for Police Services. 210 October 16, 2007 8. Items Relating to the Old Oak Estates Annexation and Zoning. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 108, 2007, Annexing Property Known as the Old Oak Estates Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 109, 2007, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Old Oak Estates Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 110, 2007, Designating the Parsons/Morgan House and Attached Garage, 723 West Olive Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 10. First Reading of OrdinanceNo. 111, 2007, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue from the Bureau of Justice Assistance in the General Fund for the Larimer County Drug Task Force. 11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 2007, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves In the Street Oversizing Fund for Transfer To the Capital Projects Fund - North College Avenue Improvements Project to Be Used for to Acquire Property Necessary for Future Improvements along North College Avenue. 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 2007, Authorizing the Lease of City -Owned Property at 211 South Bryan Avenue for Up to Ten Years. 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 2007, Amending the City Code To Increase the Amounts of the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees Contained in Chapter 7.5 of the Code So as To Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services. 16. Items Relating to the 2008 Downtown Development Authority Budget. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 115, 2007, Appropriating Downtown Development Authority Operating Funds and Fixing the Mill Levy for Fiscal Year 2008. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 2007, Appropriating Revenue in the Downtown Development Authority Debt Service Fund for Payment of Debt Service for the Year 2008. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 117, 2007, Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Capital Improvements Within the Downtown Development Authority Operations and Maintenance Fund Related to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Downtown Development Authority Taxable Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2004A. 211 October 16, 2007 21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 118, 2007, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance Relating to the Annual Appropriations For the Fiscal Year 2008; Adopting the Budget For the Fiscal Years Beginning January 1, 2008, And Ending December 31, 2009; and Fixing the Mill Levy for Fiscal Year 2008. 22. Items Relating to Utility Rates and Charges for 2008. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 119, 2007, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Water Plant Investment Fees and Raw Water Requirements. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 2007 Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code Relating to Wastewater Rates and Charges. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 2007, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Sewer Plant Investment Fees. D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2007 Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code Relating to Electric Rates and Charges. E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2007, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Electric Development Fees and Charges. F. First Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2007, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Stormwater Plant Investment Fees. G. First Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2007, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code Relating to Utility Connection Fees and Miscellaneous Charges. 23. First Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 2007, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classifications for That Certain Property Known as the Southwest Corner of East Prospect Road and I-25 Rezoning. 24. FirstReadingof OrdinanceNo. 128,2007 Authorizing the Conveyance of 143 Acres of Land To Colorado State University Research Foundation In Exchange for 267 Acres of Land Adjacent to Reservoir Ridge Natural Area. Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to approve the Consent Calendar as amended. Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. 212 October 16, 2007 Consent Calendar Follow-up Councilmember Manvel noted Item #14 Resolution 2007-095 Amending Resolution 2007-062 to Extend the Deadline For a Task Force of Citizens to Make Recommendations Regarding the City's Holiday Display Policy extended the time for the Holiday Task Force to report to Council until December 31, but staff hoped the report would come before Thanksgiving. Councilmember Ohlson stated Item #11 First Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 2007, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves In the Street OversizingFund for Transfer To the Capital Projects Fund -North College Avenue Improvements Project to Be Used for to Acquire Property Necessaryfor Future Improvements along North College Avenue was a good move for the North College area. Item #12 First Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 2007, Authorizing the Lease of City -Owned Property at 211 South Bryan Avenue for Up to Ten Years authorized a lease to help the Fort Collins Baseball Club He requested information on its scholarship program for low-income participants. Staff Reports City Manager Atteberry noted the Water Treatment Facility had recently received two water quality awards that honored the Facility's ongoing commitment and production of high quality water. For the ninth year in a row, the Facility received the "Director's Certificate of Recognition" Award from the Partnership for Safe Water. The Water Treatment Facility had also received the "Bronze Achiever Award" from the Environmental Leadership Program which honors achievements in improving drinking water quality as well as drinking water treatment and distribution operations. He recognized Brian Janonis, Interim Utilities Director, and Kevin Gertig, Water Production Manager, and their staff for performing quality work. Councilmember Reports Councilmember Manvel stated in early October, he met with the Regional Air Quality Council, which is continuing to work on strategies to reduce ozone levels in Northern Colorado and the Denver area. The "Repair Your Air" campaign, a drive -by exhaust test program that encourages people to repair the high exhaust emissions from their vehicles, has begun in Denver and is being evaluated for cost-effectiveness and reduction of emissions. If it is successful, the program could be expanded throughout Northern Colorado. He also attended a meeting of the MPO, which is working on transportation issues to improve air quality. He received a draft of the North Front Range 2035 Regional Transportation Plan which projects transportation needs and solutions for the next 30 years. Mayor Hutchinson stated the Colorado Climate Project was now completed and had been approved by the Directors of the Project. The Project developed over 70 recommendations and actions that will be given to the Governor concerning climate change. Mayor Hutchinson, as a Director of the Project, appointed Dr. Tony Frank, CSU Provost, Brian Moeck, PRPA General Manager, and Judy Dorsey, CEO of the Brendle Group, a local environmental engineering firm to the Project panel. The Project was begun by the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization, a private, not -for -profit 213 October 16, 2007 organization, was nonpartisan and included an analytical examination of actions might be suggested regarding climate change, including cost and benefit analysis. Ordinance No. 118, 2007, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance Relating to the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2008 and Adopting the Budget for the Fiscal Years Beginning January 1, 2008 and Ending December 31, 2009, and Fixing the Mill Levy for Fiscal Year 2008, Adopted as Amended on First Reading. The following is the staff memorandum on this item. "FINANCIAL IMPACT This Ordinance represents the annual appropriation for fiscal year 2008, and adopts the total City budget for fiscal year 2008 at $569.6 million and for fiscal year 2009 at $537.3 million. This Ordinance also sets the City mill levy at 9.797 mills, unchanged since 1991, for fiscal year 2008. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Annual Appropriation Ordinance is presented for First Reading. This ordinance sets the City Budget for the two year period 2008-2009. The Ordinance is based on the City Manager's Recommended Budget, with several additions directed by City Council at its October 9, 2009 Work Session. The additional offers total $1,038,916 in one-time General Fund expenditures and $124,148 (2009 costs) in on -going General Fund offers. If approved on First Reading, these additions to the Recommended Budget would be funded through the use of an additional $412, 715 in General Fund Reserves and an increase in revenue from the Sales and Use Tax Vendor Fee of $390,000 per year (on -going.) These additions use all of the total available funds, including one-time Reserves and on -going Vendor Fee revenue. BACKGROUND This biennial budget represents the work of many dedicated employees who have come together for the second time to use the Budgetingfor Outcomes (BFO) approach to develop this recommendation. Nearly 100 employees were involved in creating a recommended budget which builds on the ideas of transparency in the budget process, clear choices for how to allocate limited revenues and organizational accountability. These principles are the hallmark of the BFO process. The purpose of utilizing the BFO approach is to: Identify what's important to the community and develop a sound financial and service plan to achieve those outcomes; 214 October 16, 2007 Allocate dollars based on current priorities and results, not simply increase last year's spending; Effectively deal with revenue limitations; and Emphasize accountability, efficiency, innovation and partnerships Using this approach, City Council and staffworked in close collaboration over the past two months to build a financial plan, based on revenue available, that will achieve service outcomes which matter most to our citizens and community. This work has resulted in the development of the Final 2008-2009 Budget. The approval of the Appropriation Ordinance on First Reading represents a major milestone in this process. The final budget is organized around seven Council approved Result Areas or Outcomes that citizens want and need: Economic Health Fort Collins has a healthy economy reflecting the values of our unique community in a changing world. Environmental Health Fort Collins creates, maintains and promotes a healthy and sustainable environment with an adequate, high quality water supply. Safe Community Fort Collins is a safe place to live, work, learn and play. Neighborhood Livability Fort Collins improves the livability, choices, and affordability of our neighborhoods. Cultural and Recreational Fort Collins provides diverse cultural and recreational Opportunities opportunities that foster physical and mental well-being for community members. Transportation Fort Collins improves the safety and ease of traveling to, from, and throughout the city. High Performing Government Fort Collins is a model for an entrepreneurial, high quality city government. In developing the budget, City Council and staff has continued to use the BFO process because it helps the City achieve a number of goals: • Create clarity in the budget process for the community • Allocate revenues to highest priorities and the outcomes citizens want and need • Understand the trade-off between services funded and unfunded • Emphasize accountability, efficiency, innovation and partnerships. 215 October 16, 2007 Budget Highlights The 2008-09 Final Budget is a financial and service plan linked to the seven key outcomes and results that matter most to our citizens. Some key highlights of the City Budget include: 1. The total budget for all City funds for 2008 is $569.6 million and $537.3 million for 2009. (The total budget is lower in 2009 because of a major one-time expense in 2008 for the Mason Corridor Project.) 2. The budget includes no tax increase. 3. The tax revenue projections for 2008-09 are based on formulas developed and reviewed with City Council in May 2006 Sales and use taxis projected to increase by 2.03% in 2008 and 2.63% in 2009. 4. Minor inflation oriented fee adjustments are included for several programs. For example, the Recreation Division will make its typical market oriented inflationary adjustments to its user fees to reflect increased costs for hourly employees and supplies. 5. Wastewater rates will increase 12% in 2008 and 11 % in 2009. Electric rates are projected to increase 2.3% to 2.7% in response to increases from Platte River Power Authority. 6. The recommended budget includes no reductions in force. Several vacant positions were eliminated as departments worked to develop offers which were lean, efficient and targeted at the services citizens want and need. Budget Assumptions As the budget development process began in early 2007, City Council and staff met on several occasions to outline goals and assumptions for developing the recommended budget. Council also reviewed the Key Outcomes during the first Council goal setting retreat in April. 216 October 16, 2007 Some of the key assumptions used in developing the Final Budget include: Limited revenue growth for 2008 and 2009 The local economy has improved throughout 2007, and staff continues to plan for a limited amount of sales tax revenue growth through 2008 and 2009. 2. Use of reserves With new retail development under construction, staff expects that sales tax revenues will improve significantly in 2010. To bridge the gap between our current sales tax level and an expected improvement in 2010, the recommended budget used limited available reserves to eliminate the need to reduce services in the short-term. Approximately $3 million in General Fund reserves was used to balance the 2008-09 Recommended Budget. In the 2010-11 Budget, the City expects that sales tax revenues will improve as new retailers are open and generating new sales tax revenue. Staff discussed the use of reserves with the City Council at its April 2007 retreat and received Council's consent to develop a recommended budget based on this assumption. At its October 9 Work Session, Council gave staffdirection to include an additional amount of resources from General Fund reserves in the appropriation ordinance being considered on First Reading. By using an additional $400, 000 in Reserves, the balance in the General Fund Reserve accounts would remain above the recommended level of 60 days Reserve (16.67% of General Fund expenditures. Council further agreed to formally review a General Fund reserve policy at an upcoming work session. 3. Vendor Fee Policy Change The Appropriation Ordinance is based on the assumption that the City will modify its Vendor Fee, thus yielding additional sales tax revenue that can be applied to General Fund purposes. The Vendor Fee is paid to vendors who collect sales and use taxes on behalf of the City. Currently, approximately $700, 000 is kept each year by businesses as a vendorfee. Staffproposed that the Vendor Fee could be reduced from 3%to 1016, yielding approximately $390,000 of additional revenue available to the City General Fund. The proposed vendor fee would allow vendors to keep 1 % ($45) of the first $4,500 in tax collected. Vendors would keep approximately $310, 000 annually, which would result in the City realizing a greater share of the actual sales and use tax collected. This does not change the sales tax rate that residents pay, but rather recoups a greater amount of it from the vendors who collect the taxes on the City's behalf. Council directed staff to include this revenue increase in the Final Budget Appropriations Ordinance. To implement this change in the Vendor Fee for Collection of Sales Tax, an Ordinance will be presented for First Reading on November 6. Second Reading will be 217 October 16, 2007 scheduled for November 20 to coincide with the Second Reading and final adoption of the 2008-09 Budget. 4. New facilities must be operated and maintained In 2007, three newfacilities will open: the new Police Services building, the newNorthside Aztlan Community Center, and Spring Canyon Community Park. While the capitalfunds for these projects were provided through debt financing and voter approved capital programs, the resources to operate and maintain them must be provided through existing General Fund sources. 5. Public Safety needs and environmental issues are funding priorities As initial revenue allocations between the various Budget Outcomes were made, new resources were allocated to these priorities to enhance these services based on feedback provided to staff at the City Council retreat. 6. Employee salary adjustments are planned for in 2008 and 2009 A basic assumption was made that employee salary adjustments would befunded. As a basic cost of doing business, it is essential to ensure that these cost increases are funded before making any decisions about additional services or enhancements. Economic health programs are vital to future revenues Investing in the local economy continues to be a priorityfor long-term financial stability, so economic health programs are a high priority. As staff developed the recommended budget, one of the messages sent to both our employees and residents is that 2008-09 are not expected to be "rebuilding years. " The City saw significant budget cuts in 2006-07, including a large number of layoffs due to slow revenue growth. For 2008-09, the budget is aimed at fine tuning our service level and addressing a limited number of emerging issues and high priority services with neither significant cuts nor enhancements expected. A limited number of enhancements which address the goals outlined above were included in approved offers. Though many appealing service enhancement offers were submitted by departments, Council found that they could fund only a limited number, given limited revenue growth. Adjustment to Recommended Budget During September and October, 2007, City Council and staffinet in worksessions to review the City Manager's Recommended Budget in detail. At its October 9 Work Session, Council gave staff general direction to include a number of additional offers in the appropriations ordinance to be 218 October 16, 2007 considered on First Reading on October 16. (See Offer Descriptions, Attachment 1) These included the following items: Ongoing 2008 2009 167.1 HPG Sustainable City Government $ 67,151 $ 69,048 TBD Envir. Air Quality Monitoring $ 20,000 211.2 Neigh Neighborhood Services —Grant Enhancement $ 5,000 $ 5,000 211.3 Neigh Neighborhood Services -Code Enforcement $ 17,500 $ 17,500 213.1 HPG Development Review Center -Innovative Tech $ 12,600 Ongoing Total $ 89,651 $ 124,148 One time 30.4HPG Network Services -Equipment (Voice over lP)** $ 39,974 $ 37,342 213.1 HPG Development Review Center -Innovative Tech $ 121,600 203.3 Neigh Enhancement of Human Services Grant $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Program TBD Envir Air Quality Monitoring $ 30,000 126.2 Transp. Transfort Strategic Operating Plan Update $ 100,000 TBD Envir. Hazardous Waste Study $ 50,000 TBD Econ NCEDC Contribution $ 30,000 $ 30,000 203.2 Neigh Partial Restoration of Affordable Housing $ 200,000 $ 200,000 Fund One time total $ 671,574 $ 367,342 "Note: Offer 30.4 partially funded through Telecommunications Fund In order to fund these desired services, additional resources beyond those included in the 2008-09 City Manager's Recommended Budget will be required to balance the Appropriation Ordinance. Council provided staff with direction to bring forward a proposal that includes the use of an additional $400, 000 in General Fund Reserves and a change to the Sales and Use Tax Vendor Fee which would result in an additional $390,000 in sales tax revenue. In order to balance the appropriation to these desired purchases, the use of General Fund Reserves was increased slightly 219 October 16, 2007 beyond the amount directed by Council to total $412,715. The Partial Restoration of Affordable Housing Fund was also adjusted to be $200,000 in each year for a total of $400,000 in funds restored. In total, $1,252,715 in additional offers are included in the Final Budget. Of these offers, $1,038,916fund one-time expenditures and $124,148 (2009 costs) fund on -going programs. Conclusion The 2008-2009 Final Budget is a sound financial plan to deliver the services we believe our citizens value most. The budgeting process has enabled us to focus and apply the resources available to key community outcomes. Citizens will receive excellent value for their tax dollars. Any final amendments agreed to by Council will be included in the second (and final) reading of the budget ordinances on November 20, 2007. By Charter, the budget must be adopted and appropriations for the 2008 fiscal year must be approved by November 30. " City Manager Atteberry stated this Ordinance was the first formal vote on the 2008-2009 budget. The budget is based on the seven Key Outcomes: Economic Health, Environmental Health, Safe Community, Neighborhood Livability, Cultural and Recreational Opportunities, Transportation and High Performing Government. There has been much Council review and citizen input into the process of developing the budget. The total resources in 2008 are $570 million, and includes one- time and ongoing monies from all City funds, not just the General Fund. In 2009, the total resources are $537 million. The City is committed to "World -Class" services, but there is concern the City will not be able to keep up with the level of services provided in previous years. Sales and use tax income increase is projected to be 2% for 2008 and 2.6% for 2009. The budget does not contain any proposals for property tax or sales tax increases. The electric rates are proposed to be raised for residents by 2.3% in 2008 and 2.6% increase in 2009. The rate changes are pass -through rate increases from PRPA. The wastewater rates will increase by 12% in 2008 and I I% in 2009, a necessary increase to fund significant capital improvements to rebuild the Mulberry Wastewater Treatment Plant. The budget does contain planned uses of reserve funds to help address short-term funding needs with anticipated revenue increases in 2010. The proposed budget would change the vendor fee allocation, which will generate about $390,000 of ongoing funds per year, beginning in 2008. There is also approximately $400,000 of one-time reserve funds to be used to address some shortfalls to the budget. After several work sessions, Council has produced a short list of possible additions to the budget that were not previously funded. These items total approximately $1.2 million of additional offers. Council has also requested one-time funding for nighttime Dial -A -Ride. That funding would provide service while the Transfort Strategic Plan is updated, if Council chooses to fund the Update. He recommended using one-time dollars in the amount of $65,000 to fund nighttime Dial -A -Ride (DAR). Mayor Hutchinson asked if adjustments are already made to the proposed budget or would they be formally added at the second reading of the ordinance. City Attorney Roy stated as long as the City 220 October 16, 2007 Manager understands which changes are needed, the direction does not need to be through a formal motion. The second reading of the ordinance is when the budget is adopted. City Manager Atteberry clarified that the $65,000 for nighttime Dial -A -Ride service is not included in the current ordinance. Council has three choices: (1) do nothing; (2) remove an offer from the funded list and replace it with funding for DAR; or (3) look at alternative sources of revenue such as using one-time reserves. Julie Brewen, 1715 West Mountain, Fort Collins Housing Authority Executive Director, urged Council to fund the partial restoration of the Affordable Housing offer. Affordable housing relies on first -in local contribution in order to leverage other sources of funding. Funding of affordable housing is complex, but must begin locally. Stable housing is the first step in allowing a person to become a contributing member of the community. She also requested funding for the Human Services Enhancement offer. Chadrick Martinez, 1303 Swallow, Executive Director of CARE Housing, requested restoration of affordable housing funds. CARE Housing has used City funds as leverage to receive $31.74 from various grants for every dollar contributed by the City. For 2008, a sizable development is planned for 156 units and each City dollar used for that development will generate S 124 in leveraged funds. The City funds have helped CARE Housing to serve a larger segment of the community and keep its rents to $495 per unit, on average. Susan Williams, 400 Impala Circle, urged Council to fully fund paratransit services, especially nighttime Dial -A -Ride service. Antoinette Lueck, 2400 North Taft Hill Road, requested Council to fund nighttime Dial -A -Ride service. Wendie Robinson, 3539 Sunflower W ay, Neighbor -to -Neighbor Executive Director, an organization that helps homeless people find homes, counsels renters and home owners in unaffordable housing situations, provides 159 affordable apartments and educates first-time home buyers, thanked the Council, City Manager and staff for including $200,000 for the affordable housing program and for reinstating $100,000 in the human services program. The funds are critical for citizens who are low- income and are struggling to find safe, decent housing. Jenny Merrill, Fort Collins citizen, urged Council to fully fund Dial -A -Ride services, especially nighttime service. Denise Rogers, 1503 Windcreek Court, Affordable Housing Board Chairperson, reminded Council that affordable housing was a critical component of the economic health of the City and asked Council to support the partial restoration of funding for the Affordable Housing fund. Whilehousing costs have risen over the past seven years, the City's investment in affordable housing has plummeted, yet the impact fees charged by the City have increased $1000/year over the past ten years. Affordable housing developments cannot afford the increased fees. A partial restoration of 221 October 16, 2007 funding for the affordable housing funds allows the City to offset some of the impact of its own policies on affordable housing projects. Bruce Hall, Fort Collins citizen, requested increased funding for affordable housing, to improve Dial -A -Ride and to strengthen neighborhood services. Improving services in those areas would improve the quality of life in the city for low-income and handicapped citizens. Valerie Baker -Easley, 424 Pine Street, Director of the Homelessness Prevention Initiative, thanked Council for the funding received from the Human Services program in 2006 as it provided rental assistance for 100 families which saved $500,000 in potential homeless costs. She requested additional human services funding to prevent homelessness. Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, stated he did not want more funding provided for a trash districting study, the Mason Corridor, or for the downtown area. Jackie Ballard, 3757 Celtic Lane, requested more funding for the Homelessness Prevention Initiative as she had been a recipient of the Initiative and knew how beneficial it was. Yvonne Longacre, 1550 Blue Spruce, was concerned that not enough funding was provided for services for the disabled. She urged Council to fund nighttime Dial -A -Ride service as well as other programs that serve the disabled community. Cheryl Distaso, 135 South Sunset, urged Council to fund nighttime Dial -A -Ride service and to consider funding 24-hour Transfort service at a future date. She did not think partial funding or a voucher system was a reasonable solution. Mary Smith,1618 Sagewood Drive, thanked the Council for including funding for a trash districting study. The current trash collection system is inefficient and is destructive to city streets and the air quality. Shane Miller, 4325 Mill Creek, supported funding for a hazardous waste study and air quality monitoring and funding for Dial -A -Ride services. Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, supported funding the Transfort Strategic Plan Update as the current system is inefficient and needs to be evaluated and improved. She urged Council to fund Dial -a -Ride services, the air qualitymonitoring study, the Pavement Management Program and more affordable housing. Vivian Armendariz, 820 Merganser Drive, asked that Dial -A -Ride nighttime service be funded. Richard Withey, 842 Wagonwheel Drive, urged Council to continue funding nighttime service for Dial -A -Ride. 222 October 16, 2007 Mayor Hutchinson stated the City Manager was required to present Council with a balanced budget in September. Each Outcome area had a prioritized list and when funds were depleted, a line was drawn and all items beneath the line were unfunded. In work sessions, Council has identified items that were under the line that it would consider restoring funding. Many items in the process fell "below the line" and were not funded. Council is considering only a few of those items. Councilmember Roy clarified the issue of holiday lighting. The budget offer of $75,000 for holiday lights in the downtown area was an offer to improve the quality and quantity of downtown lighting and in 2007, an upgrade in lighting was being investigated to change from incandescent lights to LED lights. A one-time investment will be funded by the DDA to purchase energy -saving LED lights. Funding to install and remove the lights and to cover other costs will be shared by the City, the DDA, and the DBA. The lights will not be cut down, but taken down and reused. Ann Tumquist, Policy and Project Manager, clarified that the current Ordinance contained the items Council discussed at the work session and consequently, those items did not need to be added to the Ordinance. Any items beyond those discussed at the work session would need to be added. Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance No. 118, 2007 on First Reading. Councilmember Manvel asked if staff had included funding sources from reserves and from the vendor fees for the additional expenditures in the budget. City Manager Atteberry answered in the affirmative and he noted Council would need to adopt the vendor fee change which would be brought to Council on November 6. Turnquist stated there were additional offers that used ongoing funds and additional offers that used one-time funds. Together the offers total $1.2 million over two years. Mayor Hutchinson asked if the $1.2 million was within the available resources. City Manager Atteberry stated resources were available, with the exception of $65,000 for nighttime Dial -A -Ride. To fund the DAR service, Council could either choose to not fund something else or look at additional revenue, such as reserves. This funding is one-time funding and could come from reserves. Councilmember Brown made a friendly amendment to amend the ordinance to use reserves as one- time funding of $65,000 for DAR nighttime service for 2008 while the Transfort Strategic Plan is updated. The friendly amendment was accepted by Councilmembers Ohlson and Manvel. Mayor Hutchinson stated the list of additions to the budget that were suggested by three or more Councilmembers and discussed at work sessions were items that fell below the budget line and were now under consideration to be funded. He called for discussion on an exception basis, of any items that Councilmembers may not support. 223 October 16, 2007 City Attorney Roy clarified that Council had before it the motion to adopt the budget, as proposed, including DAR funding coming from one-time reserves. The list of additional, potential expenditures has available funding and Council needs to decide whether any item should be removed from the list. No suggested changes to the list of additions to the budget were made. City Manager Atteberry clarified the friendly amendment provided funding for DAR service from one-time reserve funds in 2008, not in 2009. Mayor Hutchinson stated the funding for DAR does not negate what was previously decided for nighttime DAR service during the 2007 budget discussions. It does allow funding for the service while the Transfort Strategic Plan is updated which will allow more time to search for public/private support for DAR service. This was one-time funding, not a permanent continuation of nighttime DAR service. Councilmember Ohlson stated the budget was far from perfect but included much compromise to reach this point. He noted human services was enhanced by $100,000 and affordable housing was enhanced by $200,000. He thanked the public for its input into the process and noted the input made a difference. Councilmember Poppaw thanked the citizens for their input and stated the budget reflected what the citizens wanted. Mayor Hutchinson stated Budgeting for Outcomes has had a significant impact on the budgeting process and the BFO process has made the budget transparent. It is focused on the needs of Fort Collins citizens. Staff and Council have worked closely together and created a budget that is lean and efficient. There was still opportunity for citizen input until November 20, when second reading of the ordinance would occur. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. (**Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting. Councilmember Ohlson left the meeting at this point.) Items relating to Utility Rates and Charges for 2008, Adopted on First Reading. The following is the staff memorandum on the item. 224 October 16, 2007 "FINANCIAL IMPACT The rate Ordinances are projected to increase the annual operating revenues of the Wastewater Fund by 12% and the Light and Power Fund by approximately 2.3%. No increases are proposed for water and stormwater monthly rates. The combined utility fees for a typical single family residence will increase $3.34 per month. Proposed water, wastewater and stormwater plant investment fees (PIFs) are updated to reflect a new customer's impact on the system and maintain existing customers' equity in the system. Proposed electric development fees and charges cover costs of new commercial and residential development. The financial impacts vary by the size and nature of the development. If the proposed fees are adopted, water, wastewater and stormwaterplant investmentfees, and electric development fees and charges will increase. The combined utility development fees for a typical single family residence (exclusive of raw water requirements which are not changing) will increase from $9, 213 to $10,639 or 15.5%. The proposed fees will be effective January 1, 2008. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 119, 2007, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Water Plant Investment Fees and Raw Water Requirements. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 2007 Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code Relating to Wastewater Rates and Charges. C. First Reading of OrdinanceNo.121,2007,AmendingChapter26oftheCityCodetoRevise Sewer Plant Investment Fees. D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2007Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code Relating to Electric Rates and Charges. E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2007, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Electric Development Fees and Charges. F. First Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2007, Amending Chapter 26 ofthe City Code to Revise Stormwater Plant Investment Fees. G. First Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2007, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code Relating to Utility Connection Fees and Miscellaneous Charges. Ordinance No. 120, 2007 and Ordinance No. 122, 2007 establish monthly wastewater and electric rates for 2008 as follows: 225 October 16, 2007 Increase Wastewater 12 Electric 2.0 - 2.6 The electric rate Ordinance also includes a housekeeping change to the power adjustment clause. Ordinance No. 125, 2007, updates utility connection fees and miscellaneous charges for returned items and turn-off notices to recover the cost of these services. Ordinances Nos. 119, 121, 123, and 124, 2007, adopt revised water, sewer and stormwater plant investment fees and electric development fees. The fees are one-time charges paid by developers or builders for the cost of the utility infrastructure needed to serve new development. Per Council direction, plant investment fees are reviewed on an annual basis and revised during the biennial budgetcycle. Plant investmentfees (PIFs)forwater, wastewater andstormwater were updated with the 2006-2007 budget. Electric development fees and charges are updated annually. BACKGROUND PLANT INVESTMENT FEES WATER The water plant investment fees are developed to recover the current value of past investment and the current value of future growth -related investment through 2040. This method includes calculating net water system equity, capacity units, and determining the net system equity per unit. Water system assets are valued at replacement costs adjusted by the construction cost index as published by Engineering News Record. Net system equity is determined by subtracting outstanding debt principal from the total replacement costs plus estimated future growth related to capital projects. That result is then divided by the future total plant capacity to determine unit cost. The unit cost is applied to an estimated representative annual usage for each customer class to determine the proposed water PIF. The following schedule details PIFs for the various customer classes. WATER PLANT INVESTMENT FEES BY CUSTOMER CLASS Customer Class/Meter Size 2006 PIFs 2008-2009 Proposed Peak Day Usa e d Current Char a Peak Day Usa e d Proposed Char a Chan e nit Fee ($per gallon) S3.69 S4.03 9.2° Residential: Single Family Inside Use 191 $ 71 181 $ 73 3° Outside Use - $/S . Ft. 86 $ 0.37 77 $ 0.3A -3° 226 October 16, 2007 Mulct -Family (per unit) Inside Use 13 $ 496 12 $ 49 0° Outside Use - $lS . Ft. 26 $ 0.28 23 $ 0.2 4° Von -Residential (meter size) /. inch 1,806 $ 6,64 1,73 $ 6,9 5° 1 inc 5 23 $ 19 30 5 11 $ 20 59 71 1 %: inc 10 47 $ 38 63 10 30 $ 41 51 79 2 inch 16,711 $ 61,66 16,211 $ 65,31 60 3 inch 33,241 $122,66d 35,371 $142 54 16° > than 3 inches Based on specific customer requirements *differences due to rounding The impact to a typical single family residence (8,600 sq. ft. lot) is a decrease of $66 from $3,892 to $3,826. The decrease is due to a reduction in average usage by the residential class. Other In addition to updating the wastewater PIF charges, the Ordinance revises Section 26-149 of the City Code which describes Raw Water requirements for non-residential service. The revision clarifies that the customer is required to provide Raw Water equal to 1.92 times the customer's estimated peak annual use. The revisions apply (1) to a customer with two or more meters and (2) to a customer who increases their annual allotment. An additional change is to correct a spelling error wherein Raw Water Requirements are currently referenced as "RVR " and that is corrected to be "RWR ". WASTEWATER The wastewater plant investmentfees are developed using a method which assesses new customers based on an allocation of the costs of the existing facilities and the projected growth -related improvements. The utilityforesees a significant amount ofgrowth-related treatmentplant projects on the planning horizon. The 2005 study of the wastewater plant investment fees recommended a 174% increase. Due to the magnitude of the proposed increase, Council directed a three-year phase -in of the fees which was implemented beginning January, 2006 The final phase of the 3- phase implementation is included in the proposed 2008 wastewater PIFs. The proposed fees are shown in the following tables: WASTEWATER PLANT INVESTMENT FEES Customer Class/Meter Size Existinu 2007 Pro osed 2008 Chan e Volume Current Charre Volume Proposed Charge God God in le Family 340 $ 2,223 321 $ 3,194 43.7% ulti-Family236 $ 1,583 208 $ 2,069 30.7% 227 October 16, 2007 Von -Residential (meter size) /, incl 709 $ 4.749 624 $ 6.206 30.7% 1 inch 1,814 $ 12 151 1 644 $ 16,361 34.6% 1 % incl 3,279 $ 21 965 2,854 $ 28 396 29.3% 2 inc 5,802 $ 38 865 5122 $ 50,963 31.1 % 3 inc 12,105 $ 81 086 12 209 $121 484 49.8% 4 inch and above assessed on individual basis Wastewater plant investment fees for a typical single-family residence in 2008 would increase from $2, 223 to $3,194, or 43.7%. STORMWATER Plant investment fees for stormwater are adopted on a citywide basis. All new development must provide on -site detention as specified in the master plan. Regional elements are sized to handle existingfows and to work in coordination with on -site detention in new developments. Stormwater PIFs pay for a developer's proportionate share of the system infrastructure as it exists at the time they develop. The unit of measure used to allocate the value of the existing system between new customers and existing customers is acres of developed land, adjusted with a runoff coefficient (a measure of how water runs off various surfaces). Proposed development fees are calculated by dividing the value of the current system, less outstanding debt, by the total acres of land (existing developed and developable) in the service area. This number is then adjusted by the average runofffor the system. The result is the unit value of the existing system per acre of developed land. 2008 % 2006 Proposed Change Fees Fees 3 070 $4,420 43.97% The significant increase in fees is due to the large investments in stormwater infrastructure over the last few years. ELECTRIC Electric development charges include the allocated and actual costs to the utility for each commercial or residential development. The two components of these charges are the Electric Capacity Fee for the off -site electric system, and the Building Site Charge for the on -site electric costs. The electric development charges are typically increased annually to adjust for inflation and cost increases. Increases range from 12%for residential and 20%for commercial development. The increases are due primarily to the significant increases experienced in the cost of transformers, metals and other construction materials. The following tables compare current fees with proposed fees for residential and commercial development: 228 October 16, 2007 ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT FEES & CHARGES RESIDENTIAL Category Charge 2007 2008 % diff. Persquarefooi $0.04215 $0.04731 12° Per linealfrontfooi $7.90 $9.53 21 ° 150A Single Electric Capacity Fee C7 w p Fan $1078 $1177 9° 200A Single Fan $1806 $1991 10° 150A Multi Fa $719 $785 9° 200A Multi Fa $1267 $1399 109 1/ $585 $625 71 Building Site 0 0 4/ $756 $787 49 350 kC $732 $873 19° Charges 1/0 mobil $458 $490 7° 4/0 mobil $593 2008 % 2006 Proposed Change Fees Fees 3 070 $4,420 43.97% The significant increase in fees is due to the large investments in stormwater infrastructure over the last few years. ELECTRIC Electric development charges include the allocated and actual costs to the utilityfor each commercial or residential development. The two components of these charges are the Electric Capacity Fee for the off -site electric system, and the Building Site Charge for the on -site electric costs. The electric development charges are typically increased annually to adjust for inflation and cost increases. Increases range from 12%for residential and 20%for commercial development. The increases are due primarily to the significant increases experienced in the cost of transformers, metals and other construction materials. The following tables compare current fees with proposed fees for residential and commercial development 229 October 16, 2007 ELECTRICDEVELOPMENT FEES & CHARGES RESIDENTIAL Category Charge 2007 2008 % diff. Persquarefoo $0.04215 $0.04731 12° Per lineal front foo $7.90 $9.53 21 ° 150A Single Electric Capacity Fee U = z y Fan $1078 $1177 9° 200A Single Fan $1 806 $1 991 109 150A Multi Fa $719 $785 9° 200A Multi Fa $1267 $1399 10° 1/ $585 $625 71 Building Site g 4/ $756 $787 4° 350 kC $732 $873 19° Charges 1/0 mobil $458 $490 7° 410 mobil $593 $623 1 5° ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT FEES & CHARGES COMMERCIAL Category Charge 2007 2008 % diff. Persquarefooi $0.04215 $0.04731 12° Per linealfrontfooi $29.83 $35.52 19° 208V1-Ph $946 $1,146 21° Electric Capacity Fee Service Entrance (per 100 24OVI-Pi $1 091 $1 323 21 ° 208V3-Pi $1 638 $1 985 21 ° amps) 240V3-Pl $1 890 $2 291 21 ° 480V3-Pl $3 779 $4 581 21 ° Primary Circuit (1 phase $7.20 $8.78 22° Primary Circuit (3 phase $13.10 $17.72 35° Building Site Charges Transformer Installation -1 9hase $1 119 $I 148 3° Lransformer Installation -3 Lase $2 097 $2 132 2° The impact to a typical single family residence (8,600 sq. ft. lot, 150 amp service) is an increase of $298 from $2, 578 to $2, 876, or 12%. 230 October 16, 2007 SUMMARY OF PIF CHANGES AND COMPARISONS The following table shows the overall impact of the proposed Plant Investment Fees and Electric Development Charges on a typical single family residence. Impact on Single Famil Current Proposed Change Water* $ 3,892 $ 3,826 -2% $ 66 Raw Water** $ 5,203 $ 5,203 0% $ 0 Wastewater $ 2,223 $ 3,194 110% 44% $ 971 Stormwater* $ 520 $ 743 43% $ 223 Electric* $ 2,578 $ 2,876 12% $ 298 Total $14,416 $15,842 *Typical, based on lot size **No increase for Raw Water $1,426 Comparison to other utilities is difficult due to differences in customer use patterns, the unique capital needs of each utility, and different policy direction from governing bodies. The question of how Fort Collins compares to other area utilities often arises. The graph below compares water, wastewater, and stormwater PIFs and raw water requirements for a single family residence for some neighboring communities. Wastewater, Stormwater and Water Plant Investment Fees (Including Cash in Lieu of Raw Water Fees) 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 Fort Collins Fort Collins - Fort Proposed Boulder Greeley Longmont Loveland Windsor 2008 Raw Water Fees 5203.09421 5203.09421 0 7505.7 7957.33 6487.8567 15000 ® Water PIF 3892 3826 9710 9500 7856 5340 6725 0 Storm Drainage PIF 516.741047 743.972452 2002 227 650 489 632 ❑ Wastewater PIF 2223 3194 1855 3900 3000 2360 3700 ❑ Wastewater PIF ■ Storm Drainage PIF ® Water PIF ❑ Raw Water Fees 231 October 16, 2007 MONTHLY RATES Wastewater The Ordinance increases the City's wastewater rates by 12%. The increase is applied "across the board" to all customers. With the proposed rate, a typical single family residential customer's monthly bill will increase from $19.70 to $22.07 or $2.37 per month in 2008. This is based on a system average of 5,200 gallons per month winter quarter average (WQA) water use. The wastewater rate increase is needed to generate sufficient revenue to fund the wastewater operations and meet the increase in long-term debt service obligations for a major capital project to replace the trickling filter, make odor control improvements and prepare for future regulation -based improvements at the Mulberryfacility. The Mulberry plant was built in 1946 with upgrades in 1958 and 1972. In the past two years, the treatment performance of the plant's 60 year old trickling filter (which provides first -stage secondary treatment for the plant flow) has degraded several times requiring it to be taken off-line, cleaned and restarted. Failure of the trickling filter creates a significant increase in odors until it has been cleaned. Even after restarting, the trickling filter's effectiveness has not recovered to its past efficiency. In late 2006, a study by MWH Consulting Engineers was commissioned to determine the best solution for the long-term use of the Mulberry plant. Upgrading the plant's secondary treatmentprocesses by removing the tricklingfilter and its associated facilities and installing new aeration basin and associated facilities is the most cost-effective solution. Because the trickling filter is already recommended for replacement, odor control improvements will also take place. Upgrading the facility will also allow the Utilities to prepare for future regulation -based improvements. The improvements, including design and construction, are projected to cost $31.8 million and will be funded by debt. An 11 % increase is proposed for 2009, 10% for 2010, and 9% for 2011 to maintain reserve requirements, meet debt service, and continue operations and maintenance functions. As shown in the graph below, the City's wastewater rates remain comparable to those ofother local utilities: Wastewater Rate Comparisons - WQA 5,200 gallons Data July 25, 2007 $30 $24.65 $25 $22.07 $18.94 $19.70 $19.70 $20.00 , $20 $17.67 $18.38 " 3 E EU $10.14 li $10 w d m $5 d Q $- Denver Longmont Greeley Boulder FL Colllnn Lovelantl Wintlaor F60- Go.Spra 2007 Proposed 2008 232 October 16, 2007 Electric The Utilities are proposing an electric rate increase averaging 2.3% in 2008 and 2.7% in 2009. The rate increase is wholly due to the increases in purchase power costs from Platte River Power Authority, the City's wholesale energy supplier. On September 27, 2007, Platte River's Board adopted a 3% wholesale rate increase for 2008 and projects a rate increase of about 3.5% in 2009. Platte River's increases are due to several factors: • Increased coal and rail costs at Rawhide and Craig power plants • Increased purchased power costs from WAPA (Western Area Power Administration) • Mercury mitigation costs Expanded energy efficiency programs (I % of revenues per PR's 200 7 Integrated Resource Plan) • Capital expenditure increases (newprojects & increased material costsforexistingprojects) • Reduction in surplus sales revenues The proposed 2.3% increase in 2008 will vary slightly by rate class. Residential rates will increase 2.0%-2.2%, commercial rates will increase 2.2%-2.3%, and industrial rates will increase approximately 2.6%. For a typical residential customer using 700 kilowatt-hours per month, the monthly bill will increase 97 cents per month from $48.43 to$49.40. The following chart compares average monthly residential electric rates with other front range utilities: Electric Rate Comparison - 700 kWh per Month $80 $70 $65.88 .. 4 $60 $54.43 $56.70 $56.95 w Y $47.41 $48.43 $49.40 oo $50 $42.82 ` = $40 4) E E $30 0 H $20 m v $10 $ Q Longrs� Id9atl R.Cd IIrs2M7 R.CPrapce•d X -Wits Xcd -9mm C/ Ws P.V.F 2008 & 1/ M 233 October 16, 2007 Other In addition, the electric rate Ordinance includes a housekeeping change to the Power Factor Adjustment clause of the commercial and industrial rate classes to reflect the changes in technology. Prior to the capabilities of modern metering equipment, special recording equipment was periodically installed on services to measure power factor. Meters now collect the data necessary to make these calculations each month so periodic testing is no longer required. Monthly Rate Summary The following table summarizes the impact of the proposed rate increases on a typical single family residential customer's monthly utility bill. In total, a "typical " customer's bill will increase $3.34 per month. Typical Residential Customer —MonthlUt* Bill Current Proposed $ % 2007 2008 Increase Increase Electric 700 kWh per month $ 48.43 $ 49.40 $0.97 2% Wastewater 5,200 gallons/month winter quarter use $ 19.70 $ 22.07 $2.37 12% Stormwater 8,600 s . t. lot, light runoff $ 14.26 $ 14.26 $0.00 0% Water January 5,000 allons $ 22.56 $ 22.56 $0.00 0% July 2 1, 000 gallon $ 60.95 % $ 60.90 $0.00 0% Total JanuaryMonthlyUtilityBill $15 3108.29 $3.34 3% Total June Monthly Utili Bill 143.29 146.63 $3.34 2% The following charts compare water, wastewater, stormwater and electric utility costs for eight front range cities. They include the recommended 2008 increases for wastewater and electric for Fort Collins. Projected rate adjustments for the other cities are unknown at this time. 234 October 16, 2007 Residential Utilities 2007 Rate Comparison July Water Use 21,000 Gallons $180 $160 $140 $120 $100 $80 $60 $40 $20 $ Boulder (Xeel) Co.Sprs (8/2007) Denver (Xcel) FLCollins '0] FLCollins '08 Greeley (%cel) Longmont Loveland Windsor (p VREA) ■Storm water 6.75 6 7.396 W.260Pfi 41.280P6 43 ]G 10.39 3.892 p Wastewater 18.94 26.85073119 9.14 9.it..4 22.07 18.384 P.fi7 9.702 1 20 ■Water 52.7234 76.511fi2371 57.9 60,90442 60,90442 54.38 60.11 39.35 80.58597554 @]Electric 56.7015 56.9'16666] 56,615 48.43 49.4 1 56.705 42.822 17.407 1 65.875 CUSTOMER SERVICE FEES AND CHARGES The Utilities is proposing increasing the turn-offnotice fee from $7.00 to $10.00 and the return item fee (returned checks, electronic transfers, credit card payments) from $15 to $25. The increases are necessary to offset the associated costs and align with current business practices. WATER BOARD AND ELECTRIC BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS The Water Board reviewed the 2008-2009 water utilities' budgets, water, sewer and stormwater plant investment fee changes, and monthly wastewater rate increases at the August 23, 2007 Board meeting. The Board voted 8 to I approving the proposed budget and fee changes with an amended motion encouraging City Council to increase the appropriation for water conservation and demand management. The Electric Board reviewed the 2008-2009 Light and Power budget and the proposed increases to the electric rates and development fees and charges at its meeting on August 15, 2007. The Board unanimously approved a motion supporting the proposed budget and fee changes. " Councilmember Manvel thanked staff for providing the comparison of wastewater, stormwater and water plant investments fees of Fort Collins to other communities. He asked if Boulder had a small stormwater monthly fee but a large plant investment fee because it has completed most of its stormwater improvements and so it has already incurred a large investment that must be funded so the plant investment fee is paid by people moving into the community, but Boulder is not investing in a new system. Fort Collins is investing in a new system and that causes the City's stormwater fees to be high since major investments are still being made into the stormwater system. He also noted that Fort Collins residential utility rates are average for rates along the Front Range. 235 October 16, 2007 Jim Hibbard, Water Engineering and Field Services Manager, stated Boulder has significant problems along Boulder Creek but he did not know whythere was such a large difference between Boulder's plant investment fees and rates. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance No. 119, 2007 on First Reading. Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance No. 120, 2007 on First Reading. Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance No. 121, 2007 on First Reading. Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance No. 122, 2007 on First Reading. Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Ordinance No. 123, 2007 on First Reading. Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance No. 124, 2007 on First Reading. Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Ordinance No. 125, 2007 on First Reading. Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. 236 October 16, 2007 Items Relating to the Prospect Road/I-25 Interchange Rezonings, Adopted as Amended on First Reading. The following is the staff memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Resolution 2007-097 Amending the City Plan Structure Plan Map Pertaining to the Southwest Corner of Prospect Road and 1-25. B. Resolution 2007-098 Amending the City Structure Plan Map Pertaining to the Northeast Corner of Prospect Road and I-25. C. Resolution 2007-099 Amending the I-25 Subarea Plan. D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 2007, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classifications for That Certain Property Known as the Southwest Corner of East Prospect Road and I-25 Rezoning. E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2007, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classifications for that Certain Property Known as the Northeast Corner of East Prospect Road and I-25 Rezoning. This is a request to amend the 1-25 Subarea Plan and the City Plan Structure Plan map, and rezone 143 acres located at the southwest corner of East Prospect Road and Interstate 25 and rezone 105 acres located at the northeast corner of East Prospect Road and Interstate 25. The current Structure Plan designations for the 143 acres in the southwest are Commercial Corridor District, for a 25 acre parcel, and Open Lands, Parks and Stream Corridors, for a 118 acre parcel. The current I-25 Subarea Plan designations are Commercial Corridor District and Proposed Open Space, with corresponding zoning district designations of 25 acres of C, Commercial and 118 acres of POL, Public Open Lands. The City proposes a Structure Plan amendment and amendments to the I-25 Subarea Plan to change the area into the Employment District designation with a corresponding rezoning to the E, Employment District. The current Structure Plan designation for 86 of the 105 acres in the northeast is the Industrial District and the current 1-25 Subarea Plan designation for the area is also Industrial District. The current Structure Plan designation for 19 of the 105 acres is the Urban Estate District and the current I-25 Subarea Plan designation for the area is also Urban Estate. The applicant proposes a Structure Plan amendment and amendments to the I-25 Subarea Plan to change the area into additional Commercial Corridor and Employment District designations with corresponding rezonings to the C, Commercial District and the E, Employment District. APPLICANT FOR REZONING OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER: 237 October 16, 2007 City of Fort Collins Department of Natural Resources City Planning and Community Development Department P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 OWNER OF PROPER TY INCL UDED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER REZONING: City of Fort Collins clo Darin A. Atteberry, City Manager 300 LaPorte Avenue, City Hall West Fort Collins, CO 80521 APPLICANT FOR REZONING OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER: Land Acquisition and Management, LLC 7200 South Alton Way Suite B 150 Centennial, CO 80012 OWNER OF PROPER TY INCL UDED IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER REZONING: Same BACKGROUND Staff is recommending changes to the I-25 Subarea Plan and the City Plan, Structure Plan map and the rezoning of 143 acres into the E, Employment District in the southwest and in the northeast, the rezoning of 86 acres into 66 acres of C, Commercial District and 20 acres of E, Employment District; and the rezoning ofl 9 acresfrom UE, Urban Estate District to the E, EmploymentDistrict. The northeast corner rezonings would result in at total of 96 acres of C, Commercial zoned area (66 rezoned acres added to 30 acres ofexisting Czoning) and 39 acres ofE, Employment zoning. The E, Employment zoned areas would provide a buffer between the 96acres of Commercial zoning and residential areas to the north and east. The review of land uses and zoning around the Prospect Road/I-25 interchange is based on: City Council direction to staffindicating the Council's generalpreferencefor a higher level of "commercial " use for portions of the former Resource Recovery Farm property located in the southwest quadrant of the Prospect Road/I-25 interchange. Staff has concluded that rezoning 25 acres of the property, from C, Commercial and 118 acres from POL, Public Open Lands to E, Employment (for a total of 143 acres ofE, Employment) would encourage new businesses and expansion oflocal businesses while preserving the area as an attractive community gateway, and would be in the best interests of the City. 238 October 16, 2007 2. Simultaneously, the City received a rezoning request from the owners of property in the northeast quadrant of the Prospect RoadII-25 interchange requesting a change in zoning of 86 acres of I, Industrial and 19 acres of UE, Urban Estate. Staff decided to review the land uses around the Prospect RoadII-25 interchange as a result of the rezoning requests from the City and the privateproperty owners to determine what would be the best land use pattern for the area around the interchange for the City as a whole, independent of the specific rezoning requests. The amendments to the plans are related to the rezoning requests but are independent actions. If the amendments to the plans are approved, the rezoning requests are simply implementation actions to the plan amendments. The fundamental policy issue to be addressed in the rezoning request for the southwest corner is: should City Plan be amended and zonings changed to cover an area currently preserved as open space to an area that will permit the development of employment land uses in the SW quadrant of the Prospect RoadII-25 interchange? The fundamental policy issue to be addressed in the rezoning request for the northeast corner is: should City Plan be amended and zoning changed to allow for the development of a regional/community scale shopping center in the northeast quadrant of the Prospect Road/1-25 interchange? A regional/community shopping center in the northeast quadrant will help contribute tax revenues necessary to fund Prospect RoadlI-25 interchange improvements and related infrastructure. Given the cost to improve infrastructure, development from all four quadrants around the interchange will need to contribute funding to improve the interchange. The rezoning requests need to be viewed independently from the City's Adequate Public Facilities (APF) requirements: All development plans for parcels impacting the Prospect RoadlI-25 interchange must include a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). The TIA will determine whether traffic generated by the development will result in reduced level of service (LOS) at the interchange and the physical improvements that will need to be constructed to mitigate the impacts. In order to begin construction, developments must either build the needed improvements, or have funding appropriated that will cover improvement costs. In summary, the specific plan amendments for the southwest request involves changing 25 acres of commercial and 118 acres of open space designated land to create 143 acres of employment land in the southwest quadrant of the interchange. The specific plan amendments for the northeast quadrant of the interchange involve changing 86 acres of industrial to 66 acres of commercial and 20 acres of employment and changing 19 acres of urban estate to employment. THE SOUTHWEST SITE The properties proposed for rezoning are currently an undeveloped 25 acre parcel of land zoned C. Commercial, and a 118 acre parcel of theformerResource Recovery Farm zoned POL, Public Open Lands. The adjoining existing zoning and land uses are asfollows: 239 October 16, 2007 N: C, Commercial and E, Employment, mainly undeveloped E: C, Commercial, and County Commercial and FA I, Farming zoning, partially developed retail and office uses, and agricultural uses S: POL, Public Open Lands, and RC, River Corridor, public open space and the Boxelder Sanitation District's wastewater treatment facility W.- POL, Public Open Lands, the Running Deer Natural Area, Colorado Welcome Center and I-25 rest area The property was annexed into the City of Fort Collins as part of the 325 acre Sludge Farm Annexation in June of 1988 and zoned RC, River Corridor District. In 1997, the 25 acre parcel was placed into the C, Commercial District and the 118 acre parcel was placed into the E, Employment District as a result of the City Plan comprehensive rezoning of the entire city. The sizes of the commercial and employment areas were based on an Overall Development Plan (ODP) for the area prepared by the Planning Department for the Utilities Department. The Utilities Department operated a sludge application process on the property until transferring that operation to other sites in northern Larimer County. The Natural Resources Department purchased 144 acres from the Utilities Department to be preserved as open space (the Running Deer Natural Area), and in 2003, purchased an additional 151 acres as open space. In May 2004, the City Council, following the policies and implementation actions contained in the I-25 Subarea Plan, rezoned the 151 acre parcel from E, Employment into the POL, Public Open Lands District. The 118 acres requested for rezoning is a portion of the 151 acre tract. THE NORTHEAST SITE The adjoining existing zoning and land uses are as follows N. C, Commercial and LMN, Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood, undeveloped E: County FA-1, Farming, Kitchell Estates, large lot residential subdivision, and UE, Urban Estate, undeveloped 100 acre parcel owned by the Poudre School District S: C, Commercial, and County Commercial, partially developed retail and office uses W: C, Commercial and E, Employment, mainly undeveloped The property was annexed into the City of Fort Collins as part of the 235 acre Galatia Annexation in 1990 and zoned HB, Highway Business, IP, Planned Industrial, and RLP, Low Density Planned Residential Districts. All of the zoning districts had a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning condition attached which required developmentproposals to be reviewed against the criteria ofthe Land Development Guidance System (LDGS) which was the City's PUD ordinance at the time. In 1997, the Galatia Annexation were rezoned as part of the City Plan comprehensive community rezoning. The 30 acres ofHB, Highway Business was rezoned C, Commercial; the 86 acres ofIP, Planned Industrial was rezoned I, Industrial; and the 119 acres of RLP, Low Density Planned Residential was rezoned UE, Urban Estate. The HB, IP, and RLP Districts were eliminated from the Land Use Code in 1997. No parcels were rezoned as a result of adoption of the I--25 Subarea Plan in 2003. ME October 16, 2007 Approximately 100 acres of the 119 acres zoned UE are currently owned by the Poudre School District. The property is undeveloped, but will likely be used for athletic fields and school bus storage. CITY PLANAND THE I-25 SUBAREA PLAN In 1997, the City adopted City Plan as the City's the new Comprehensive Plan. The Structure Plan map showed Commercial Corridor land use designations in all four quadrants immediately adjacent to the Prospect Road/1-25 interchange; Employment District designations for other areas in the northeast, southwest, and southeast quadrants; Low Density Mixed -Use Residential designation in the northwest quadrant; and Rural/Open Lands and Stream Corridors designation for other areas in all four quadrants. The Structure Plan map also identified the need for additional planning in the 1-25 corridor and designated the area as the " I--25 Special Study Corridor. " In addition, City Plan's chapter on Principles and Policies contained thefollowing: PRINCIPLELU-4: Morespecificsubareaplanningeffortswillfollowtheadoption of these City Plan Principles and Policies which tailor City Plan's citywide perspective to individual neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and edges. Policy LU-4.5 Priority Subareas. The following areas have been identified as priorityfor future subarea planning: I-25 Corridor Concurrent with the development of the I-25 Subarea Plan, was a multi jurisdictional cooperative planning effort to develop the Northern Colorado Regional Communities I-25 Corridor Plan. The planning boundaries of the two efforts overlapped. The regional plan studied the I-25 corridorfrom County Road 52 on the north to an area south of the Town of Berthoud, while the subarea plan studied the area from County Road 52 to County Road 32 (Carpenter Road). The most significant difference between the two plans is that the subarea plan dealt with land uses in more detail than the regional plan. The regional plan was based on existing land use plans of the participating jurisdictions. The regional plan focused on developing a set of design standards, a transportation element, and open lands/natural areas policies. The Northern Colorado Regional Communities1-25 Corridor Plan was adopted by the City in November 2001. In 2003, the City adopted the 1--25 Subarea Plan as an element of City Plan. The key points, conclusions, and policies of the I-25 Subarea Plan are summarized as follows: 1. The I-25 Subarea Plan mainly deals with the area located east of I-25 from around the Prospect Road interchange on the south to County Road 52 on the north, and County Road 5 on the east. 2. No change in the City's GMA boundary was proposed. 3. Two activity centers were identified, one at the Mulberry Street interchange and the other at the Prospect Road interchange. The NE quadrant of the Mulberry interchange was planned for the potential location ofa regional/community shopping 241 October 16, 2007 center. The NE quadrant of the Prospect interchange was designated as a mix use activity center with commercial, industrial, and residential uses. 4. Employment and industrial districts adjacent to I-25 are to be designed in a manner as to maintain a perception of openness through the corridor. 5. Secondary uses (retail and highway -oriented commercial uses) typically permitted in employment/industrial districts will be required to be set back at least 114 mile from I-25 to avoid a commercial strip appearance along I-25. 6. Detached single-family residential development isprohibited within 114mileofI-25. 7. Low density, mixed use neighborhoods are to be concentrated within 112 mile of Mulberry Street. 8. The balance of areas planned for residential development are to be urban estate developments. 9. The City's Resource Recovery Farm is to be preserved as open space. 10. The subarea is planned to eventually be served with multi -modal transportation options. A supplemental street system will facilitate movement within the subarea, thus, diminishing the need to utilize I-25 for short trips. 11. Most undeveloped land within the subarea is expected to annexprior to development. LAND USE CODE The regulations covering rezonings in the City of Fort Collins are contained in Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code. Section 2.9.4 (H) (2) indicates the following: Mandatory Requirements for Quasi -Judicial Rezonings. Any amendment to the Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning ofsix hundred forty (640) acres of land or less (a quasi-judicial rezoning) shall be recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board or approved by the City Council only if the proposed amendment is: (a) consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan; and/or (b) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. Section 2.9.4 (H) (3) of the Land Use Code indicates the following: Additional Considerations for Quasi -Judicial Rezonings. In determining whether to recommend approval of any such proposed amendment, the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council may consider the following additional factors: (a) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district for the land; (b) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including, but not 242 October 16, 2007 limited to, water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and natural functioning of the environment; (c) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. SOUTHWEST CORNER APPLICANTS REQUEST AND JUSTIFICATION: In 2003, the Natural Resources Department Natural Areas Program completed purchase of the Resource Recovery Farm (RRF) as a scenic and open lands buffer. At the time of purchase, the eastern portion of the RRF was not described as an area of interest to the Natural Areas Program in the Natural Areas Policy Plan, nor the various community separator plans adopted by the City. Because the eastern portion was not shown in these plans, and because it has low natural resource values, Natural Areas Program staff embarked on a planning process to help guide the property's ultimate management and disposition status. In August 2005, the Natural Resources staffshared a series of options for the RRFproperty with the Council and requested policy direction. The Council indicated its general preference for a higher level of "commercial " use for the property. Based on Council 's perspective, the Natural Resources Department staff concluded that rezoning a substantial portion of the property (118 acres) from POL, Public Open Lands to E, Employment would be in the best interests of the City. In addition, staffs perspective is that the 25 acre parcel zoned C, Commercial, immediately adjacent to the interchange and owned by the City should be combined with the 118 acre parcel to create a 143 acre parcel for employment type uses. Employment zoning would allow the property to be used for economic development purposes. At the same time, however, the adopted I-25 Subarea Plan - as well as other constraints on the property, would allow the property to be developed in a manner that preserves an aesthetically pleasing viewshed from I-25 as well as protects adjoining areas with high natural values (namely Boxelder Creek and the Running Deer Natural Area). The rezoning request excludes Boxelder Creek, it will remain zoned POL. Regulations contained in the Land Use Code applicable to the I-25 corridor, and more generally throughout the community, are intended to have employment/industrial districts designed in a manner to maintain openness through the use ofsetback requirements, maximum buildingfrontage allowances, restricting building heights, and proper management offloodplains. Minimum building setback requirements are 205 feet from the centerline of I-25. Maximum building frontage allowance is 50% at the 80 foot minimum setback from the property line, which can be expanded to 60% at an increased setback of 120 feet. Building heights are restricted to 40 feet within 600 feet from the property line adjoining I-25. NORTHEAST CORNER APPLICANTS REQUEST AND JUSTIFICATION The following has been submitted by the applicant as a justification for the rezoning requests: 243 October 16, 2007 • The Prospect / I-25 interchange was constructed in 1966. Since its construction, traffic volumes have increased significantly and the interchange structure has deteriorated. • A recent North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) team analysis ofthe interchange indicates that portions ofthe interchange are CURRENTLY experiencing a failing Level of Service (LOS) quality F (failure). • Furthermore, the EIS team projects increases of roughly 4 times the current traffic volume for the interchange in the next 20 years. • North I-25 EIS projections call for a 200 foot widening of interstate right-of-way (ROW) to accommodate an additional lane of traffic in each direction and improvements to the on/off ramps and safety lanes. As a result, any reconstruction of the Prospect interchange must accommodate a wider footprint. The current interchange ROW will not accommodate this widening. • Cost estimates/projections for the interchange and Prospect Road improvements are substantial: a The projection for the interchange itself is $25,000,000.00 (excluding ROW acquisition costs). 0 Boxelder Creek crossing of Prospect Road west of interchange is $3, 000, 000. 0 Prospect Road east ofthe interchange to CountyRoad 5 is $1, 700, 000 to $2, 300, 000 (excluding design, entitlements, utilities, structures, relocation of Timnath inlet canal, and CR5/Prospect intersection). o Prospect Road west of interchange to Summit View is $1,000,000 to 1,300,000 (similar exclusions). a The total, thus, ranges from $30, 700, 000 to $31, 600, 000, at a minimum. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), the Federal Highway Administration (FHwA) and the City have little funds to aid in the construction of this interchange and related street improvements. A new interchange is needed to meet the Adequate Public Facilities (APF) requirement for the new CSUR&D center in the southwest quadrant as well as for the property owner's anticipated project or other developments on the interchange corners. A new interchange will serve as a "Gateway to CSU", as envisioned by the University. If the City wishes to have this interchange constructed anytime in the near future, it will likely need to be funded by a public/private financing vehicle. The I-25 Subarea Plan and the current Overall Development Plan (ODP) on the property were developed prior to the current interchange cost projections and proposed land use changes on the City -owned property becoming available. Clearly such magnitude of interchange constructions costs and such land use changes could not have been anticipated. Gene Andrist, a financial planner involved with the financing of many interchanges and other major projects throughout the state, has developed a number offunding scenarios for public/private financing of the interchange. Increased levels of retail space at the interchange corners appears to be the key to provide increased revenue sources to the City to pay for interchange and related improvements. A recent Economic Planning Systems (EPS) study commissioned by the City to evaluate future retail capacity in the vicinity of Fort Collins, determined that over the next few years 244 October 16, 2007 an increase of approximately 1.5 million feet of retail space is anticipated. The Cityis in a very competitive market with the Towns of Timnath, Windsor and Wellington for this retail space. If the City wishes to capture any of this increased retail space (and its related sales tax) the City needs to move quickly and aggressively. The property owners (the Whites) have been very involved is a series of planning related studies/projects for the interchange, the surrounding area, and along the I-25 corridor. Listed below is a summary of their involvement: BOXELDER CREEK REGIONAL STORMWA TER ALLIANCE Served from the inception of the Boxelder Alliance until present as the representative for a group of private property owners. Was one of 5 groups (Landowners, City, Wellington, Larimer County, Colorado Water Conservation Board) who EQUALLYfunded the stormwater masterplan. Served as 1 of 5 voting members on the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) which provided overall direction to the Alliance's efforts. The TAC: o Prepared the Scope of Work for the engineering consultant, o Selected the engineering consultant, o Provided ongoing direction to%oordination with the selected consultant o Reviewed/commented on workproducts, o Held monthly public meetings to discuss progress, 0 Participated in weekly/biweekly meetings to complete tasks for the Alliance, o Reviewed/commented on final Regional Master Plan, o Participated in Alliance presentations to Alliance members and town councils. Served as 1 of 5 voting members on the Financial Advisory Committee (FAC). o FAC was formed to ensure financial feasibility to the engineering options. o Independently funded legal consultant to the FAC. o The FAC. Completed funding analyses of the Master Plan alternatives, Researched project financing options, Completed damages & consequences assessments, Developed Funding/Implementation Strategy for final Master Plan, Coordinated with TA in developing a recommended alternative. Prepared list ofproperty owners in vicinity ofl-25/Prospect (400 names) for public notices. Advised local property owners group of Alliance financing issues. Coordinated with Alliance members including: Larimer County, Town of Wellington, the City, Town of Timnath, Town of Windsor, North Poudre Irrigation Company, Boxelder Sanitation Distirict, New Cache la Poudre Irrigation Company, Colorado Water Conservation Board, Colorado Department of Transportation and others. NORTHI-25 EIS Attended North I-25 EIS Technical Advisory Committee meetings (usually was the only member of the public in attendance). Participated in all local (Group 7) meetings. 245 October 16, 2007 • Organized group of landowners in the neighborhood of7--25/Prospect and advised them of interchange issues. • Met regularly with City Transportation staff as well as CDOT and Felsburg Holt Ullevig., consultants on the North I-25 EIS project. • With City Transportation staffandotherproperty owners, influenced theproposed alignment and details of the Prospect/I-25 interchange to the advantage of City. • Facilitated meetings between North I-25 EIS and Boxelder Creek Stormwater Alliance to resolve mutual issues. • Researched and resolved historic preservation issue with North I-25 EIS team. PROSPECT ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Organized group of local property owners concerning issues pertaining to future Prospect Road improvements. Coordinated regularly with City Transportation and Engineering staff. Facilitated series of public/private meetings with the City, Timnath Engineer, and local property owners to address future improvements to Prospect before they became problems. These issues included: o Boxelder Creek crossing of Prospect west of I-25, o Greeley Water Extension & Transmission Project (GWET) crossing of Prospect, a Boxelder Sanitation District sewer crossing of Prospect at McLaughlin Lane, o Relocation of Timnath Inlet canal to allow future widening of Prospect, o Prospect / County Road 5 intersection issues, o Boxelder Creekstormwater overflow canal crossing of Prospect (the Grand Canal). o With Town of Timnath, Don Bachman, Cache la Poudre Irrigation Company, Poudre Valley School District and a local developer, developed cross section profile of future Prospect ROW which is in use today. GREELEY WATER EXTENSIONAND TRANSMISSION PROJECT (GWET) Greeley's GWET project is a 60-inch diameter waterline delivering water from their pre-treatment plant northwest of Fort Collins to Greeley. In its nominal configuration, the bottom of the pipeline is to be placed on top of approximately 2 feet of gravel and covered with at least 60 inches of soil making the total depth of their pipeline excavation and backfill approximately 12 feet. The sheer size of this project makes it important to anticipate related issues in advance of the project's construction. The 200 7 segment ofthisproject included a crossing ofProspect Road at McLaughlin Lane, a crossing ofI-25 at a location north of Prospect and completion to a point in the vicinity of the Fort Collins Airpark. The I-25 crossing is particularly complicated since three irrigation company canal crossings, the Boxelder Creek crossing, a Boxelder Sanitation District sewer line crossing as well as various other utility crossings are located in close proximity to one another. The Whites facilitated several public/private meetings with representatives from Greeley, Timnath, Boxelder Alliance, City Transportation/Engineering and Stormwater Departments, the Poudre Valley School District, Boxelder Sanitation District, CDOT, a group of affected landowners, and others to discuss details of the project. RIM October 16, 2007 • Arranged to have GWET representatives attend several Boxelder Alliance TAC meetings to coordinate the particularly tight and complex 1-25 crossing as well as other mutual issues. • Facilitated meetings with the Timnath Engineer and Timnath GMA developers to discuss project alignment to minimize impacts to properties in vicinity of Timnath. • Worked closely with Poudre Valley School District personnel regarding crossing of the GWET project across the District's and White's properties. • The 2007 segment of the GWET pipeline is nearing completion. AMENDMENTS TO THE STRUCTURE PLAN MAP AND THE I-25 SUBAREA PLAN.• The Structure Plan map, a component of City Plan, the City's Comprehensive Plan, sets forth a basic pattern of development, showing how Fort Collins should grow and evolve over the next 20 years. The I-25 Subarea Plan is an element of City Plan and provides greater detail and policies for the 1-25 corridor. For the southwest corner, the maps in these existing plans currently designate the 25 acre parcel as commercial and the H8 acre parcel as open space. For the northeast corner, the maps in these existing plans currently designate 30 acres as commercial, 86 acres as industrial, and 19 acres as urban estate (not including the 100 acres owned by the Poudre School District) in the northeast quadrant of the Prospect Road11-25 interchange. To recommend approval of the City Plan and I-25 Subarea Plan amendments, the City Council has to find that: (1) the existing Structure Plan is in need of change; and (2) the proposed changes would promote the public welfare and be consistent with the vision, goals, principles, and policies of City Plan. The applicable criteria are contained in Appendix C of City Plan. Review Criteria for Structure Plan Minor Amendments: Appendix C of City Plan outlines mandatory requirements for public notice, review process and evaluation criteria for minor amendments to City Plan, including Structure Plan map amendments. The Plan text states: "A plan amendment will be approved if the City Council makes specific findings that: The existing City Plan and/or related element thereof is in need of the proposed amendment; and The proposed plan amendment will promote the public welfare and will be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan and the elements thereof. " To support the requested rezoning, amendments to existing plans will be necessary. Attachment 1 contains the statements, policies, and maps which need to be amended within the 1-25 Subarea Plan. Attachment 2 is a summary of the recommended changes to the City Plan Structure Plan map. ANALYSIS BASED ON REZONING REVIEW CRITERL9 How the rezoning requests address the requirements in the City's Land Use Code are summarized below: (a) consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; 247 October 16, 2007 Staff decided to review the land uses around the Prospect Road/I-25 interchange as a result of the rezoning requests from the City, for the southwest quadrant, and the private property owner, for the northeast quadrant, to determine what would be the best land use pattern for the area around the interchange for the City as a whole, independent of the specific rezoning requests. The amendments to the plans are related to the rezoning requests but are independent actions. If the amendments to the plans are approved, the rezoning requests are simply implementation actions to the plan amendments. Staff is recommending the plans be amended to allow the commercial and open space lands in the southwest quadrant to be changed to the employment district designation. Basically, the plan amendments revert the property back to the land uses planned and zoned prior to the I-25 Subarea Plan adoption. Staff is recommending the plans be amended to allow additional commercial and employment land uses to develop in the northeast quadrant of the Prospect Road/I-25 interchange. It is becoming more apparent that I-25 is not a logical urban edge to the community. The importance of the 1-25 corridor to the economic development of Northern Colorado can be viewed all along the corridor. The towns of Timnath, Windsor, and Wellington are changing the character of areas east of I-25 from the rural, low density residential areas envisioned in both the initial City Plan of 1997, and the 2004 update, to urban types of uses. In staff's opinion, the City's plans need to be changed to address the new regional context of what is happening beyond the City's Growth Management Area (GMA) boundary. In City Plan, one of the stated community goals is: Fort Collins will maintain its role as a regional economic center. The downtown, the Foothills Mall, and South College Avenue are typically the areas cited as the most important retail shopping locations to help achieve this goal. Staff believes that interstate interchanges need to be elevated to share a similar importance. Principle ECON-2 states: Economic Sustainability: The City will strive to develop an economy which will be self-sustaining within the limits of its GMA. Policy ECON-2.2 states: Fort Collins will be a leader in developing an economy which continues to "develop " within its GMA. The southwest and northeast quadrants of the Prospect Road/I-25 interchange are within the City's GMA boundary. The plan amendments and rezonings will help strengthen the interchange for an expanded role in the City's economic development strategies. Policy GM-4.2 states: RM October 16, 2007 Capital Improvement Policy. The City will continue to operate under the following Capital Improvement Policies: e. The City will use a variety ofdifferentfunding sources tofund capital projects with an emphasis on the "Pay-as-you-go "philosophy. One of the northeast applicant's stated justifications for the plan amendments and rezoning is to provide a land use basis for the ability to generate sufficient tax revenues from the development of parcels around the Prospect RoadJ--25 interchanges to cover the costs of necessary infrastructure improvements, including the major expense of reconstructing the Prospect RoadII-25 interchange. This would be consistent with the pay-as-you-go philosophy. (b) warrantedby changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. When identified for open space preservation in the I-25 Subarea Plan, the eastern portion of the Resource Recovery Farm (RRF) was not described as an area of interest to the Natural Resources Department's Natural Areas Program in the Natural Areas Policy Plan, nor the various community separator plans adopted by the City. Because the RRF was not shown in these plans, and because it has low natural resource values, Natural Areas Program staff embarked on a planning process to help guide the property's ultimate management and disposition status. Staff has concluded that the eastern portion is not needed for open space in order to achieve any of the City's natural area preservation goals. There are several changed conditions that help justify the plan amendments and rezoning request. When the I-25 Subarea Plan was adopted in 2003, it was assumed that the necessary improvements to the Prospect RoadII-25 interchange would be funded by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and/or the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) since it was part of the federal/state highway system. It was not anticipated that the responsibilityfor improving the interchange would fall on local governments and/or adjacentproperty owners usingpublic/private partnerships. The plan amendments and rezoning request will help address this changed condition whereby local revenues will need to be created in order to finance interchange improvements. The competition for retail sales tax dollars is also significantly different now in 2007 than it was in 2003. In order for the City to remain competitive in the Northern Colorado market, undeveloped retail commercial sites in desirable locations need to be provided. The City is lacking in areas to attract regional/community scale retail establishments. Interstate interchanges are the type of desirable sites for such regional serving retail uses. Land use plans by otherjurisdictions, particularly the Town of Timnath, are changing the character ofareas east ofI-25 from the rural, low density residential, areas shown on the City's plans, to more intense urban uses. In June 2007, the Timnath Town Board approved an amendment to Timnath's Land Use Plan which extended Timnath's Growth Management Area (GMA) boundary north of Timnath to County Road 52 (the northern boundary of the A-B brewery). The Timnath Land Use Plan also intensified the residential densities and land uses in the area to include commercial and 249 October 16, 2007 employment uses. This is a significant change of conditions that affects areas within the Fort Collins GMA boundary. I-25 is no longer a line from which land uses begin to decrease in intensity from employment and commercial uses adjacent to the highway, to urban residential, to urban estate residential, to rural uses. The land uses in areas east of I-25 are beginning to mirror the urban types of land uses west of I-25. Even the 100 acres of UE zoned property owned by the Poudre School District slated for use as athletic fields and school bus storage are not low intensity, rural types of land uses. In addition to the above, Section 2.9.4[HJ[31 provides factors that may be considered along with the mandatory requirements for quasi-judicial rezonings. Staff has prepared a response to each of the additional factors, demonstrating how the optional criteria could also be met: (a) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone districtfor the land; The E, Employment District is the appropriate zone for the southwest corner. Areas to the north, northeast, and east are designated for a mix of commercial, industrial, and employment uses. Also, the regulations contained in the Land Use Code are intended to have employment districts along the I-25 corridor designed in a manner to maintain openness through the use of setback requirements, maximum building frontage allowances, restricting building heights, and proper management of foodplains. The C, Commercial District and the E, Employment District are the appropriate zones for the northeast corner. The E, Employment District will provide for a land use transition from the C, Commercial District areas to the surrounding residential properties to the north and east. The E, Employment District is more restrictive than the previous I, Industrial District for the property to the north. Areas to the south and west are designated for a mix of commercial and employment uses. And again, the regulations contained in the Land Use Code are intended to have employment districts along the I-25 corridor designed in a manner to maintain openness through the use of setback requirements, maximum building frontage allowances, restricting building heights, and proper management of f oodplains. (b) 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 natural functioning of the environment; Staff believes that development in the E, Employment District at the southwest corner would have no significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Any development application will be subject to the City's development standards relative to natural habitat, energy conservation, stormwater and landscape design. Staffs perspective is that development in the C, Commercial District and the E, EmploymentDistrict at the northeast corner would have no significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Again, development applications will be subject to the City's development standards relative to 250 October 16, 2007 natural habitat, energy conservation, stormwater and landscape design. Part of the reason for enlarging the C, Commercial zoning in the NE quadrant was to devote land to the proper management of the Boxelder Creek floodplain. (c) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. The Prospect RoadJ--25 interchange represents an opportunityto create a key community gateway, combining a balance of economic development and open space preservation. It is logical that such an important interchange maximize the ability to have land available for the development of a mix of commercial and employment types of uses. The City's development standards will require adequate public utilities and infrastructure to be in place to assure an orderly development pattern. FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS After reviewing the East Prospect Road and I-25 rezonings and amendments to the I-25 Subarea Plan and the City Plan Structure Plan map, staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions as explained in detail above: 1. The request for amendments to the I-25 Subarea Plan and the City Plan Structure Plan map would be consistent with the City Plan's overall vision, goals, principles, and policies. 2. The rezoning requests are consistent with City Plan, the City's Comprehensive Plan, based on the Structure Plan map amendment and amendments to the I-25 Subarea Plan. 3. The proposed E, Employment District is appropriate for the parcels at the southwest corner of Prospect Road and I-25. 4. The proposed C, Commercial District and E, Employment District are appropriate for the northeast corner and will help provide tax revenues necessary to cover local funding required to improve the Prospect RoadII-25 interchange as well as other infrastructure improvements. 5. The proposed rezonings will not result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. 6. The proposed rezonings will result in a logical and orderly pattern of development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staffrecommends approval of the amendments to the I-25 Subarea Plan and the City Plan Structure Plan map and the rezoning of 25 acres of C, Commercial and 118 acres ofPOL, Public Open Lands to to 143 acres of E, Employment at the SW corner and for the NE corner, the rezoning of 86 acres of], Industrial to 66 acres of C, Commercial and 20 acres of E, Employment and the rezoning of 19 acres from UE, Urban Estate to E, Employment. to create a 39 acre E zoned buffer between the C. Commercial zoned area (a total of 96 acres) and residential areas to the north and east. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Board, at its regular monthly meeting on September 20, 2007, voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the plan amendments and the requested rezonings. " 251 October 16, 2007 Councilmember Troxell withdrew from the discussion of Items Relating to the Prospect Road/I-25 Interchange Rezonings due to a conflict of interest. City Manager Atteberry noted Resolution 2007-098 Amending the City Structure Plan Map Pertaining to the Northeast Corner of Prospect Road and I-25 and First Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2007, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classifications for that Certain Property Known as the Northeast Corner of East Prospect Road and I-25 Rezoning have been pulled and will be discussed at a work session. Resolution 2007-099 Amending the I-25 Subarea Plan has been amended to reflect the changes. Ken Waido, Chief Planner, stated the item was a request to rezone 25 acres that are currently zoned C-Commercial and 118 acres that are currently zoned POL-Public Open Lands into 143 acres of the E-Employment zone. This is a quasi-judicial rezone as it is less than 640 acres and Council must decide if the two criteria for rezoning have been met. The first criteria is that the rezoning must be consistent with City Plan and/or warranted by changed conditions in the neighborhood, including the subject property. City Plan contains a Structure Plan Map that gives the Land Use Code a structure of neighborhoods, districts and corridors. At the time City Plan was adopted, it was recognized that the I-25 corridor needed additional planning so that corridor was identified as a special study corridor. The City participated in the Northern Colorado Regional Community's I-25 Corridor Plan, which discussed a unified set of quality development controls, a multimodal transportation network and methods of protecting significant natural areas and open spaces. Subsequently, the City developed its own I-25 Subarea Plan that included the previous Plan's items and was more detailed in its land use description. The City has Plans that cover the areas west of 1-25, so the I-25 Subarea Plan was concentrated on the east side of I-25 from Prospect north to Anheuser-Busch. This rezoning does not result in any change to the Growth Management Area boundary. Employment districts adjacent to I-25 were designed to maintain the perception of openness throughout the corridor and the Resource Recovery Farm was to be preserved as open space. The land use designation for areas surrounding the interchange is C-Commercial. There are Employment and Industrial areas to the north of the Commercial zone. The Land Use Code contains specific development standards for the I-25 corridor, aimed at maintaining a sense of openness. Depth, width and height restrictions have been developed to maintain a sense of openness. The request to rezone 143 acres to E-Employment is not consistent with the adopted I-25 Subarea Plan so the existing Plan must be amended. The second criteria to rezone is changed conditions. The eastern portion of the Resource Recovery Farm was not identified as an "area of interest" by the Natural Areas Policy Plan or any of the community separator plans and has low natural resources value. CDOT and the Federal Highway Administration are likely not to fund the needed interchange improvements and local revenue sources must be found to improve the interchange. Interchanges are very desirable sites for employment centers and regional commercial uses. Land use plans of other jurisdictions are changing the character of areas east of I-25 from rural, low density to more urban -intense uses. Timnath is considering modifying its I-25 Plan and drastically change the land use character of areas east of I-25. The new Plan would create much higher density of residential uses, and would remove any separator between Timnath and Fort Collins. Timnath is proposing a Growth Management boundary IGA with Larimer County that would encompass the area east of the Prospect/I-25 252 October 16, 2007 interchange. These current plans significantly change the use of the land east of I-25 from the vision created in City Plan. Additional considerations are: (1) will the development of the area be compatible with surrounding uses, will development create any adverse impact on the natural environment and; (2) will the amendment of the Plan lead to a logical and orderly development pattern. Areas north, northeast and east of the subject property are designated for commercial and industrial employment uses which can be higher intensity uses than the E-Employment zone would permit. Any development would go through the development process. The interchange represents a key community gateway and can combine a balance of economic development and open space preservation. Shane Miller, 4325 Mill Creek, asked what "and/or" means in the Land Use Code and how does this rezoning preserve open space. The fact that Timnath is changing its Plan is not a good reason for the City to change its vision of the I-25 corridor. Waido stated the I-25 Subarea Plan discusses maintaining the perception of openness, not necessarily open space. The Plan recognizes the 1-25 corridor will develop and has standards that would maintain low building heights and separation between buildings so the view corridors are maintained. The changes Timnath is considering in its Plan for the area east of 1-25 directly affect the City's Plan for that area and the City needs to reexamine what it is planning for the area. Councilmember Manvel asked if the purpose was to preserve the viewshed with limited commercial development and to keep an open -feeling space but not keeping the land as actually open space to be used by citizens for hiking and bird watching. Waido stated that purpose was what the Land Use Code was designed to protect. City Attorney Roy stated, according to the Code, "and" indicates all connected words or provisions apply. "And/or" indicates the connected words may apply singly or in any combination. "Either/or" indicates the connected words or provisions apply singly but not in combination. Councilmember Roy asked if the I-25 Subarea Plan had become null and void. Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director, stated the Plan has been adopted and is part of the Comprehensive Plan and used to make land use decisions. The Northern Colorado 1-25 Corridor Plan was originally eight jurisdictions that joined together to look at the 27-mile stretch of I-25 from Berthoud to north of Fort Collins. It was adopted by all jurisdictions, except Weld County and Johnstown. A MOU was adopted by the six jurisdictions that had adopted the Plan to continue to participate and there is an I-25 Policy Committee that meets quarterly to consider implementation of the Plan. Councilmember Roy requested a map of the I-25 Corridor Plan area from when it was adopted and what has occurred since adoption, including any known future plans. He asked what was the relative value was of open lands in the 1-25 corridor. John Stokes, Natural Resources Director, stated the 143 acres under consideration was acquired by the Natural Areas Program in 2003 for open space purposes. When the land was acquired, it was not in any plans the Natural Areas Program had for open space or conservation. A year ago, Natural Resources asked Council for direction regarding the property. One option was to rehabilitate the property and replant it in native vegetation or to 253 October 16, 2007 develop a build -out plan for the property. Council was comfortable with the development option, using the Land Use Code standards. Currently, the property is a cornfield and is not an area that fits into the Natural Areas system. Portions of the property are not involved in the proposed rezoning that do fit into the Natural Areas system. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution 2007-097. Councilmember Roy stated Fort Collins had a continuing responsibility to determine how best to improve the I-25 interchanges and fund those improvements. Opportunities must be created locally to fund improvements which are extremely costly. Mayor Hutchinson asked if Council should consider the future expense ofinterchange improvements as part of the criteria in making its decision. City Attorney Roy stated the basic criteria for Council's decision was that the rezoning had to either be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and/or warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood. An additional consideration is whether, and the extent to which, the amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses and is the appropriate zone district. Another consideration is whether, and the extent to which, the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. A third consideration is whether, and the extent to which, the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. Potential expenditures for infrastructures do not fit into those considerations. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Poppaw, and Roy. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt the revised version of Resolution 2007-099. Councilmember Manvel asked if the revised version of the Resolution removes some changes that were originally proposed by staff. City Attorney Roy stated the original version of the Resolution contained two reasons that supported the change to the I-25 Subarea Plan for the northeast corner of I-25/Prospect and the revised version only contains reasons to support changes for the southwest corner of the interchange. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Poppaw, and Roy. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance No. 126, 2007 on First Reading. Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Poppaw, and Roy. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. 254 October 16, 2007 Ordinance No. 128, 2007, Authorizing the Conveyance of 143 Acres of Land to Colorado State University Research Foundation in Exchange for 267 Acres of Land Adjacent to Reservoir Ridge Natural Area, Adopted on First Reading. The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "FINANCIAL IMPACT The value of each of the exchange properties has been determined to be $4 million respectively. Both parties have made adjustments to the size of the exchange properties and negotiated various provisions in order to arrive at an equal exchange value. In addition to the exchange transaction, the City will obtain an option to buy 27 acres from CSURF for $405, 000. There also will be an internal transfer of funds from the Natural Areas Program in the amount of $2,000,000 to the general fund to compensate the general fund for 25 of the 143-acre City -owned exchange parcel. Thus, the net cash investment of new Natural Area Program funds for the exchange and the acquisition will be $2,450,000. Of the 143-acre City -owned exchange parcel, 118 acres were acquired by the Natural Areas Program in 2003 for $12,317per acre, or $1,453,509. Thus, the total investment by Natural Areas in the 143-acre exchange parcel is $3, 453, 509 ($2, 000, 000 for the 25-acre general fund parcel, and $1,453,509 for the 118-acre parcel). This $3,453,509 investment will traded for the 267-acre CSURF exchange parcel valued at $4, 000, 000. The City's Natural Areas Program will own/manage all of the property acquired from Colorado State University. Ongoing management costs for the 267 acres (and the 27 acres) are expected to be fairly low ($35,000 annually), since the City already manages much of the surrounding land. In the future there could be modest capital costs associated with constructing a trail and a small bridge to cross an irrigation canal. All costs for managing and/or improving the land will be born by the City's dedicated Natural Areas funds. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The adoption of this Ordinance will authorize a land exchange between the City of Fort Collins and the Colorado State University Research Foundation (CSURF). The proposed exchange consists of the City trading 143-acres of City -owned land at the southwest corner of I-25 and Prospect (a portion oftheformer Resource Recovery Farm) for 267-acres ofstate-owned land on Colorado State University's foothills campus. The exchange land currently owned by the City would become a gateway for Colorado State University into the City, and ultimately would include research, development, educational, and light manufacturingfacilities. The exchange land currently owned by Colorado State University would become part of the Reservoir Ridge Natural Area, which is owned/managed by the City's Natural Areas Program. In addition to the exchange, the City would acquire an option to purchase an additional 27 acres from CSURF that is adjacent to the CSURF exchange property and Reservoir Ridge. 255 October 16, 2007 BACKGROUND For the past year, the City and Colorado State University (CSU) have been discussing various concepts related to land conservation as well as CSU's desire to have a significant gateway presence on the I-25 corridor. Those conversations recently crystallized as it became apparent to both parties that significant, advantageous arrangements could be made that would greatly benefit both parties. The 143-acre City -owned exchange property at the southwest corner of I-25 and Prospect (known as the Resource Recovery Farm) has been owned by the City since around 1980. It originally was acquired for use as a bio-solids land -application site for the Wastewater Utility. The property's original size was 325 acres; over time much of that land was acquired by the City's Natural Areas Program to become part of Running Deer Natural Area. The most recent acquisition was in 2003, when 151 acres were acquired by the Natural Areas Program at the direction of City Council to protect open space along I-25. Of those 151 acres, 118 acres are proposed to be part of the land trade with CSU. The remaining 33 acres would be retained by the Natural Areas Program to protect Boxelder Creek and the Poudre River corridors. An additional 25 acres that is held by the general fund of the City at the corner of7--25 and Prospect would bring the total amount of the trade parcel to 143 acres. (See attached map) In the proposed transaction with CSURF, the 143-acre trade parcel is described as two pieces, the 25 acres at the corner ofI-25 and Prospect and the additional 118-acres to the south. The 25 acres would be conveyed to CSURF subject to all applicable zoning and development regulations. The 118 acres also would be conveyedsubject to all applicable zoning and development regulations with the additional proviso that forty percent (40%) of the 118 acres would be required to be "outdoor spaces. " Outdoor spaces are defined to be landscaped orpark areas, native vegetation areas, water features, paths, or trails, but no other paved or surfaced areas. In addition to this requirement, the outdoorspaces are not allowed to be aggregated in a single contiguous area and must be distributed throughout the 118-acre parcel. The intention of these provisions is to continue to provide a relatively "transparent " built environment at the site, so that good views are maintained from I-25 to the west. CSU's intention in acquiring the 143-acre property is several fold: (1) to establish a gateway presence on I-25 that will lead visitors to CSUto the main campus by way of Prospect; (2) to create a research and development "campus -like "facility primarily focused on green technologies; and (3) to provide a location in partnership to a major start-up company with plans to begin manufacturing solar panels as soon as 2008. The start-up company developed its technology at CSU and intends to have as many as 300 employees within a year. The 267-acre CSURF-owned property that would be conveyed to the City is land that has traditionally been utilized by CSUforgrazing and animal husbandry. The east and west boundaries of the property adjoin existing natural areas. The south boundary adjoins other CSU lands; the north boundary adjoins City -owned natural area as well as the 2 7-acreparcel held by CSURF that will be optioned for purchase by the Natural Area Program (see attached map) for Four Hundred and Five Thousand Dollars ($405, 000). When the 267-acre and 27-acre parcel are combined with existing natural areas, the total contiguous conserved area will be 748 acres, one ofthe largest local 256 October 16, 2007 natural areas. The conserved area will stretch from the top of the first major foothill west of town to Overland Trail Road. In addition to habitat contiguity, conservation values include wetlands, shortgrass prairie, and prairie dog colonies. Scenically, this area will be one of the few, if not the only place in north Fort Collins, where an unobstructed vista to the foothills is preserved. In addition to the conservation values, the area will provide trail connection opportunities from Overland Trail to the foothills and contributes to a longer -term plan to connect this area by trail to the Poudre River. Moreover, the protected area will surround and be adjacent to the Primrose Studio. The Primrose Studio, along with land, was donated to the City of Fort Collins NaturalAreas Program by Rob and Mary Udall with the stipulation that the art studio be made available to the public for classes and meetings related to conservation. Primrose Studio is planned to be open November 18th. " Councilmember Troxell withdrew from the discussion ofFirstReading of Ordinance No. 128, 2007 Authorizing the Conveyance of 143 Acres of Land To Colorado State University Research Foundation In Exchange for 267 Acres of Land Adjacent to Reservoir Ridge Natural Area due to a conflict of interest. John Stokes, Natural Resources Director, thanked CSU and the Colorado State University Research Foundation (CSURF) for working together with the Natural Areas Program to create this project that was of mutual benefit to both organizations. The property was formerly known as the Resource Recovery Farm and is different from other properties in the Natural Areas system. The property was acquired to help preserve the viewshed from I-25 and is located on the southwest corner of I-25 and East Propect. The property owned by CSURF is 267 acres located on Colorado State University's foothills campus. An additional 27-acre tract located next to the property will be optioned for purchase from CSURF. A land trade is proposed between the City and CSURF. 143 acres of land in the Natural Areas system will be traded for 267 acres owned by CSURF. The two parcels are valued at $4 million each. Two outside appraisers have placed this value on the properties. The additional 27-acre tract to be optioned would be bought for $15,000 per acre, which is the same price per acre as the two properties being traded. The property can be bought any time over the next three years at the discretion of the Natural Areas Program. The 143-acre tract is in two pieces. The General Fund owns 25 acres and the Natural Areas Program owns 118 acres. Natural Areas would acquire the 25-acre tract from the General Fund for $2 million and then the 25 acre tract would be conveyed as part of the land exchange with all development rights intact. The 118-acre tract was acquired in 2003 for $1.4 million as part of a 151-acre acquisition. Natural Areas would retain 33 acres that would not be conveyed in the land exchange. The 33 acres is located on the south end of the property, near the Poudre River and on the west side, near Boxelder Creek and those areas do fit into the Natural Areas Program. The 1 I8-acre parcel conveyed is subject to a 40% development restriction, which means 40% is required to be outdoor spaces such as landscape, park areas, native vegetation, water features, paths or trails, but no other paved or surface area. The outdoor spaces must be distributed throughout the 118-acre parcel. The purpose is to promote a campus -like development that would be aesthetically pleasing. This restriction would be in addition to the I-25 Subarea Plan development regulations and zoning requirements. CSU has been supportive of this restriction throughout negotiations. 257 October 16, 2007 One issue that has been raised is the need to raise funds for improvements at the I-25/Prospect interchange. Having a taxable entity own the 143-acre parcel would be beneficial in this regard. The parcel will be held by CSU, a taxable entity and would be part of any special district that might be formed in the future to pay for improvements. The City will retain a "right of first refusal" on the 143-acre parcel to ensure it will not be conveyed to a tax-exempt entity. The total investment by the Natural Areas Program is $3.5 million and it is proposed to be traded for 267 acres that has been valued at $4 million. The land the City will receive will create a premiere natural area on the northwest side of town. At the corner of I-25 and Prospect, an academic and business hub devoted to sustainable technology will be created by CSU, along with the potential location of a solar manufacturing company that could provide over 300 new jobs. Reservoir Ridge Natural Area is adjacent to the 267-acre parcel that would be acquired in the land exchange. When the 267-acre parcel and the 27-acre parcel are acquired, an area of 748 acres of natural area will be created and would connect from Horsetooth to Overland Trail. It has great habitat values and opportunities for trail connection. It surrounds Primrose Studio, located at Claymore Lake. Primrose Studio, an art studio, was donated to the Natural Areas Program by Rob and Mary Udall with the stipulation that the art studio would be restored and made available to the public for art and nature classes. The remodel is almost complete and the building will be opened to the public on November 18. Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, stated the zoning change that just occurred for the parcel of land located at the southwest corner of I-25 and Prospect created a much higher value for the property and he did not think the land exchange was a good deal for the City. Instead, the property should be sold to the highest bidder to provide funds for the City. Shane Miller, 4325 Mill Creek, asked if the 40% development restriction that was put on the I- 25/Prospect parcel was subject to any waivers in mitigation during the development process. He asked how the property would be valued if the City chose to exercise the "right of first refusal", should CSU want to sell the property. He asked what the time frame was to exercise the option to buy the 27-acre parcel from CSURF and how would the property be valued. Mayor Hutchinson noted the City is not trying to sell the land and make money. This is a proposal to swap land of equal value and would provide great benefit to the public in terms of usable open space. The City's interest has been carefully preserved. Stokes stated the development restriction on the I-25/Prospect parcel is included in the deed and cannot be waived or changed and runs in perpetuity. If the City decided to exercise its right of first refusal, then the property would be valued at fair market value at the time of the sale. Carrie Daggett, Assistant City Attorney, stated the deed restriction bases the right of first refusal on the owner having received a legitimate offer to purchase the property. It is based on the offer on the table at the time. The development restrictions contained in the deed adds another layer of restriction and does not eliminate the regulatory restrictions that apply. 258 October 16, 2007 Councilmember Roy asked if the 33 acres that Natural Areas is keeping could be exchanged for the 27 acres CSURF currently owns and that the City has an option to buy. He wondered if a conservation easement could be placed on the 33 acres to protect the habitat, yet let CSU still use the land. Stokes stated the 27-acre parcel is held in a trust and was donated to CSU by the Udall family. CSU needs to receive cash compensation so the trust can be funded. Kathleen Henry, President of CSURF, stated the gift agreement between the Udall family and CSU states that if the property is sold, the proceeds are to be used to fund an endowment to support the College of Natural Resources. CSU must have cash to meet the provisions of the agreement. Councilmember Roy asked for the value of the 27-acre parcel. Stokes stated it was valued at $405,000, using the same price per acre that was used to value the two parcels involved in the land exchange. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance No. 128, 2007 on First Reading. Councilmember Manvel stated the exchange was an exciting prospect and noted that while the City was losing some open space next to I-25, the 33 acres that was retained by Natural Areas is located next to Running Deer Natural Area. The large area created in the foothills will be a great resource for recreation uses that are not possible on the property located at I-25 and Prospect. Mayor Hutchinson stated staff had been very careful to ensure this exchange was beneficial to the City and was valued appropriately. The exchange offers a great benefit to the public. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Poppaw, and Roy. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Councilmember Brown stated a Fort Collins family, Jerry and Margaret Walsh, lost their son, Sergeant Nick Walsh, in the war in Iraq. Fort Collins has a tradition of naming streets after those who have distinguished themselves through service or sacrifice for their community and country. He made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to add the name of Sergeant Nick Walsh to the list of possible names for future streets in Fort Collins. Councilmember Manvel asked if the name was to be "Sergeant Nick Walsh," "Nick Walsh," "Nicholas Walsh," "Walsh," or any combination. Councilmember Brown stated any combination of the name would be acceptable. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. 259 October 16, 2007 Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adjourn the Council meeting and to reconvene after the meetings of the General Improvement District No. 1 and the Urban Renewal Authority are completed. Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. (**Secretary's Note: The Council adjourned at 9:45 p.m. and reconvened at 9:55 p.m. following the meetings of the General Improvement District No. 1 and Urban Renewal Authority) Executive Sessions Authorized Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, for Council to go into Executive Session, as permitted under Section 2-31(a)(2) ofthe City Code for the purpose ofineeting with attorneys of the City regarding pending litigation and other legal matters. Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. (**Secretary's Note: The Council adjourned into Executive Session at 9:55 p.m. and reconvened following the Executive Session at 10:40 p.m.) Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to go back into Executive Session, as permitted under Sections 2-31(a)(2) and (3) of the City Code for the purpose of meeting with attorneys of the City regarding pending litigation and other legal matters and for the additional purpose of considering a possible real property acquisition. Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. (**Secretary's Note: The Council adjourned into Executive Session at 10:40 p.m. and reconvened following the Executive Session at 11:10 p.m.) Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. l Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk , *�4 260