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is difficult to understand and should be repealed.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