HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-12/05/2006-RegularDecember 5, 2006
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, December 5,
2006, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and
Weitkunat.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Mayor Hutchinson stated that Council had decided at a retreat to allow public comments on Consent
Calendar items during Citizen Participation.
Gina Heath, Ridgewood Hills resident, commented regarding Consent Calendar item #7 Second
Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2006 Authorizing the Conveyance of Nonexclusive Easement
Interests for the Construction ofa Platte River Power Authority ("Platte River') Transmission Line
Across Collna Mariposa Natural Area adjacent to Shields Street and expressed appreciation for the
action taken to preserve open space.
Ray Schultz, 625 Holyoke Court, commented regarding Consent Calendar item #7 and thanked the
Council for voting to keep the area as natural as possible.
Mike Farrell, 516 Ramah Drive, president of the Ridgewood Hills HOA, spoke regarding Consent
Calendar item #7 and thanked the Council for listening to its constituents about the power line.
David Broad, address not stated, commented regarding Consent Calendar item #7 and thanked the
Council for its efforts regarding undergrounding of the power line.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Mayor Hutchinson stated that the management of PRPA deserved thanks for cooperating with the
City to work on the undergrounding of the power line.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated that item #10 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 187, 2006,
Designating 133-137 South College Avenue (the North Half of the Colorado Building) as a Local
Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 ofthe City Code had been revised to include all of the addresses
assigned to the building and property. He stated that there was no need to pull the item from the
39
December S, 2006
Consent Calendar to adopt the revised Ordinance. He also stated that item #22 Resolution 2006-119
Adopting the City's 2007Legislative Policy Agenda would be moved to the Discussion Agenda and
suggested that it be the first discussion item.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the September 19, 2006 Regular Meeting
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2006 Authorizing the Conveyance of Nonexclusive
Easement Interests for the Construction of a Platte River Power Authority ("Platte River")
Transmission Line Across Colina Mariposa Natural Area adjacent to Shields Street.
Platte River had requested a 75-foot wide non-exclusive easement for an overhead 230kV
transmission line across Colina Mariposa Natural Area. City Council approved the easement
on First Reading on September 19, 2006. On October 3, 2006, Council denied the easement
on Second Reading and requested that PRPA consider constructing the transmission line
underground to meet the Natural Areas Easement Policy, which does not allow overhead
power lines to be built across natural areas. Platte River has agreed to place the transmission
line underground and is now requesting a 25-foot wide non-exclusive permanent easement
and a 35-foot wide temporary construction easement for constructing an underground 230kV
transmission line across Colina Mariposa Natural Area along the east side of Shields Street
south of Trilby Road and adjacent to the 25-foot wide permanent easement. Platte River has
agreed to compensate the City approximately $26,000 for the permanent easement, $6,000
for the temporary easement and $17,000 in restoration fees, for a total of approximately
$49,000. The final compensation values will be determined once the final alignment is
determined.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 182, 2006, Authorizing and Approving the Issuance and
Sale of Not to Exceed $20,000,000 Pollution Control Refunding Revenue Bonds
(Anheuser-Busch Project) Series 2006 of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. to Refund
Certain Bonds of the City of Fort Collins. Colorado. Issued to Refinance Certain Water
Pollution Control Facilities, Sewage Facilities and Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: the
Execution and Delivery of an Indenture of Trust to Secure Said Bonds: the Execution and
Delivery of a Loan Agreement Between Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. and the City of
Fort Collins. Colorado Providing for the Repayment of the Loan of the Proceeds of Said
Bonds, the Execution and Delivery of a Tax Regulatory Agreement, Bond Purchase
Agreement, Official Statement and Said Bonds in Connection Therewith: and Providing for
Certain Other Matters in Connection with the Delivery of the Bonds.
In 1984, the City issued $35,000,000 of pollution control revenue bonds for the Anheuser-
Busch Companies, Inc. (the "Company"). In 1986, the bonds were reissued in the amount
of $20,000,000. The 1986 bonds were called at their first call date of September 4, 1996.
The bonds were used to finance the costs of acquiring, constructing, installing and equipping
pollution control facilities, sewage facilities, and solid waste disposal facilities to be owned
ELl
December 5, 2006
by the Company or one of its subsidiary companies. Because of the change in interest rates,
the Company would like to refinance the outstanding bonds to attain debt service savings.
The 1996 bonds carry an interest rate of 6.00%. The refinanced rate of interest is expected
to be approximately 5.50%. The proposed refinancing will extend the maturity of the bonds
from 2036 to 2046. Ordinance No. 182, 2006, authorizing and approving the issuance and
sale of the bonds, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 7, 2006.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 186, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund - Inspiration Playground Capital Project to Be Used for Design and
Construction of a Fully Accessible Playground for All Children at Spring Canyon
Community
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 21, 2006, appropriates
funds to construct a totally accessible playground for children of all abilities at Spring
Canyon Community Park.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 187, 2006, Desi ug ating 133-137 South College Avenue
(the North Half of the Colorado Building) as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of
the City Code.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 21, 2006, designates
the North half of the Colorado Building, 133-137 South College Avenue, as a local
landmark. The owner of the property, Ida Siegel, through her son Ed Siegel, as attomey-in-
fact, is initiating this request.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 188, 2006, Authorizing the Acceptance of a Donation of
.901 Acres of Real Property from Calvin C. and Lois Johnson and Appropriating
Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Project Fund — Timberline Road Widening Project
305-23270.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 21, 2006, authorizes
the acceptance of a donation of property located just south of Spring Creek on the westerly
side of Timberline Road, owned by Calvin and Lois Johnson. This donation is part of an
agreement negotiated by City staff to complete the Timberline Road Widening Project.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 190, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Recreation Fund to Be Used for the Purpose of Improving Youth Football Operations and
Increasing Awareness And Interest in the Sport.
The Recreation Division was awarded a three-year National Recreation and Park Association
(NRPA) Grant in the amount of $150,000 over three years. The Recreation Division will
receive $50,000/year to be used for staffing a full-time youth football Coordinator. NRPA,
as part of its grant agreement with USA Football, has received funds to be sub -awarded to
five community organizations for the purpose of improving youth football operations and
41
December 5, 2006
increasing awareness and interest in the sport. Fort Collins was selected as one of the five
Hubs. This Ordinance appropriates the funding from NRPA for this sub -grant.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 191, 2006, Amending Chanter 23, Article IX of the City
Code to Allow More Site -Specific Regulation of Certain Activities in Natural Areas.
TheNatural Areas Program will officially begin managing Gateway Park on January 1, 2007.
Two minor City Code changes are proposed to facilitate the transfer.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 193, 2006, Amending Section 15-327 of the City Code
Pertaining to Secondhand Dealers and Flea Market Vendor Requirements.
Council recently adopted amendments to the Secondhand Dealer Ordinance as part of the
Southwest Enclave Annexation. Section 15-318(f) requires flea market operators to keep a
record of each vendor renting a booth in the flea market, including name, address, date of
birth and driver's license or other identifying number. Section 15-327 requires vendors to
provide that information; however the specific mention of date of birth was inadvertently
omitted. This amendment changes the language to ensure that the provisions contained in
Sections 15-318(f) and 15-327 are consistent.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 194, 2006, Approving Revised Electric Service Rules and
Regulations.
The current Electric Service Rules and Regulations were last revised in 2002. Since that
time, the section of this document governing the installation and operation of distributed
electrical generation at a customer's facilities has become obsolete. A growing interest in
photovoltaic systems and alternative fuel generation has made it necessary to update the
Electric Service Rules and Regulations to better accommodate these types of installations.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 195, 2006, Adopting the 2007 Classified Employees Pay
Plan.
The Pay Plan continues the current practice of setting City pay range maximums at the
market 70th percentile. Data from the public and private sectors was used to determine the
prevailing market rates for approximately 100 benchmark jobs. This Ordinance sets salary
ranges, not specific salaries of individual employees.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 196, 2006, Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a
Second Amendment to the Long -Term Lease for Civic Center Village Adjacent to the Civic
Center Parking Structure.
Staff is proposing to amend the Civic Center Village Ground Lease to clarify various
maintenance responsibilities, and to provide two reserved parking spaces in the Civic Center
Parking Structure for the Civic Center Village leaseholder. This amendment is needed to
42
December 5, 2006
clarify the maintenance requirements of the lease, to enhance the business partnership
between the leaseholder and the City, and to ensure an ongoing business relationship.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No.197, 2006, Designating the Jefferson Lindenmeier House and
Garage, 511 South Whitcomb Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of
the City Code.
The owner of the property, Sondra Carson, is initiating this request for Fort Collins
Landmark designation for the Jefferson Lindenmeier House and Garage, 511 South
Whitcomb Street. Constructed in 1925 by the Lindenmeier Brothers, the exceptional historic
residence, with rare matching historic garage, are notable examples of Prairie Style
architecture with Bungalow elements. The buildings embody the distinctive characteristics
of a type, period, and method of construction, and, further, possess high artistic values, and
qualify for designation under Landmark Standard 3.
19. Resolution 2006-122 Approving Expenditures From the Art in Public Places Reserve
Account in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund to Commission an Artist to Create
Gateway Art Elements for the East Prospect Road Project.
This Resolution approves expenditures of $46,044 for design, materials, travel, installation
and contingency for a project with the artist team from May & Watkins Design, LLC, to
create multiple elements for the East Prospect Road Project.
20. Resolution 2006-123 AWroving the County Assessor's Current Methodology for Calculating
Tax Increment.
Adoption of this Resolution formally recognizes the methodology being applied by the
Larimer County Assessor's Office to the North College Urban Renewal Plan Area.
21. Resolution 2006-124 Amending Resolutions 2000-123 and 2001-018 to Revise the Process
for City Council Evaluations of the Performance of the City Manager, City Attomev and
Municipal Judge.
This Resolution consolidates and amends two previous Resolutions that established aprocess
for conducting the annual performance reviews of Council's three direct employees.
22. Resolution 2006-119 Adoptingthe he City's 2007 Legislative Policy Agenda.
Each year the Legislative Review Committee (LRC) develops a legislative agenda to assist
in the analysis of pending legislation. The proposed 2007 Legislative Policy Agenda has
been updated from the 2006 document and was reviewed and approved by the Legislative
Review Committee. This document will be used as a guide for the upcoming 2006 General
Assembly and the first session of the 110th Congress. The purpose of the Legislative Policy
Agenda is to articulate the City's position on common legislative topics. It will be applied
43
December S, 2006
by Council members and staff to determine positions on pending legislation and as a general
reference for state legislators and our congressional delegation.
23. Resolution 2006-125 Establishing Fees Charged by the Fort Collins Police Services for
Evidence Viewing.
These fees are being established due, in part, to a significant increase in requests for property
and evidence viewing and copying by non -law enforcement agency personnel.
C.R.S. Section 24-72-306(1) authorizes Fort Collins Police Services to assess reasonable fees
for the actual costs it incurs, including its personnel and equipments costs, to search, retrieve
and copy criminal justice records for public inspection. This statute also requires that such
fees be approved by the City Council.
The cost of equipment and personnel to provide copies of digital recordings, color
photographs and other documentary materials held in Evidence has not previously been
included in calculating established fees. The proposed amendment to the FCPS' Criminal
Justice Records Fee Schedule will allow for the copying of documents held in Evidence, as
well as the collection of fees for the search, retrieval, copying and viewing of criminal justice
records retained in the Property and Evidence Unit.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2006 Authorizing the Conveyance of Nonexclusive
Easement Interests for the Construction of a Platte River Power Authority ("Platte River")
Transmission Line Across Colina Mariposa Natural Area adjacent to Shields Street.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 182, 2006, Authorizing and Approving the Issuance and
Sale of Not to Exceed $20,000,000 Pollution Control Refunding Revenue Bonds
(Anheuser-Busch Project) Series 2006 of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, to Refund
Certain Bonds of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Issued to Refinance Certain Water
Pollution Control Facilities, Sewage Facilities and Solid Waste Disposal Facilities; the
Execution and Delivery of an Indenture of Trust to Secure Said Bonds; the Execution and
Delivery of a Loan Agreement Between Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. and the City of
Fort Collins, Colorado Providing for the Repayment of the Loan of the Proceeds of Said
Bonds; the Execution and Delivery of a Tax Regulatory Agreement, Bond Purchase
Agreement, Official Statement and Said Bonds in Connection Therewith; and Providing for
Certain Other Matters in Connection with the Delivery of the Bonds.
44
December 5, 2006
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 186, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund - Inspiration Playground Capital Project to Be Used for Design and
Construction of a Fully Accessible Playground for All Children at Spring Canyon
Community Park.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 187, 2006, Designating 133-137 South College Avenue
(the North Half of the Colorado Building) as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of
the City Code.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 188, 2006, Authorizing the Acceptance of a Donation of
.901 Acres of Real Property from Calvin C. and Lois Johnson and Appropriating
Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Project Fund — Timberline Road Widening Project
305-23270.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 190, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Recreation Fund to Be Used for the Purpose of Improving Youth Football Operations and
Increasing Awareness And Interest in the Sport.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 191, 2006, Amending Chapter 23, Article IX of the City
Code to Allow More Site -Specific Regulation of Certain Activities in Natural Areas.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 193, 2006, Amending Section 15-327 of the City Code
Pertaining to Secondhand Dealers and Flea Market Vendor Requirements.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 194, 2006, Approving Revised Electric Service Rules and
Regulations.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 195, 2006, Adopting the 2007 Classified Employees Pay
Plan.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 196, 2006, Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a
Second Amendment to the Long -Term Lease for Civic Center Village Adjacent to the Civic
Center Parking Structure.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 197, 2006, Designating the Jefferson Lindenmeier House and
Garage, 511 South Whitcomb Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of
the City Code.
27. First Reading of Ordinance No. 198, 2006, Amending the City Code for the Purpose of
Decriminalizing Certain Code Violations by Creating a Civil Infraction Classification and
Procedures for Violations Thereof.
ER
December 5, 2006
28. Items Relating to Recreational Vehicle (RV) Storage and Parking.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 199, 2006, Amending Sections 17-181 and 17-182
of the City Code Regarding Camping.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 200, 2006, Amending Sections 1213 and 1214 of the
Traffic Code Relating to Parking.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 201, 2006, Amending Sections 20-104, 20-105 and
20-106 of the City Code Pertaining to Parking.
29. First Reading of Ordinance No. 192, 2006, Making Various Amendments to the City of Fort
Collins Land Use Code.
31. First Reading of Ordinance No. 202, 2006, Amending Section 2-606 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the Municipal Judge.
32. First Reading of Ordinance No. 203, 2006, Amending Section 2-581 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the City Attorney.
33. First Reading of Ordinance No. 204, 2006, Amending Section 2-596 of the Code of the City
of Fort Collins and Setting the Salary of the City Manager.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to adopt and
approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown,
Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Consent Calendar Follow-up
Councilmember Ohlson spoke regarding item #7 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2006
Authorizing the Conveyance of Nonexclusive Easement Interests for the Construction of a Platte
River Power Authority ("Platte River') Transmission Line Across Colina Mariposa Natural Area
adjacent to Shields Street and thanked PRPA for its cooperation. He suggested that the "full force
of the organization" do the "fullest analysis possible" regarding the remaining lines that would go
through natural areas to determine whether overhead or underground lines would do the "least
damage." He stated that it might be necessary to grant new easements to "minimize the impact" of
85 foot poles. He asked for Council support for his suggestion.
Councilmember Manvel agreed with Councilmember Ohlson's suggestion and expressed
appreciation for PRPA's cooperation on this issue.
m
December 5, 2006
Councilmember Kastein stated it was good to hear thanks from citizens regarding Council's action.
He expressed a concern that undergrounding power lines was expensive and noted this decision
made sense because the cost could be "distributed widely" to minimize the impact to ratepayers. The
cost for undergrounding other power lines on natural areas was an unknown. He would support
having staff look into those costs and bring back data to the Council. He was not ready to put the
"full strength of the organization" behind stopping power lines. He also commented regarding item
#12 First Reading of Ordinance No. 190, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Recreation Fund to Be Used for the Purpose of Improving Youth Football Operations and
Increasing Awareness And Interest in the Sport and thanked the staff for working to win the grant.
Councilmember Manvel spoke regarding item #15 First Reading of Ordinance No. 194, 2006,
Approving Revised Electric Service Rules and Regulations and noted citizens would now find it
easier to generate their own power with wind or solar.
Resolution 2006-119
Adopting the City's 2007 Legislative Policy Agenda, Adopted
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Each year the Legislative Review Committee (LRC) develops a legislative agenda to assist in the
analysis of pending legislation. The proposed 2007 Legislative Policy Agenda has been updated
from the 2006 document and was reviewed and approved by the Legislative Review Committee. This
document will be used as a guide for the upcoming 2006 General Assembly and the first session of
the 110th Congress. Thepurpose ofthe Legislative Policy Agenda is to articulate the City'sposition
on common legislative topics. It will be applied by Council members andstaffto determinepositions
on pending legislation and as a general reference for state legislators and our congressional
delegation.
BACKGROUND
SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY AGENDA
Policy statement additions, deletions and amendments to the 2005 Legislative Policy Agenda are
highlighted in italics:
AIR QUALITY, page 6, addition to list of objectives:
The City's adopted objective air quality objectives include:
reduce total vehicle emissions, by focusing on technology (e.g., tailpipe
emissions) and behavior (e.g., driving patterns)
47
December S, 2006
reduce high priority pollutants (ozone, fine particles, mobile source
hazardous air pollutants and greenhouse gases)
reduce greenhouse gas emissions 30% below projected 2010 levels by 2010
reduce commercial and industrial emissions in the Fort Collins area
reduce wood smoke emissions in the Fort Collins area and reduce the
number of non -certified wood stoves and conventional fireplaces
This wording updates the policy agenda to reflect City air quality policy.
AIR QUALITY, page 6, revise statement #4:
"Support legislation and regulations that make tailpipe standards more stringent;
that establish equal standards for cars, light trucks and sport utility vehicles; thatset
fuel neutral standards for gasoline and diesel that decrease sulfur content offuels;
nwd-that promote advanced low emission vehicle technology, and that provides
incentives for alternative fuels such as biodiesel, cellulosic ethanol and compressed
natural gas. "
This statement expands the previous list to reflect the changing marketplace of alternative
fuels.
AIR QUALITY, page 7, addition of statement #6:
"Support legislation and regulations that reduce vehicle emissions by reducing
unnecessary idling of vehicles. "
An additional statement was added in light of the pending state legislation to reduce the
amount of train trips through Fort Collins. Air quality would benefit from the associated
reduction in vehicle idling.
AIR QUALITY, page 7, revise statement #8:
"Support legislation and regulations thatprovide incentives to encourage renewable
energy productions, including wind power, and provide for "State Implementation
Plan " credits for renewable energy (excluding residential wood burning and corn -
based ethanol) and energy efficiency. "
This revision adds support for State Implementation Plan credits for energy efficiency and
renewable energy. The Air Quality Control Commission will consider this issue in 2007.
Fort Collins could benefit from formal recognition of energy efficiency and renewable
energy efforts in State Implementation Plans if we were to be designated non -attainment for
ozone.
EH
December 5, 2006
AIR QUALITY, page 7, addition of statement #10:
"Support legislation and regulations that provide incentives forgreen building and
sustainable design. "
This adds new language to support incentives for green building and sustainable design.
LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE, page 20, addition of new section:
"The Legislative Review Committee is a representative group of Council members
that reviews and reacts to proposed legislation on behalfofthe City Council and the
City. In taking a position on particular bills, the Committee interprets and applies
the various policies that are included in the Legislative Policy Agenda. If a bill may
fall within two or more policies, then the Committee must decide how to balance
those policies in taking a position. If a bill falls outside of the Legislative Policy
Agenda, the Committee refers the bill to the full Council for consideration before a
position is taken on behalf of the City. "
The Committee believes it is important to clearly spell out the how the Committee will handle
legislation when more than one policy statement may apply and when legislation is not
addressed by an existing policy statement.
POLICE SERVICES, page 25, addition of statement #10:
"Support legislation that regulates the use of cell phones by a motorist while
operating a vehicle. "
This statement was added due to concern over the increased risk of traffic accidents due to
distractions caused by cell phone use.
RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE, page 26, addition of wording to statement #I
"Support integrated waste management planning for the state and for local and
regional communities. "
Additional wording was added to broaden the scale for waste management planning.
RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE, page 27, revise wording to Statement #3:
"Support "buy recycled" or "environmentally preferable purchasing" policiesfor
government agencies' procurement. "
SJO
December 5, 2006
This revision is to broaden the support for recycled products to include environmentally
preferable purchasing.
RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE, page 27, addition of wording to statement #5:
"Support legislation that clarifies and broadens the regulatory authority of local
government to ensure the efficient collection and processing ofrecyclable material
and solid waste. "
RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE, page 27, revise wording to statement #7:
"Support increased involvement by the State to collect and monitor data on trash
volumes, rates of diversion from landfill disposal and economic impacts of
recycling. "
RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE, page 27, addition of wording to statement #11:
"Support consideration ofcertain waste restrictions in Colorado landfills, e.g., bans
on electronic waste, organic materials and "white goods ". "
This wording addresses growing issue ofproper disposal ofelectronic waste which includes
such items as computers, televisions and printers.
RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE, page 27, revise wording to statement #12:
"Support legislation to require greaterproducer responsibility, such as "take back"
regulations that assist consumers to appropriately recycle electronic equipment (e.g.,
computers and televisions)"
This statement addresses the growing issue of proper disposal of electronic waste which
includes such items as computers, televisions and printers.
RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE, page 27, revise wording to statement #13:
"Support legislation that establishes a deposit fee on beverage containers using
unclaimed deposits to fund recycling programs"
The purpose of this revision is to specify that deposit money that remains unclaimed in the
program should be used for recycling programs rather than returned to the general fund.
TRANSPORTATION, page 32, addition of statement #13:
"Support legislation that limits the ability of railroad locomotives, cars and trains
to block street and highway grade crossings. "
December 5, 2006
This statement is to specifically support legislative efforts to address unreasonable blockage
ofgrade crossings by trains. Such legislation maybe introduced at the state level in 2007,
WATER UTILITIES, page 33, addition of statement #7:
"Support legislation that would reasonably allow Colorado water courts to address
water quality concerns while not significantly altering the responsibility of water
courts in protecting water rights against injury. "
The purpose of this statement is to support only legislation that truly deals with water quality
issues involved in the transfer of water rights as opposed to the use of water quality issues
as a tactic to block the legal transfer of water rights. "
City Manager Atteberry recognized the work done by Mayor Hutchinson and Councilmembers
Manvel and Ohlson on the Legislative Review Committee. He stated the staff and the Committee
were recommending approval of this Resolution.
Mark Radtke, Legislative Affairs Coordinator, stated the purpose of the legislative policy agenda was
to provide the staff and Councilmembers with guidelines for taking positions on federal and state
legislation during 2007. If bills surfaced that were not covered by these guidelines, the policy agenda
would come back to the full City Council. High profile items were usually brought back to the
Council by the Legislative Review Committee even if they were covered by the guidelines. Staff,
the appropriate boards and commissions, the City Manager's Office, and the Legislative Review
Committee were involved in formulating the final draft of the legislative policy agenda. Many of
the policies set forth in the legislative policy agenda reflected other policies adopted by the Council
in the past. The "underlying theme" in the legislative policy agenda was keeping local issues local
decisions rather than state or federal decisions.
Councilmember Kastein stated he was not comfortable with some of the legislative policy agenda.
He asked if a different (modified) legislative agenda could be passed at some point if this Resolution
was adopted. Radtke stated the legislative policy agenda could be altered.
Councilmember Kastein noted a breakfast with the legislators was scheduled next week and asked
if the discussion topics would be sent out ahead of time. Radtke replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Hutchinson noted these were guidelines to be used as a "tool" to take positions on legislation.
He asked if it would be possible in the future to have the legislative policy agenda refer via a
footnote or annotation to specific policies (i.e., the air qualitypolicy) that had been formally adopted
by the Council. Radtke stated that could be done.
Councilmember Brown stated he had questions about 16 of the items on the legislative policy agenda
and asked that those issues be discussed at a work session. He asked how soon a work session to
"fine tune" or make changes to the legislative policy could be scheduled if this Resolution was
adopted tonight.
51
December 5, 2006
Mayor Hutchinson stated if work sessions were held to discuss the legislative policy agenda that
would be a change to the process, since the current process was to develop the legislative policy
agenda through a Council committee. He would entertain a discussion about whether the entire
Council wanted to spend work session time on this.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated there had been a Legislative Review Committee for many years
and it was formed to look at the basic agenda and recommend modifications each year. Most of the
legislative policy agenda had been in place for quite some time and it was being "tweaked." The
appropriate place for the process was with the Legislative Review Committee and this was where
concerns from Councilmembers should be discussed. She suggested changes maybe needed relating
to libraries because of the creation of the new library district. The intent was the Committee rather
than the Council as a whole deal with legislation. She supported retaining the current process.
Councilmember Manvel stated it was important that the legislative policy agenda become more
"visible" to the Council before Committee consideration.
Councilmember Ohlson noted he understood that the questions that Councilmembers Brown and
Kastein had about the legislative policy agenda did not relate to the amendments and did relate to
the longstanding "existing boilerplate." He stated if there were questions on the "tweaks" made by
the Committee he would agree there needed to be additional discussion. He believed the questions
should be discussed by the Legislative Review Committee.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the Legislative Review Committee wanted the legislative policy agenda
to reflect the Council's position. He thought it would be helpful to have the document refer to the
Council policies that were the basis for the legislative policy. He understood a majority of the
Council wanted to handle the discussion in ways other than a work session.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Resolution
2006-119.
Councilmember Kastein stated this was a longstanding policy agenda that "migrated from Council
to Council" and there was a "certain amount of institutional wisdom built into that document" as
well as a "certain amount of politics that have been accumulated over the years." It sometimes made
sense to look at the whole agenda again to see if it reflected the Council's beliefs. There were four
areas on which he had some questions and he asked his questions too late in the process. There were
several items he was not "comfortable" with and Councilmember Brown had many questions that
should be looked at. He would support the motion and would like a follow-up by staff and the
Legislative Review Committee on all of the questions he and Councilmember Brown asked.
Mayor Hutchinson stated some of the legislative agenda policy was derived from longstanding,
formally adopted Council policies. Some of those policies may need to be changed and it would be
helpful to know which legislative policy agenda items were based on adopted Council policies.
Councilmember Manvel stated it would be helpful to know which legislative policy agenda items
were policy -based. He suggested the Legislative Review Committee meet soon to look at
52
December 5, 2006
Councilmember Brown's comments. All Councilmembers were welcome to attend the Committee
meetings to provide input.
Councilmember Brown stated he was late getting his points to the Legislative Review Committee.
There were some issues involving "big government, Second Amendment rights and taxation" and
he wanted those issues to be reviewed. For that reason, he would not support the motion.
Councilmember Ohlson asked about expectations for a timetable because the Legislative Review
Committee would be very active in reacting to proposed legislation after the Legislature convened
and the Committee meeting was "booked." City Manager Atteberry stated if the Council adopted
this Resolution, the staff would interpret the decision as direction to "act on behalf of that adopted
agenda." A number of Council committees met regularly and asked the Council to clarify how soon
the Legislative Review Committee should meet to discuss a revised legislative policy agenda.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the discussion of the questions asked by Councilmembers Brown and
Kastein could "whittle down" the agenda items that needed to be reconsidered. The discussion could
also show that some of the legislative policy agenda "reflected a policy this Council "doesn't like."
He asked if the Councilmembers' questions could be answered by the time the Legislature convened
in January. Radtke stated staff could provide a response to the questions quickly.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the legislative policy agenda had been in place for a long time and
many of the questions focused on items that were in the agenda when the legislative policy agenda
was adopted last year. The process needed to be followed to maintain the integrity of the process.
There would be a new Council and another legislative review relating to the policy for the next year
using the same document as the basis. The time to "scrutinize" the legislative policy agenda was
when the new Council took office. Councilmembers had the responsibility to bring issues forward
"mid -stream" rather than at the end of the process. Any "strong" concerns affecting the 2007
legislative agenda could be addressed as individual items.
Mayor Hutchinson stated answering the questions would be the first step.
Councilmember Manvel stated many of the questions may not be relevant to positions the City
would take in the 2007 legislative session. If any of the questions had a bearing on legislation that
might arise, the Legislative Review Committee would consider the fact that there were
Councilmember questions on the matter.
Councilmember Kastein stated he would be interested in seeing the answers to the questions posed
by Councilmember Brown. He had two "lingering issues" he would like answered and may attend
the next Legislative Review Committee meeting to have them addressed. This would determine if
a revision to the legislative policy agenda was needed.
Mayor Hutchinson stated this had been a productive discussion and he was pleased the Council was
interested in the legislative policy agenda.
53
December S, 2006
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel,
Ohlson, Roy and Weidamat. Nays: Councilmember Brown.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 198, 2006,
Amending the City Code for the Purpose of
Decriminalizing Certain Code Violations by Creating a Civil Infraction
Classification and Procedures for Violations Thereof. Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff s memorandum on the item.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
A hearing officer will be necessary for an estimated 10 hours per month to hear any contested civil
citations or abatement assessments. The costs have already been budgeted for the 2007 budget and
will be continued and/or increased in future budgets as necessary.
The amount of increase in administrative costs is unknown; however, these costs will be directly
related to the number of civil citations issued and the number of cases set for hearing. At least some
of the costs will be offset by revenues from fines. In 1007, Neighborhood and Building Services will
attempt to temporarily absorb the increase in administrative costs with existing staff and resources.
By mid-1007, staff should have acquired sufficient cost -revenue data to analyze the necessity for
increased staff and resources.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Currently, all violations of the City Code (except the Occupancy Ordinance and Public Nuisance
Ordinance) are criminal misdemeanors, subject to a penalty of $1,000 and up to 180 days in jail.
Decriminalizing certain additional Code sections will result in more effective enforcement of
violations that adversely affect the livability of City neighborhoods, such as:
• Collection and disposal of refuse and rubbish
• Weeds, outdoor furniture and outdoor storage restrictions, storage of
inoperable motor vehicles and parking on unimproved surfaces
• Sidewalk snow and ice removal and signs in the right-of-way
• Pruning or removing trees or shrubs encroaching streets and sidewalks
54
December 5, 2006
BACKGROUND
Other communities that have made nuisance violations civil have achieved greater compliance and
enforcement of nuisance violations.' The recommended revisions to the City Code, as outlined
below, will change certain violations from criminal misdemeanors to civil infractions. At the work
session on August 22, 2006, Council directed staff to move forward with a civil process for
addressing certain code violations with quarterly reports to be made to Council after the civil
citation process has begun.
Most of the changes necessary to decriminalize portions of the Code are in Chapter 19, relating to
Municipal Court, hearing and citation enforcement procedures. Individual provisions for specific
nuisance violations will also be amended.
The changes are summarized as follows:
Chapter 1 These amendments primarily incorporate and apply penalty and culpability
provisions to civil infractions.
Chapter 19 These revisions add procedures for issuing a civil citation and appearing before a
hearing officer to contest citations or the costs assessed for abatement. In addition,
the proposed amendments clarify procedures for collection and liens provide that,
after two violations in twelve (12) months of any ordinance classified as a civil
infraction, any subsequent violations could be cited as misdemeanors, subject to
criminal penalties.
Chapter 12 These amendments pertain to the collection and disposal of refuse and rubbish.
Chapter 20 These amendments pertain to certain sections dealing with weeds and rubbish,
outdoor furniture restrictions, outdoor storage restrictions, unsheltered storage of
inoperable motor vehicle restrictions, and parking on unimproved surface.
Chapter 24 These amendments pertain to the removal of snow and ice.
Chapter 27 These amendments pertain to the duty ofproperty owners to prune or remove trees
or shrubs that are encroaching on the right-of-way.
Civil citations will require the property owner or tenant to correct the violation, while also assessing
a f ne for the violation. Fines will increase with repeat violations, creating a financial incentive for
property owners to avoid further nuisance violations. This system ofprogressive penalties provides
'The City and County of Denver reported an increase in compliance rates of 65% since
instituting the civil citation process in 2004. In addition, over $320, 000 in fines has been collected
after issuing 2,168 civil citations between June 2004 and December 2005 (with $900, 000 still owed
to them in the form of property liens).
55
December 5, 2006
an immediate fine, while concurrently discouraging repeat nuisance violations and encouraging
continued compliance.
The amount of the fine is set by the Municipal Judge. Staff recommends the fines for all civil
violations, except violations of LUC 3.8.16 (occupancy limits) be set at $100 for a first violation,
$300 for a second violation, and any subsequent civil citation penalty would be doubled. If a third
violation is charged as a criminal misdemeanor, the f ne would be from $500 to $1000.
Any fines assessed and collected from civil citations will be placed in the General Fund as a Code
Enforcement/Neighborhood and Building Services revenue line in the City accounting system and
reappropriated as necessary to help offset the ongoing public expense of funding Neighborhood
Code Compliance services. "
Beth Sowder, Neighborhood Services Manager, stated Council direction at the work session on
August 22 was for staff to move forward with a recommendation to decriminalize certain nuisance
code violations and to prepare quarterly reports once the civil citation process began. The proposal
was to decriminalize (or make civil) violations relating refuse and rubbish collection, weeds, outdoor
furniture storage, outdoor storage, inoperable motor vehicles, parking on unimproved surfaces,
sidewalk snow removal, and trees or shrubs encroaching on the streets or sidewalks. In November
2005 the occupancy limits in the Land Use Code were also decriminalized. Nuisance code violations
were currently criminal violations i.e., subject to up to a $1,000 penalty and up to 180 days in jail.
Conviction of such violations would give a criminal record to the violator and would require a
lengthy Municipal Court process. If the violations were decriminalized there would still be up to a
$1,000 fine and a hearing could be requested before the Municipal Court Referee (the Hearing
Officer). There would still be a notification and citation process. The notification process would
require correction of the violation by a due date. A fine would be assessed if the violation was not
corrected or if it was a repeat violation. If it was a repeat violation staff would be able to issue a
citation right away. Fines would increase for repeat violations and there would be an opportunity
to make it a civil violation after the third violation. Fines would be set by the Municipal Judge and
staff s recommendation for civil violations (except Land Use Code occupancy limit violations) was
a fine of $100 for the first violation, $300 for the second violation, and doubling of the fine or
conversion to a criminal misdemeanor violation ($500 to $1,000) after that. The fines would be
collected upon payment within the 10 days after a citation or after a determination by the Hearing
Officer that a fine should be assessed. The fines would be placed in the General Fund and
reappropriated as necessary to help offset the funding for the code compliance process. It would be
necessary to hire a Municipal Court Referee to serve as a Hearing Officer and this was included in
the Code Enforcement budget offer for up to 10 hours per month. The administrative costs were
unknown and they would be directly related to the number of civil citations issued and the number
that would go to a hearing. Neighborhood and Building Services was planning to absorb those costs
for 2007 and assess the need for a new budget offer after the program was in place. There had been
substantial public outreach, including direct a -mails to stakeholders, Coloradoan columns, a
neighborhood newsletter, a special meeting of the Colorado Apartment Association and the work
session in August. The input received was in favor of decriminalization and specific input and
suggestions were received. Implementation would begin 10 days after Second Reading and noted
56
December 5, 2006
that due to rescheduling of consideration of the Ordinance Second Reading would be held at a time
when CSU was not in session. She suggested that Council may want to consider changing the date
of Second Reading.
Lloyd Walker, 1756 Concord Drive, Rolland Moore West Neighborhood, stated the Council had
"risen to the challenge of preserving and protecting neighborhoods" by unanimously adopting the
revised occupancy ordinance. His comments related to this agenda item and the next one. The two
ordinances would benefit neighborhoods and make explicit the "spirit' of the existing ordinances
and zoning regulations. More effective enforcement of the nuisance ordinances would result from
decriminalization. He also made comments in favor of the next ordinance relating to RV parking.
The changes would allow repeat offenders to be dealt with effectively and with "enough teeth" to
discourage ongoing violations. All neighborhoods would benefit from the package of ordinances
recommended by City staff. Effective enforcement was important to deal with nuisances. He asked
that Council adopt this ordinance and the following ordinance relating to RV parking.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the violations that would be decriminalized would count toward
a Public Nuisance Ordinance (PNO) violation. Sowder replied in the affirmative and stated civil
infractions were included under the PNO if the same violation was repeated within six months or
if three violations occurred within one year or five occurred with two years. The PNO violator had
the option to come up with a voluntary abatement plan.
Councilmember Kastein asked when civil infractions were included in the PNO. Sowder replied that
was done in November 2005 when the occupancy ordinance violations were made civil violations.
Councilmember Kastein asked if staff considered issues such as whether a civil infraction would
require less burden of proof and whether it was appropriate to roll "minor" civil infractions into a
PNO violation. Sowder stated noise violations automatically became a PNO violation and that this
determination was based on the overall severity or repetition of the problem for other violations. She
stated the PNO was intended to be used for chronic problem properties.
Councilmember Kastein asked if there were more "frivolous" complaints recently. Sowder stated
she had not seen this to be a trend. There was usually cause for complaint when a complaint was
filed. The majority of inspections were proactive rather than based on a complaint.
Councilmember Kastein stated he wanted to "check in" periodically to see how the complaint
process was working or if it was "backfiring in any way." Sowder stated staff was careful about
listening to the complaints and trying to screen out those that seemed to be neighborhood disputes
for referral to the mediation program to try to get to the root of the problem.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the fine structure ($100, $300 and then doubled) was in the
ordinance. Teresa Ablao, Assistant City Attorney, stated standard fines were set by the Municipal
Judge and staff was recommending the first offense fine beset at $100 and so forth. The Municipal
Judge had the authority to set the amount of a fine within the established range unless a fine was
specified in the ordinance.
57
December 5, 2006
Councilmember Manvel asked if the Council passed the ordinance without objecting to the
recommended fines, would the Municipal Judge understand the Council had discussed the fines as
recommended by staff. It appeared the Council did not have a role in sending forth a
recommendation regarding the fines to the Municipal Judge. City Attorney Roy stated the Municipal
Judge had the authority to submit a schedule of fines for Council approval. He asked if fines were
doubled on a second offense for all violations. Ablao replied in the affirmative, except for traffic
code violations that were established as a penalty assessment. City Attorney Roy stated the
information about fines in the agenda item summary was consistent with what the Municipal Judge
would normally do, but it was still up to her to set the fine and it was not mandated by the ordinance
as presently written.
Councilmember Manvel asked if fines were doubled or tripled for the second offense. City Attorney
Roy stated staff needed to take a look at this issue before Second Reading.
Councilmember Manvel noted that further offenses were doubled and asked if that meant that the
cap was doubled or the penalty was doubled i.e., what the fine would be for each violation after the
third. City Attorney Roy stated the maximum fine would be $1,000 and the fine could not double
beyond that. Typically the fine was twice the amount imposed for the previous offense up to the
$1,000 maximum. The issue that needed to be discussed further was whether it would be $100, $200
and then doubled or $100, $300 and then doubled. Council could decide to put the fine in the
ordinance. Ablao stated the Municipal Judge's fine schedule was approved by Council by
Resolution each year.
Councilmember Ohlson asked for additional information about how City staff would gain access to
properties. Ablao stated the Code Inspection Officer would be authorized to enter premises if there
was reasonable cause. If the premises were occupied, permission to enter must be requested and if
permission was not granted there would be a need for a warrant from the Municipal Judge to gain
entry without consent. City Attorney Roy asked if warrantless entry would be allowed in some
circumstances. Ablao stated this would be allowed in circumstances relating to immediate health
and safety issues.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if the City had been "responsible" in from both the City's and
citizens' civil rights perspectives. Ablao replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt Ordinance
No. 198, 2006 on First Reading.
Councilmember Roy commented this work had been "years in the making" and would make a
difference for a "renewed sense of vibrancy" for the neighborhoods.
Councilmember Weitkunat commented"dangerous" behaviors would still be treated as "criminal
offenses" and other nuisances would be appropriately categorized as civil offenses with no jail
penalty. This ordinance was a "service" to the community.
9.1
December 5, 2006
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to Recreational Vehicle (RV)
Storage and Parking, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff s memorandum on the item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 199, 2006, Amending Sections 17-181 and 17-182 of the
City Code Regarding Camping.
B. First Reading of OrdinanceNo.200,2006,AmendingSections1213and1214oftheTraffic
Code Relating to Parking.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 201, 2006, Amending Sections 20-104, 20-105 and 20-106
of the City Code Pertaining to Parking.
Current ordinances regarding urban camping do not adequately address various issues that have
arisen repeatedly over the years, and there is no ordinance that addresses RV parking and storage.
The current City Code camping provisions (Sections 17-181 and 17-182) require a permit system
that is not workable and prohibits some types of camping the City may not intend to prohibit.
Similarly, the Fort Collins Traffic Code (FCTC), Section 1214, as currently written, appears to
prohibit occupancy of any vehicle, including RVs, at any time and anywhere, in the City. There is
a need for clarification and definitions in order to properly address these subjects. In addition, due
to the number ofcitizen complaints received regarding R Vparking, storage and occupancy, Chapter
20 (Nuisances) should be amended.
BACKGROUND
At the September 12, 2006 Work Session, Council directed staff to move forward with the
recommended Code changes regarding RV parking, storage and urban camping. The proposed
amendments to Chapter 17 eliminate the camping permit requirement and redefine "camping"
consistent with the definition. Further amendments will also allow temporary and intermittent
camping on private propertyfor 7 consecutive days and not more than 14 days in a calendar year.
Theproposed amendments to the Fort Collins Traffic Code (FCTC) will continue to prohibit the use
of vehicles for living and sleeping purposes on public property, streets and lots open to the public.
A new section will prohibit the use of motor vehicles (including RVs and trailers) for living or
sleeping purposes on private lots open to the public, to address people parking and living out of
vehicles (e.g., buses, vans, trucks, and RVs) on the street and/or a parking lot or other public
59
December 5, 2006
property, in lieu of a campground or other occupancy arrangements. Amendments to Section 1214
will allow parking RVs and trailers on the street for a 48-hour period for loading/unloading
purposes and will prohibit parking of any RV or trailer in a manner that interferes or obstructs the
view of any intersection or traffic control device.
The proposed amendments to Chapter 20 will subject RVs and trailers to the same requirements that
are contained in the current 'parking on yards" ordinance by requiring RVs and trailers to be
parked on an improved surface or be screened from public view by a solid fence, masonry, or
shrubbery no less than six (6) feet high. This requirement addresses the quality of life issues in
neighborhoods. "
City Manager Atteberry introduced the agenda item and clarified in response to possible
misinformation that parking tickets in the downtown were not $1,000.
Beth Sowder, Neighborhood Services Manager, stated this item was discussed at a work session on
September 12 and Council provided direction to move forward with ordinances in accordance with
the staffs recommendation. The current ordinances did not adequately address complaints and there
were no ordinances relating to RV parking and storage on private property. The current permit
system was not workable and definitions needed to be clarified. Ordinance No. 199, 2006 related
to camping and amended Sections 17-181 and 17-182 by eliminating the camping permit
requirement, redefining "camping" to be consistent with the natural area and recreational definition
approved earlier this year, and allowed for temporary or intermittent camping on private property
for up to seven consecutive days or 14 days in a calendar year. Ordinance No. 200, 2006 would
amend Sections 12-13 and 12-14 of the Traffic Code to prohibit the use of vehicles for living and
sleeping purposes on public property and streets, prohibit the use of vehicles including RVs and
trailers for living and sleeping purposes on private lots open to the public, allow RVs and trailers on
streets for 48 hours for loading and unloading purposes, and prohibit parking of any RV or trailer
so as to interfere with the view of any intersection or traffic control device. Ordinance No. 201, 2006
related to parking of RVs and trailers on private property and amended Sections 20-104, 20-105 and
20-106 to require RVs and trailers to be parked on an improved surface or screened from public view
with masonry or shrubbery no less than six feet high. She presented visual information showing
situations that would be addressed by this ordinance and situations that would be in compliance with
the Code. Public outreach on this issue included direct e-mail to stakeholders, Coloradoan columns,
neighborhood newsletters, apartment association meetings and the Council work session. All of the
input received had been in favor of this change except one person was against the portion that would
prohibit overnight camping in parking lots. Implementation would begin 10 days after Second
Reading and the enforcement effort would include notification of the violation and time to correct
before any civil citation would be issued.
George Jansen, Fort Collins resident, stated it would not be unusual for his parents to visit and stay
in their RV in his driveway for more than 14 days in a calendar year. He suggested a 30-day limit
would be more appropriate.
December S, 2006
Councilmember Ohlson asked if many parts of Fort Collins had covenants that would prevent many
of the things covered by these ordinances. Sowder replied in the affirmative and stated there was
a large area of Fort Collins not covered by covenants. The covenants would be relied on for stricter
enforcement and the City would only be able to enforce to the extent of the ordinances.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if information was available on what percentage of Fort Collins in
households were covered by some kind ofHOA or covenants. Sowder stated she was not aware that
such information was available.
Councilmember Ohlson believed there were many neighborhoods that had far stricter covenants than
what the City would have. He asked why the City did not look at being stricter regarding people
parking in their front driveway. Under the proposed ordinance people could park in their driveways
or front yards on a hard surface on a permanent basis as long as it was licensed even though it was
not currently in use. Sowder stated this was correct. Staff did discuss this as an option and
concluded this would be "too strict." After reviewing the ordinances of other cities staff concluded
the requirement should be made consistent with the parking requirements for vehicles or screened.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he was not too concerned about people camping overnight in a
parking lot as long as they did not drain anything onto the ground. He asked why this was a concern.
Teresa Ablao, Assistant City Attorney, stated this provision was discussed with Police Services and
the concern was enforcement on private property.
Councilmember Brown asked if a visitor could stay at someone's house for 14 days and then at
someone else's house for another 14 days i.e., whether the 14-day restriction was per vehicle or per
location. Sowder stated it was by location.
Councilmember Manvel suggested future consideration of a setback requirement for driveway
parking. He noted an RV was much bigger than a shed, which would not be allowed close to another
neighbor's property. He asked about the consistency of language in Section 12-14 that provided no
recreational vehicle "shall be parked or stored" upon a street and language that specified a 48 hours
as the maximum number of hours for such parking. He asked for clarification of this language.
Ablao stated one subsection allowed parking for a maximum time of 48 hours on a street in any
residential district. She stated the 48-hour allowance was not included in the section prohibiting
parking on a street.
Councilmember Manvel stated there was conflicting language that would prohibit someone from
parking an RV on the street in front of their house to load it. Ablao stated Subsection (2) clarified
that parking for loading and unloading purposes was allowed in a residential district.
Councilmember Manvel stated he would like additional clarification prior to Second Reading to
reword the first provision so that the second provision was clearly an exception to the first provision.
61
December 5, 2006
Councilmember Kastein asked why parking on an improved surface was required. Sowder stated
this applied to motor vehicles and now to RV and trailer parking because parking on unimproved
surfaces would tear up yards and contribute to weeds.
Councilmember Kastein asked if there needed to be an improved surface from the front of the house
to the improved surface in the back. Sowder stated only the surface used for parking must be
improved.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the 14-day limit applied to living in an RV in a driveway rather
than just parking it there. Sowder replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if a permitting process was included in the Code for exceptions
to the rule. This might be appropriate for emergency situations. She asked if there was a process
for any of the neighborhood nuisance codes that allowed for issuance of a permit or exemption for
exceptions. The intent of the Code was to ensure that people would not be living in campers and
RVs outside rather than to "stifle visitation." She asked if an existing process could be modified to
allow for exceptions based on circumstances. Sowder stated there was no formal permit process but
extensions of the time limit were regularly granted for special circumstances. An extension may not
be granted in some situations if complaints were received.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated it might be beneficial to include the extension process in the
ordinance to let everyone know that there were circumstances in which an extension could be
granted. Sowder stated it would be possible to add that to the ordinance.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Ordinance
No. 199, 2006 on First Reading.
Councilmember Ohlson supported Councilmember Weitkunat's suggestion for including the
extension process in the ordinance provided there were no complaints and proper procedures were
followed. He expressed concern about requiring parking on a hard surface and stated he would
prefer to see RV parking on a soft surface on the side rather than on the improved driveway if he was
a neighbor. He would be interested in citizen feedback on the issue of parking of "gigantic things"
on the front driveways. Very little of his Council District had covenants or HOA's to protect against
that kind of RV parking. He was pleased with the progress that had been made.
Councilmember Kastein stated he would be concerned about changing the ordinance to allow
parking only on improved surfaces. People had made decisions to buy RVs already and were parking
them alongside their houses and would now be forced to put in an expensive surface or find parking
elsewhere. He was somewhat uncomfortable with the fact that this was "aesthetics driven." People
made a choice about living in an area that had covenants to protect against this kind of thing. There
was a weed ordinance and he did not understand the argument that parking on a soft surface would
contribute to weeds.
62
December 5, 2006
Councilmember Roy stated he would be interested in knowing how many households in Fort Collins
already had some protection against "visual blight" due to covenants or HOA's. It made sense to
require parking on impervious surfaces that were visible.
Councilmember Ohlson stated not everyone had a choice about living in an "upscale neighborhood."
People should not have to deal with neighborhood nuisances because of their financial and personal
circumstances.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated it was important to determine how big the problem was that a
nuisance ordinance would address. It made sense to start here and then look at the "magnitude of
the problem" to determine if it needed "greater fixing." More legislation may be necessary if the
problem is determined to be big enough to warrant that. She believed the known problems were
being fixed "appropriately."
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Ordinance
No. 200, 2006 on First Reading.
Councilmember Manvel stated he would vote for the motion because he was confident some minor
wording "repairs" could be done to make the exceptions clear before Second Reading.
Councilmember Kastein stated prior to Second Reading he would be asking for verbiage to revise
the ordinance to eliminate the need for an improved surface for parking at the side of the house even
without a fence.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adopt Ordinance
No. 201, 2006 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel,
Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
63
December S, 2006
Ordinance No.192, 2006,
Making Various Amendments to the
City's Land Use Code, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staffhas identified a variety of proposed changes, additions and clarifications in the Fall biannual
update of the Land Use Code.
BACKGROUND
The Land Use Code was first adopted in March 1997. Subsequent revisions have been
recommended on a biannual basis to make changes, additions, deletions and clarifications that have
been identified in the preceding six months. The proposed changes are offered in order to resolve
implementation issues and to continuously improve both the overall quality and "user friendliness "
of the Code. "
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, stated this was the First Reading of the fall update of the Land Use
Code. The ordinance was almost the same as the version seen at the October 24 work session. A
change had been made to remove the provision relating to portable signs in the downtown area. Staff
would be working with a design committee on minimum design standards and this would probably
be brought back for inclusion in the City Code rather than the Land Use Code since it dealt
exclusively with the right-of-way. Issues would be addressed relating to grand openings, City-wide
application and portable signs not visible from the right-of-way. A change had also been made to
the ordinance relating to alternative compliance. He stated the language had been inadvertently
retained from a previous draft and that the alternative compliance provision was no longer needed.
He stated staff viewed this as a housekeeping change. A summary of the Planning and Zoning
Board's recommendations had been provided in Council packet. The Board voted 6-0 on all but two
items. The Board voted 4-2 on the downtown height issue and a summary of the two points of view
had been provided in the Council packet. On December 19 staff would bring to the Council a minor
amendment to the Downtown Strategic Plan to provide language and direction for anyone seeking
a modification to height and mass. This would address issues such as private parking structures,
civic plazas, use of superior materials, creative use of urban form i.e., things that would justify a
modification. This would help guide the Planning and Zoning Board in addressing a request for a
modification to height and mass. On the sign issue, with regard to banners only, the Board voted 4-2
and a summary of the two views was included in the Council packet. Staff was aware there were
some property owners in the Canyon Avenue Subdistrict of the downtown were at the meeting to
address this issue.
Mayor Hutchinson stated audience participants could address any of the Land Use Code changes.
m
December 5, 2006
Nate Donovan, 2400 Hampshire Square, spoke regarding Section 11 of the Ordinance relating to the
proposal to eliminate the time requirement for posting of signs prior to an election. Tthere should
be a time limit and asked that the current 45-day limit be kept in place or that some other "reasonable
limit" be set. He noted it took a lot of City resources to take down election signs that were not
placed appropriately. Candidates should place signs on private property with the consent of the
property owner.
Donald Prose, 16 Alta Loma Drive, Pueblo, Colorado, stated he represented Pro-Vin Enterprises,
Inc., which was part owner of the Key Bank Building at the corner of Howes and Oak Streets. The
property owner chose to "invest" in downtown Fort Collins because of its natural beauty and
"progressive nature." A property was valued by its present and future use and that a piece of
property on which a 12-story building could be built was much more valuable than one upon which
only a 3 or 4-story building could be built. If the proposal was accepted by Council, the property
would be reduced from a 12-story building site to a 3 or 4-story building site overnight. This would
be done at "great harm" to the property owner. This "borders on eminent domain" because "vertical
property" would be taken away by government. Other property owners felt the same way. Much
effort must have been spent on this "ambitious plan to micromanage the entire downtown business
district" but little thought must have been expended concerning how this proposal would affect
property owners. Property values would go down along with the tax base. If this proposal was
accepted by the Council he predicted there would be "endless litigation" to determine whether or not
this was a matter of eminent domain and to recoup lost value from the City. He predicted the tax
base would be lowered over the entire downtown district. He believed a vote for this proposal was
a vote for "sprawl" because "if you can't go up, you've got to go out."
Dana Geyer, 3718 Mariner Lane, stated the proposal in front of the Council was the wrong approach
at the wrong time. This building height and setbacks proposal would "tie the hands" of future
Councils and City staffs. Great cities were "identified by their skyline and physical structures."
Staff was charged with promulgating building guidelines that would allow the downtown and all of
Fort Collins to grow and develop into a vibrant, attractive and functional "city of tomorrow."
Arbitrarily limiting buildings on a block byblock basis without a comprehensive outline would result
in a "willy-nilly collage of a cityscape in the future." He questioned what the "real agenda" was.
There were no plans to build on these properties for 15-30 years from now and there was no urgency
to impose constraints and restrictions today. Future issues, constraints or opportunities were
unknown. Lowering the height would impact the economics of any future development project.
This proposal would amount to a "public taking of private property rights" and potentially millions
of dollars of lost potential development. He asked that there be a comprehensive approach and
process that would give the entire City future options for development as needs and opportunities
arose a generation from now.
Jack Vahrenwald, President of the Savings Building Condominium Association, owner of the Key
Bank building at 125 South Howes Street and associated parking lots, stated the Association was not
in favor of the proposed Ordinance. The Association had a general objection regarding the current
attempt to limit growth that may not happen until 2036 or 2046. The downtown area had grown
along with Fort Collins and Fort Collins would continue to grow. To be viable, the downtown would
G,
December 5, 2006
also have to grow. This growth needed to be "more vertical than horizontal" to preserve Old Town
areas. The Association also had a specific objection to the proposal. The Association's parking lot
at the northwest corner of Meldrum and Oak Streets was approximately an acre in size. Current City
regulations provided that a building could go up to 168 feet subject to substantial City review. Of
33 blocks only four were proposed to be restricted to a maximum of 45-foot high buildings. One of
the blocks proposed for height restrictions was the Association's parking lot. The other three blocks
were mostly homes. The parking lot and the surrounding property had no homes. Imposing a 45-
foot height restriction on the parking lot would "unfairly treat this property" as compared to the
others that would be restricted to 45 feet. He asked that Council allow the Association's block to
have 85-foot height limit.
Mike Jensen, downtown property owner and developer, stated he owned Block 23 bounded by
College, Maple, Cherry and Mason. He had been working on redevelopment projects for the last
three years. This Ordinance would substantially impact project plans. Building height restrictions
would "limit the future" of the downtown. A "line in the sand" that was established on a block by
block basis was "challenging" and must be negotiated. He asked the Council consider the need for
additional jobs in the downtown and noted he hoped to bring additional jobs to the downtown with
the redevelopment project on this property. He asked if the City would consider a higher building
if the project would attract a "world class" employer. A world class facility would be needed to do
this which could require a higher building than 7-9 stories. He asked that the Ordinance be amended
to allow for modifications to accommodate buildings needed for employment or other "missing uses"
in the downtown.
(**Secretary's Note: The Council took a recess at this point in the meeting.)
Councilmember Weitkunat asked for clarification regarding building height modifications. Shepard
stated a section of the Code referred to how the mass of a building could be mitigated. A previous
version of that standard contained specific metrics and the standard was being revised to make it
more discretionary. The language would broaden the interpretation so there may not be a need for
an automatic modification procedure if a project had "good design." When the standard contained
metrics there was a provision for alternative compliance to allow flexibility for site specific creative
design solutions. The alternative compliance language was superfluous and not needed when the
standard was written to make it more discretionary.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if Section 3 would address this. Shepard stated Section 3
contained language relating to regulating the mass of a building while allowing "impressive" design
solutions to come forward without requiring a modification. A modification procedure was available
to anyone at any time. Staff believed a discretionary standard was better and more efficient than a
two-step prescriptive standard with an alternative compliance provision.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if this change was made after the Planning and Zoning Board
hearing. Shepard replied in the affirmative.
December S, 2006
Councilmember Weitkunat noted that previous discussions about building height addressed missing
uses, public good and purpose, etc. She asked where those types of criteria were referenced.
Shepard stated that was forthcoming and would be processed as a minor amendment to the
Downtown Strategic Plan. He noted this would be presented to the Planning and Zoning Board and
would be brought forward for a Council Resolution on December 19.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked for confirmation that staff was saying this was aprocess that would
meet Council's intent about altering the height of a building in this particular zone, that modification
was a process that was open to everyone, and modification was open by altering the Downtown
Strategic Plan and referencing it. Shepard stated this was the direction staff received at the work
session and this was what staff planned to implement.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if this was the intent of the Planning and Zoning Board. Shepard
stated all six of the Board members agreed on this direction.
Mayor Hutchinson stated this was a "pivotal point" for this issue. He asked if it was correct that this
would give clear flexibility and the building height standards did not address architectural interest,
design details, and mitigation of extra height. He asked if the height numbers were the "baseline"
and if you wanted to build higher there would be different standards to preserve the quality view of
the downtown. Clark Mapes, City Planner, stated a developer would need to meet these standards
to get to those heights.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if slightly different standards would have to be met to exceed the height
limit. Shepard stated that was correct and there was a statement relating to measurement of height
that read as follows: " ... that the maximum height limits are intended to convey a scale of building
rather than exact point or line." He stated staff believed there was a "plus or minus factor" and
average or mean heights of sloping roofs could be used, or that lofts, cornices and chimneys could
be exempted. A package of design elements would be reviewed for a building of these heights.
Mayor Hutchinson noted some might be concerned that they could not build a building of more than
three or four stories in spite of that paragraph. Shepard stated staff would point out the opportunities
in the modification standard (Article 2) or the criteria that would be added to the Downtown
Strategic Plan to address public benefits and guide the Planning and Zoning Board in considering
a modification.
Mayor Hutchinson stated this was an important issue because Mr. Jensen was asking that Council
confirm that modifications would be available if required.
Councilmember Manvel asked staff to explain the feasibility of building a 12-story building on the
parking lot property west of Meldrum Street under the current standard. Mapes stated the current
Code provided for a 12-story limit and for an office building listed a floor area ratio of 5. He stated
presumably under the existing Code provision a 12-story building could be built on the parcel. If
it was a mixed use building (office below and residential above) the Code would allow a 12-story
building except that this zone district specifically referred to another section in the Code relating to
compatibility standards for height, bulk, mass and scale of buildings. This was the provision that
67
December 5, 2006
created some of the disagreement relating to the Steele's site project. The net effect was that it made
it difficult to determine in advance what could be built on a given piece of property, and especially
the referenced parcel. He noted even the owners agreed that a 12-story building would not fit on that
parcel and the question was therefore how big a building could fit on the parcel.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the intent of these proposed changes was to move from a "fuzzy
compatibility standard" that meant a large investment for something that ultimately not work to a
"definite standard" that would allow one to ask for a higher building. Mapes stated the intent was
to "add clarity and predictability" and a number of developers had indicated this was their most
important issue as opposed to the issue of a reduction in height for some particular properties.
Councilmember Kastein asked for clarification that there were situations where no development
would ever be approved at the maximum height and whether the intent was to determine what was
feasible and would "probablybe approved" for a maximum height in specific areas subject to design
criteria. Mapes replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Kastein asked how to respond to the people who did not "care about that assurance"
that the intent was to take some of the "ambiguity" out of the process. He noted some people were
questioning making height decisions now when development might not occur for many years and
times might change. Mapes stated an approach could be taken to allow proposed projects to "fight
it out." There were historic preservation, neighborhood, general citizen, DDA, and property owner
interests. The City could take a position that it would not "give any guidance." This was what
happened on the Steele's site project. There were developers that wanted City guidance and strong
and competing groups were polarized on height issues. This would be a "compromise" that would
make an attempt to balance the competing interests and that this appeared to be a better solution than
the "laissez-faire" approach. More people cared about receiving guidance than did not care.
Councilmember Kastein asked about the parcel referenced by one of the speakers bounded by
Mountain, Meldrum, Oak and Sherwood that would be limited to 45 feet. One speaker made a point
that the blocks to the north were limited to 85 feet and the uses were basically the same as the
property that would have a 45-foot height limit. He asked staff to comment on this. Mapes
presented visual information showing the parcels, the zoning districts and the Neighborhood
Conservation Buffer zone strip along the west edge (excluding one small parcel of property). The
specific zoning was done in response to the uses in place at the time the zoning was done. The NCB
zoning was put in place as part of the West Side Neighborhood Plan and the owner contended this
zoning was not appropriate for a small parcel of property. This small piece of property in question
was zoned as a "concession." The small piece of property was not zoned as it is with the idea that
a 12-story building would be appropriate for this half block, but instead to reflect the uses that were
in place at the time of zoning. The issue of scale associated with the Downtown zone was probably
not considered much at the time of the zoning. By right and in terms of scale this block fit better as
part of the NCB zone district, which would have a 3-story height limit to provide a transition zone.
Councilmember Kastein stated it appeared people were made aware of the buffer between the
downtown and the neighborhoods and this parcel property was really in that buffer area where
everything was 3 to 4 stories. He asked what the height limit was at this time. Mapes stated it was
.3
December 5, 2006
168 feet set by the standard which then referred to compliance with a compatibility standard relating
to bulk, height, mass and scale.
Councilmember Kastein asked if this meant that the height would be limited as it would be for the
whole downtown area. Mapes replied in the affirmative and stated it would be necessary to
"speculate" as to what height might actually be approved since there were houses west of the alley.
Councilmember Kastein asked whether the current F.A.R. would limit the size of the building on
this property. Mapes stated if it was an office building only it would be limited to a F.A.R. of 5 and
that lot coverage was currently limited to 75% which would mean that the F.A.R. would equate to
about a 6-story building. The F.A.R. would limit the height on this block to six stories if it was
strictly a non-residential building. A mixed use building with aresidential component any additional
floors above the six stories would be permitted as residential. This type of building was probably
not "remotely appropriate" for this block.
Councilmember Kastein stated another speaker was asking for an addition to the Code. He asked
if the changes that would be proposed to the Downtown Strategic Plan would include consideration
of mitigating circumstances that would make it possible to have higher buildings. He asked if
employment opportunities could be a mitigating circumstance. Mapes replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Brown asked if the inclusion of employment could mean a higher building for the
parcel in question. His understanding was that the parking lot and the potential building height was
part of the negotiation with people who owned the Key Bank building. He asked if there could be
another 10 to 15 feet of height with a mixed use building. Mapes stated the 168- foot number was
established with City Plan in 1997. The parcel was probably in a PUD zone prior to 1997 and there
would not have been a height limit stated. The Code prior to City Plan required that any building
over 40 feet to be reviewed under the Code that was in effect. The 168-foot number was established
after the zoning was put in place in 1997.
Councilmember Brown asked if an employment opportunity would be one reason to raise the height
of the building. Mapes stated this had not been considered in the context of this specific block. He
stated the intent was to apply this (i.e., employment as a mitigating factor) throughout the entire zone
district. This concept may require additional staff work because this block was more "sensitive" in
terms of its surroundings i.e., the scale and number of buildings around it. Shepard stated language
would be added to the Downtown Strategic Plan relating to mitigating factors and there was existing
language in the modification section that provided a modification could be granted by the Planning
and Zoning Board to substantially alleviate an existing defined and described problem of City-wide
concern or if it would result in a substantial benefit to the City because a proposed project would
address an important community need described in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Modifications
could be handled through the existing language or through the new language to be added to the
Downtown Strategic Plan.
Councilmember Brown asked for further clarification regard the effect on specific property in the
"western oval." Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director, stated the Council could consider a
modification to the height limit in that parcel if a finding was made that there would be a substantial
December 5, 2006
benefit to the Citybecause the proposed project would substantially address an important community
need specifically defined and described in the City's Comprehensive Plan. This meant the Council
would have to make a finding regarding whether a specific proposal would meet a specific
community need such as economic development.
Councilmember Brown asked what the height limit would be. Frank stated there was no limit to
what could be proposed in a modification request. Mapes stated the criteria would apply to this
location.
Councilmember Brown expressed a concern that nobody knew what would happen 20 years from
now and that he did not want to "tie the hands of future Councils" when considering the economic
impact of a proposal. Frank stated unique situations could be considered when there was a "strong
public purpose." It would be helpful to address some of Council's intent in the new language of the
Downtown Strategic Plan i.e., examples of what might be appropriate for a modification request.
Councilmember Ohlson asked about the item relating to emergency access requirements. The
Council had discussed and concurred the intent was to look at these access problems on development
review for in -fill redevelopment and green field locations. There were concerns that access
requirements could be too stringent relating to minimum turnaround diameters and the minimum
width of fire access. He did not want to "sacrifice health and safety" but noted Europe and some
large American cities such as Boston and New York City had narrow areas that worked fine. He
asked when Council would see the staff work on that issue since it was not part of this Ordinance.
He would like to see closure on this issue even if the recommendation from staff was that there be
"no change." Shepard stated this issue had been discussed during the in -fill and redevelopment
project and during the business outreach done in 2006. Staff was now looking at things "creatively"
on more of a case -by -case basis. This issue did relate to the Fire Code and staff would have to work
with the Fire Prevention Bureau to come back with a recommendation for next spring. City Manager
Atteberry stated he would let the Council know when a staff recommendation would be brought
forward on this issue.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if an amendment to the Ordinance could be brought back on Second
Reading if the Council decided to have no limit or a longer time limit (such as 100 days) on the
posting of election signs. He understood the public wanted some kind of time limit ahead of an
election. City Attorney Roy stated the motion to adopt the Ordinance could include direction that
the provision pertaining to election signs was to be revised on Second Reading to include a specific
time limit. Council would need direction on leaving in language that provided that the Zoning Board
of Appeals could grant a variance to extend the time period.
Councilmember Weitkunat noted the issue of the time limit for posting of election signs came up
during the Primary and November elections. She asked if there was explicit information available
for City elections that indicated that signs could not be posted until January. City Clerk Krajicek
stated the information that was available on City elections included the language that staff was
proposing be removed.
70
December 5, 2006
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if there was a City timetable as to when certain election actions
would take place. City Clerk Krajicek stated there were specific deadlines for circulating and
submitting nomination petitions and that this did not affect the timing for posting of election signs.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if a sign could be posted when a candidate made an announcement
of candidacy. City Clerk Krajicek stated a sign could be posted 45 days prior to the election under
the current requirement.
Councilmember Ohlson stated the public did not want signs to be left up for an unlimited period of
time. There had been discussion that it was an unfair "competitive disadvantage" for those who
"played by the rules" and posted signs in the proper locations and at the proper times when others
did not play by the rules and had signs up longer in illegal locations. He asked if staff would have
suggestions on enforcement i.e., hiring of temporary staff, removal of illegal signs rather than giving
them back, fines, etc. City Attorney Roy stated what was presently being proposed was moving the
regulation of signs in the right-of-way from its current Code location to another section relating to
handbills in the right-of-way. There was a quicker way to dispose of offending signs in the handbill
section. A misdemeanor offense could then be charged for putting signs in the right-of-way or
failing to pick them up after notice. This would be done in a separate Ordinance rather than in the
Land Use Code Ordinance. City Manager Atteberry stated this was a growing problem that needed
to be fixed and the Ordinance would address the issues mentioned by Councilmember Ohlson.
Councilmember Manvel asked about the section relating to banners and pennants and asked for
clarification about who the permittee would be for a banner permit for a shopping center. Peter
Barnes, Zoning Supervisor, stated the Code would allow each business to have a banner for the
proposed number of days i.e., a new business could have 20 days plus an additional 20, an
established business could have 20 days. He stated the shopping center itself could have a banner
for the allotted number of days.
Councilmember Manvel asked about the maximum size for a banner or banners would be a total of
40 square feet. Barnes stated any one banner could not exceed 40 square feet.
Councilmember Manvel asked if this meant that each store could have 20 banners that were each 40
square feet. Barnes stated the number of banners was not currently limited.
Councilmember Manvel stated he believed that this was an "omission" and noted the case of a small
shopping center that recently had a "small fence" of banners around a corner. He did not want this
kind of thing to be possible. He did not favor having an unlimited number of banners surrounding
a shopping center and suggested that there be a limit on the total square feet of banners.
Councilmember Weitkunat noted there was a permitting process and asked if there were criteria for
receiving a permit. Barnes stated there were no criteria under the current Code provision and that
permits were arranged over the phone and tracked in a computer database.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to adopt Ordinance
No. 192, 2006 on First Reading and to direct staff to include a 90-day limit on campaign signs.
71
December 5, 2006
Councilmember Manvel stated the 90-day limit was "somewhat arbitrary" but it would eliminate the
"gap" between the Primary election signs and the General election signs. Those in the political arena
might welcome a specific time when signs could go up. He believed citizens would also welcome
not having signs up all the time.
City Attorney Roy requested clarification of the motion regarding a Zoning Board of Appeals review
for possible extension of the time period.
Councilmember Manvel stated he did not want to include that in the motion.
Councilmember Ohlson stated "compromises" had been made and were being proposed and he did
not want to see too much more compromise. The original Downtown Strategic Plan was developed
after an exhaustive process that addressed many issues including building height. The planwas built
on the neighborhood plans and those plans should not be "tossed out" as a new plan was developed.
It appeared that there would be an "out" that would mean almost anyone could qualify for a
modification that could result in "considerably taller" buildings if certain criteria were met. He did
not want to "diminish" anything that had received strong agreement at the Council work session
when there was no "new information coming forward."
Councilmember Roy stated it was important that there be a "sense of place and scale" and the
success of downtown did not depend on "how much and how high you can go." He would like to
know how many square feet would be possible at build -out for a proposal with no modifications. The
"scale of buildings" made a difference as to how a place succeeded. In -fill and redevelopment was
important for the City and it was also important that the citizens had the "ability to feel like they
were part of it." He also had concerns that banners could be "visual clutter" under the new
requirement. Many of the changes were "positive changes" to the Land Use Code but he had
concerns about several of the issues that related to "clutter and sense of place."
Councilmember Kastein stated he would support the 90-day time limit for political signs to fill the
gap between the Primary and General elections. It made sense to limit the signs. He would support
verbiage that would allow for exceptions to the height requirements because the design standards
were "strong" for large scale buildings. He stated he would like an analysis by staff prior to Second
Reading on the block to the west (the `oval") regarding what would occur to the east (the Mountain
Avenue, Oak Street, Howes Street block) if that block was allowed to be 85 feet. He stated he would
follow-up with staff on an 85-foot limitation on that particular block. He asked if staff had any
verbiage yet relating to the changes to the Downtown Strategic Plan for modifications based on
"excellent employment opportunities." He stated if there was any draft verbiage that he would like
to see that before Second Reading. He supported the change to allow banners for 40 days, especially
for nonprofit organizations and that he supported the rest of the changes.
Councilmember Brown stated he also wanted to look at 85 feet for the western block and that he
would like to know the height of the trees on that block. He expressed a concern that there could
be freedom of speech issues relating to campaign sign time limits. He stated he would like
information on that before Second Reading. City Attorney Roy stated he would provide the Council
with information on that issue prior to Second Reading.
72
December S, 2006
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the 90-day time limit for political signs would be "beneficial."
She stated there should not be an unlimited ability to post such signs. She stated the increase to 40
days for banners was only for nonprofit organizations and new businesses. She stated she did not
believe that this would be a major problem because the City "wanted business to succeed." She
stated a "little extra PR" could make a difference in that success. She stated there had been concern
expressed by some agencies doing outreach about the current time limit for banners. She stated the
Council needed to make sure that the height requirements meet current needs since it was not
possible to predict what would happen 25 years in the future with market or community conditions.
She stated decisions regarding the Code must relate to "this point in time" and that the Code would
change as circumstances changed in the future. She stated there should "always" be a possibility for
modifications based on circumstances because "nothing should be set in stone." She stated she
would support the motion.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he wanted to see new businesses succeed and had support an extended
time period for banners for such new businesses. He stated he would like clarification before Second
Reading regarding the information that had been presented by staff that there was no limit to the
number of banners as long as they were each under 40 square feet. He stated he believed that there
had been majority support regarding looking at "cracking down on" real estate signs in the right-of-
way or those that had been posted for many years. He stated he would like some future staff work
on that issue. He stated he had some suggestions for the next round of Land Use Code changes and
that he would forward those suggestions. He stated his vote on Second Reading of the Ordinance
might change ifheights were to be "arbitrarily raised without good reason." He agreed that there was
a need for modifications and that he would support "good projects" that were higher. He stated
"unattractive buildings" were bad for business in the long run. He stated he would like to see more
specific ideas on what would qualify for a modification. He stated projects should have to meet
more than one criterion to go higher and that they should have to meet "good urban design"
standards.
Councilmember Roy stated he would vote against the motion. He stated Council needed to ensure
that projects had a sense of place and scale in relation to surrounding core area neighborhoods. He
stated he also had concerns about the banner "clutter' issue. He stated the Ordinance represented
much "positive work" but that he had to vote in accordance with his "values" on the "visual clutter"
issues. He stated he would not support the Ordinance on First Reading.
Councilmember Ohlson stated "threatening lawsuits" was generally not the "strongest' way to
influence a Council decision.
Mayor Hutchinson stated it made sense to have a time limit for election signs. He stated there had
been a dialogue on the building height issue. He stated "economic gain and protection" was
important as was compliance with City design standards. He stated it was proper to provide some
"baseline predictability" for the developers and property owners and to provide for some flexibility
to have a higher building.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel,
Ohlson and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Brown and Roy.
73
December 5, 2006
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2006-126
Approving an Agreement Between the
City and Front Range Retail Company to
Provide Financial Assistance for the Front Range Village. Adopted
The following is staff s memorandum on the item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City staffhas been negotiating diligently with Front Range Retail Company to develop an incentive
agreement that will assist in ensuring the development known as "Front Range Village ", a retail
and commercial development totaling 910,000 square feet. The development is located on
approximately 100 acres at the cross roads ofHarmony and Ziegler roads in southeast Fort Collins.
Front Range Village is the first significant retail project the City has seen in many years. This
development is regionally significant and will help the City bolster retail trade activity that has
eroded over the past five years with the coming of regional retail competition and the decline in Fort
Collins specific retail venues.
The proposed Financial Assistance Agreement is based the following philosophy:
1. Incentives should be based on project need.
2. The developers should have the ability to achieve a reasonable rate of return.
3. Incentives should be performance driven.
4. Sales tax share back should be minimized to the extent possible.
The total incentive agreement is $22, 000, 000, with the vast majority of these funds being generated
by a Public Improvement Fee (PIF), which is an optional sales fee levied by the developer on the
retail sales at the development. The anticipated total net present value (today's dollars) of the
Public Improvement Fee is $18,500,000.
The remaining $3,500, 000 comes from sales tax share back ($1, 500, 000) and from Transportation
Improvement reimbursements ($2, 000, 000) to offset major transportation improvements related to
this project on Harmony Road and Ziegler Road.
The Front Range Village retail center will generate $2,200, 000 in net new sales taxes to the City on
an annual basis following the full first year of operations. Of that amount, $1,600,000 is
unrestricted general fund dollars to be allocated to City Council priorities. The remaining
$600,000 is allocated in equal amounts to Open Space, Building on Basics, and Transportation
improvements related to dedicated sales tax f coding streams.
74
December 5, 2006
BACKGROUND
The City of Fort Collins is projecting that sales and use taxes will continue to grow over the coming
one to three years, but at a much lower rate ofgrowth than had been seen in the past. It is projected
that, without significant retail development, overall sales taxes will grow in the 1 % to 2% range
from 2007 through 2009.
With the net new sales tax generated by the Front Range Village, the City will see a 4% increase in
overall sales taxes (in addition to the I % to 2% already projected) beginning in 2008. It has been
a priority of the City to pursue additional retail sales opportunities through new retail development
and through redevelopment which is outlined in the City's economic action plan.
City staff engaged Economic Planning Systems in Denver to assist in the analysis of the Front Range
Village and to advise on the overall net new sales taxes generated. Staff and EPS evaluated the
overall project and developed the Financial Assistance recommendation for City Council
consideration.
PROJECT COSTS
Project Costs
Land Costs
$17,982,811
Hard Costs
$62,668,540
•
Onsite improvements
•
Offsite improvements
•
Building shells
•
Tenant allowances
•
Signs
Soft Costs
$34,780,505
•
Development fees
•
Impact fees
•
Sales and use taxes
•
Financing expenses
•
Overhead expenses
•
Marketing expenses
•
Appraisal expenses
•
Interest expenses
•
Engineering/architecture fees
Total Project Costs
1 $115 431856
PROJECT REVENUES
10 Year Revenue Summary
No Assistance
.75% PIF/Incentives
Gross Revenue
$99,500,000
$131,000,000
75
December 5, 2006
DETAILS ON PROPOSED INCENTIVES
Public Improvement Fee
The incentive agreement allows the developer to impose up to a .75% PIF on retail sales on the
lessees involved in Front Range Village. The PIFgenerates $18,500,000 in total revenues on a net
present value basis (today's dollars). The City will collect the PIF fees and remit them to the
developer.
Sales Tax Share Back
The City will remit to the developer up to $1,500,000 in sales taxes on a net present value basis
(today's dollars) generated by the Front Range Village. These sales tax share back payments will
be contingent upon the developer constructing and operating at least 550, 000 square feet of retail
shopping and those retail shops generating and remitting sales tax revenue to the City. If all
contingencies are satisfied, the sales tax share back will be made in three payments approximately
twelve months apart. If the developer fails to meet the contingency requirements for any particular
payment, the City will not be obligated to make that payment.
Transportation Improvement Costs
The City will also remit $2, 000, 000 to the developer to offset a portion of the cost of the developer's
share ofthe significant transportation improvements relating to thisproject. The City willpay these
funds from dollars provided the City by the Colorado Department of Transportation for long-term
maintenance and improvements for Harmony Road.
OVERALL BENEFITS TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
The construction and operation of the Front Range Village Center will provide significant overall
benefits to the community. These benefits include:
1. An overall increase in net new sales taxes of 4%.
2. Increases of $600, 000 overall in dedicated sales taxes for open space, transportation and
Building on Basics.
3. Provision of shopping opportunities in southeast Fort Collins to address sales tax leakage
occurring in that part of the community.
4. Major transportation improvements will be realized along the Harmony corridor and along
Ziegler Road. "
City Manager Atteberry stated this was an important issue for the City and the community and that
hundreds of hours of work and objective analysis went into the Resolution. He stated a strong
partnership had been built. He stated this agenda item was related to the Council high priority goal
of economic health. He stated regional retail competition had increased in northern Colorado and
that Fort Collins had not had significant major retail development in recent years. He stated Bayer
76
December 5, 2006
Properties had shown a strong interest in Fort Collins during 3%z years of active negotiations. He
stated good quality development was important to Fort Collins and that the Front Range Village
Center would have a major impact on net new sales tax in Fort Collins. He stated the project could
also have a significant impact on the southeast branch library and that he believed that the library
would be part of the development agreement. He stated staff believed that the Resolution reflected
the direction and vision of the Council.
Mike Freeman, Economic Adviser, stated long term projections over the next four to five years were
for 1-2% sales tax growth without significant new retail coming on line. He stated there were only
three to four major retail development opportunity sites remaining. He stated projects of this
magnitude were rare and that there might be several more such opportunities for Fort Collins in the
next few years. He stated this was not a typical incentive package. He stated being proactive on
retail development was part of the economic health strategy adopted by the Council. He stated the
actions taken by staff were consistent with that plan. He stated there had been a rigorous analysis
of this project through the City's economic consultant (EPS) to determine that it would be regionally
significant and bring in tax dollars from outside the community. He stated the determination was
made that the incentive agreement needed to focus on the net new sales tax i.e. the whole benefit to
the community. He stated the total investment to be made by the developer was roughly $115
million, that the land costs would be about $18 million, that the hard costs would be about $63
million, and that the soft costs would be about $35 million. He stated the revenue from the project
would be significant and that the projections were that there would be $2.2 million annually in net
new sales tax with $1.6 million in unrestricted sales tax that would flow into the fund without any
specific designation for use. He stated each quarter of the three -quarter -cent dedicated sales taxes
would generate about $200,000 per year. He stated a project of this magnitude would not happen
without some public assistance. He stated because of the City's budgetary situation the City did not
want to share back a lot of net sales tax. He stated a way had to be found to help close the gap to
help make this project successful. He stated the City's principles were that the incentive would
ultimately need to be business -based, that the sales tax share back component needed to be
minimized, and that there would be significant infrastructure costs. He stated several different
scenarios were evaluated and that staff was recommending that the developer be allowed to impose
a public improvement fee (an additional sales tax) of up to .75%. He stated the fee would close the
gap by generating about $18.5 million in today's dollars over 30 years. He stated the remaining gap
was about $3.5 million and that staffs recommendation was to allocate some of the money ($2
million) received from CDOT for long term maintenance of Harmony Road for this project. He
stated staff was recommending that the remaining $1.5 million be shared back through a sales tax
share back agreement. He stated there would be three payments over three years when the
development reached 550,000 square feet and had been operational for at least two months and when
the operation had produced sales tax for 12 months. He stated much of the sales tax "leakage" to
regional competition was from southeast Fort Collins and that this project would help address some
of that leakage. He stated it would give the City the equivalent of about a 4% annual increase in
sales tax. He stated this would be a high quality development that would meet all of the City's
requirements. He stated he believed that this company was "right for Fort Collins." He stated
representatives of Bayer Properties were available to answer any questions.
Mayor Hutchinson stated each audience participant would have five minutes to speak.
77
December 5, 2006
Jim Stobie, 623 Grant Street, CSU student, spoke in opposition to big box development and the
incentive package. He expressed concerns about the impact of drought on the water supply and the
population and the reliability of the sales tax figures. He questioned giving priority to partnerships
with companies from out of state and expressed concerns that their profits would not be reinvested
in the local economy. He stated Fort Collins was the number one community because it offered
"something different" than the big boxes that were everywhere.
Jeff Emmell, 543 Spindrift Court, opposed the incentive package as written. He stated the public
improvement fee should be for the welfare of the community rather than a "project' improvement
fee. He stated the fee should be used to guarantee that the businesses would bring in salary and
benefit packages for their employees that would benefit the community. He stated this would help
avoid a retail "spiral' in which the employees could not afford to live in the community. He stated
if the employees succeeded the City would succeed and that this could be used as a "model." He
asked that the incentives be made contingent upon a long term benefit for the people who make the
project successful and move some of the money back into the community.
Daniel Hallford, 636 South Loomis Street, CSU student, stated this "concrete pad" would produce
groundwater seepage and reduce the water in aquifers. He questioned the need for another shopping
center and stated the incentive package would mean using public money for private gain. He stated
the resources could be better spent in other areas.
Councilmember Ohlson asked for a comparison of the scale of this project at build -out with other
projects in the region. Freeman stated the Shops at Centerra were roughly 700,000 square feet and
that the current Foothills Fashion Mall contained about 600,000 square feet. He stated this proposed
project would have just over 900,000 square feet.
Councilmember Ohlson asked for a brief description of the proposed buildings and whether the
project would be "special." City Manager Atteberry suggested that Mr. Silverstein could address
the architectural standards.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if the architectural character was already decided and stated he wanted
a general description rather than a building -by -building description. David Silverstein, Bayer
Properties principal, stated the company had been working diligently with City staff on the
architectural planning of the project. He stated there were several important elements, including the
architectural "feel' and landscaping. He stated there would be a "main street' element of the project
and that the library would be on the second floor. He stated there were some unique features and that
company and staff expectations were being met about the type of project this would be. Greg Byrne,
CLRS Director, stated staff was satisfied with the architecture and "pleased with the urban design'
relating to the streetscape and building layout and placement. He stated there would also be energy
conservation aspects of the buildings. He stated the project would be a "contribution to the
community."
Councilmember Ohlson asked how many of the buildings would have LEAD certification and what
level of certification was anticipated. Mr. Silverstein stated the developer was striving for LEAD
W,
December S, 2006
certification for the entire project and that as much of the project as possible would achieve
certification.
Councilmember Ohlson stated there were some attractive developments at Harmony and College and
that it was difficult to walk to some of those developments. He asked if pedestrian access would be
better for this new project i.e. whether people would have to drive from store to store even though
they might be only 50 yards apart. Byme stated there would be a mix on this site. He stated it was
a big site with about 900,000 square feet and that a substantial portion of the project would be in big
box retail. He stated true pedestrian connections were difficult to do with that kind of retail
component. He stated he believed that the Bayer team had done "as good a job as you can" on this.
He stated some components of the site were not big box and were street -oriented. He stated those
areas would be much more pedestrian -oriented than Harmony and College. Mr. Silverstein stated
there would be landscaped pedestrian walkways connecting the Target element of the site with the
pedestrian element of the site so that pedestrians and consumers would not have to walk through
paved parking lots. He stated those walkways would connect the entire site.
Councilmember Ohlson asked what would happen if the public improvement fees collected were
more than the anticipated amount i.e. would the developer be able to keep the extra fees. Freeman
stated an extensive analysis was done to pin down the $18.5 million figure as closely as possible.
He stated staff believed that the $18.5 million was a reasonable assumption based on anticipated
sales.
Councilmember Manvel stated the agenda item summary clearly outlined the project costs and
estimated that gross revenues would be $99.5 million with no assistance and $131 million with the
PIF/incentives. He asked how the $31.5 million difference was determined. Freeman stated those
figures were not in "present dollars" and that the assumption was a 10-year period after the center
opened.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the .75% PIF would show up on items purchased at the center for
the "foreseeable future." Freeman replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Kastein asked if thought had been given to a guaranteed revenue stream for the City
in connection with the $1.5 million share back and the $2 million for transportation improvements
that would go to the project. Freeman stated it was complicated to calculate net new sales tax and
many other agreements in the Denver area would be structured over a multi -year period sharing net
new sales tax back over a five-year period of time. He stated with this equation there would be a
"tremendous amount of staff time and developer time" working on determining what was net new
sales tax. He stated the City was trying to avoid this pitfall of a highly complicated incentive
agreement. He stated the nature of how Bayer developed its projects was a "benefit to Fort Collins."
He stated the company would develop most of the project at one time. He stated staff was confident
that a lot of the risk for the incentive package could "sit on Bayer's shoulders" because rapid build -
out would achieve the anticipated revenue and PIF. He stated the City's assurance was that the vast
majority of incentive dollars would be in that public improvement fee. He stated the City also
determined that there needed to be some form of guarantee to the City regarding the one-time $3.5
million ($1.5 million in sales tax and $2 million in transportation). He stated the solution was a
79
December 5, 2006
"reasonable compromise" because the developer would immediately have to develop at least 550,000
square feet of the 900,000 square foot project to qualify for the incentive. He stated the developer
was confident enough about the project to place the risk in the PIF and the 550,000 square foot figure
gave the City some assurances.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the $1.5 million assumed the 550,000 square footbuild-out and that
this figure did not correlate to the $2.2. million net new sales tax. Freeman replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Kastein asked how many square feet would generate the net new sales tax. Freeman
stated it would be generated by the total development.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the figures would be in the "black" in the first three years of sales
tax revenues. He stated he did not want to see the City give away over $600,000 in the first year
and have the City net a "negative number" in sales tax revenue when the project reached 550,000
square feet. Chuck Seest, Finance Director, stated the intent was for the agreement to be based on
achieving a certain `objective" threshold. He stated 550,000 square feet would provide some net
new sales tax. He stated this was based on 310,000 square feet for Target plus additional tenants.
He stated the focus was on the criteria rather than the end result and that if the criteria was met there
was a reasonable assurance that the end result would be achieved.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the City would be paying out less than it was making when it paid
out one-third of the $1.5 million in the first year. Freeman stated staff did not believe that this would
be the case.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the City would "be in the black" the first year. Freeman stated
staff was not sure if that would be the case for the first year and believed that this would be the case
for the second and third years. He stated Bayer was not a "build and hold" company and that the
developer would be highly motivated to get the center open to meet the criteria to qualify for the
public improvement fee. Mr. Silverstein stated in order to open the 550,000 square feet the
developer must build all of the public improvements that were part of this package. He stated the
developer's risk was much higher than the City's risk.
Councilmember Kastein stated the "deal" had to work for both sides and that he had to be able to
explain to the taxpayers what the City's risk was. Mr. Silverstein stated the City's first money would
not be put into the transaction until the center was built and opened with a minimum of 550,000
square feet. He stated the square footage that would be open in July of 2008 would likely exceed
the 550,000 square feet. Seest stated the agreement provided some flexibility up front for the
developer and provided that the other target dates must be met for the $1.5 million in payments to
be made.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if the City would receive use tax associated with the construction.
Freeman stated the use tax on the first year was $.5 million and that the total fees on the project were
"very significant." Seest stated some of the tenants would also pay additional use tax. City Manager
Atteberry asked about the benefit to the three quarter -cent taxes, noting that the focus had been on
the discretionary revenues that could be used for the General Fund. Freeman stated in the first 12-
December S, 2006
month period the estimate was that each of the quarter -cent dedicated taxes would generate about
$200,000 each.
Councilmember Manvel asked if that was total or net new sales tax. Freeman stated this would be
net new sales tax.
Councilmember Roy asked about the time line for the City to remit $2 million to the developer for
transportation improvements. Freeman stated the transportation improvements would be defined in
detail in the development agreement and that the improvements would have to be developed and
accepted before the City would make the payment.
Councilmember Roy asked how much of the $2 million would be for work the City would have done
anyway and work that would be specific to this project. Freeman stated it was difficult to make this
estimate at this time. He noted that the improvements would be for six lanes, full bike lanes,
sidewalk, curb and gutter, median landscaping, etc. Gary Diede, Interim City Engineer, stated there
was a lot more than $2 million in public improvements that would have to be made for the project.
He stated the developer's engineer was working on the plan and that the cost would be significantly
higher than $2 million. He stated a large portion of the $2 million that would come out of the
maintenance money for Harmony Road was to be spent on the intersection of College Avenue and
Harmony Road. He stated other funds (such as CMAQ funds) would be used to help build that
intersection. He stated the other funding would free up about $2 million from the maintenance
money.
Councilmember Roy asked about the relationship between the City, Bayer Properties and the Library
District. He stated he wanted to know the City's cost for the library. City Manager Atteberry stated
he could provide that information under separate cover.
Councilmember Roy stated he was very interested in what would happen as a result of the formation
of the Library District and the ballot language relating to a southeast library. City Manager Atteberry
stated capital expansion fees for the library had been collected by the City over the years and that
those fees would be used to build this facility. He stated those were City dollars. He stated there had
been discussion about whether the City would transfer those dollars over to the Library District to
build the asset. He stated this would have to be negotiated with the Library District.
Councilmember Roy stated there was specific ballot language that related to the Library District
opening and operating a southeast branch library and asked what City dollars would be needed for
that project. Brenda Cams, Library Director, stated there had been ongoing discussion about opening
a branch library in this project. She stated the plan had been that this City facility would use the
impact fees of about $5 million that had been set aside since the fee was created for construction and
books. She stated the plan continued to be to move forward on this project in cooperation and
partnership with the City. She stated the Library District funds would be sufficient to open a very
nice library branch.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if groceries and prescription drugs would be exempt from the PIF.
Freeman replied in the affirmative.
M
December S, 2006
Councilmember Ohlson asked about the status of signed leases and major or peripheral tenants. Mr.
Silverstein stated Target and Lowes were acquiring their tracts of land and that those deals were
nearing completion. He stated when construction started there would be in excess of 70% leased.
He stated the project must be on sound economic footing before construction could begin.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt
Resolution 2006-126.
Councilmember Kastein stated "good negotiations" had taken place between the City and Bayer
Properties. He stated there had been a lot of community input and that there was a place for
incentives provided the City did not "give away the farm." He stated there would be little risk and
great benefit for the City.
Councilmember Manvel stated this was an "impressive plan" and that it was great to have this
project happening in Fort Collins. He stated he had some difficulty with giving City funds to
businesses that would compete with existing businesses. He stated the subsidies were "minor"
compared to the scale of the project ($3.7 billion in sales over the next 10 years). He stated it was
important that sales did not "disappear" from the City and that he looked forward to a "high quality"
development that would be an "asset' to the City.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated this was "positive and extremely exciting" for the City. She stated
this would mean some economic activity that was "badly needed." She stated this would be a "win -
win" for everyone.
Councilmember Roy stated he would support the Resolution. He stated it was a difficult for him to
support incentives at this scale because small business owners did not have the same opportunities
that Bayer Properties would receive. He stated the project could impact the downtown area. He
stated he hoped that something would be created that would make a "significant difference" for Fort
Collins for a long time.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he shared the concerns about competition with existing businesses,
sprawl and the "homogenization" of the country. He stated it was not a difficult decision for him
to support the package because of what was happening in other area communities. He stated it was
necessary to maintain the sustainability and viability of services in Fort Collins and that the payback
would be complete in one year. He stated there would be a 100-year payback ofhundreds ofmillions
of dollars in incentives for one project for community to the south. He stated some people confused
a healthy economy with sales tax dollars. He stated they were related but not the same. He stated
he would not support this package for primary employment because that would be an "artificial
stimulation to population growth." He stated this package was for sales tax dollars to support a
quality community. He stated the payback was `overwhelmingly fast' for this project. He thanked
the City staff for putting together a "responsible package" that seemed to work for everyone.
Mayor Hutchinson stated this was a significant action for economic health. He stated this project
would "fit' Fort Collins and would not be a classic mall. He stated he would support the Resolution.
M
December S, 2006
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Meeting Extended
Councilmember Brown made a motion, seconded by Councilmember, to extend the meeting past
10:30 p.m. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson,
Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the Reappointment, Contract,
and Compensation of the Municipal Judge, Adopted
The following is staff s memorandum on the item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 2006-127 Reappointing Kathleen M. Lane as Municipal Judge and Authorizing
Certain Other Amendments to the Judge's Employment Agreement.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 20Z 2006, Amending Section 2-606 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the Municipal Judge.
Article VII, Section I of the Charter provides that the Municipal Judge is to be appointed for a term
of two years. Kathleen M. Lane was first appointed to serve as the City's Municipal Judge for a term
commencing July 1, 1989. Resolution 2006-127 reappoints Judge Lane for another two-year term
commencing on January 1, 2007 and ending on December 31, 2008, and authorizes the Mayor to
execute an addendum to Judge Lane's Employment Agreement. The addendum will reflect the new
term and, pursuant to the request of the Judge, revise other terms and conditions relating to working
less than full-time, as set out in the salary ordinance, including a reduction in vacation benefits.
Ordinance No. 202, 2006, establishes the 2007 salary of the Municipal Judge.
BACKGROUND
City Council is committed to compensating employees in a manner which is fair, competitive and
understandable. The goal as an employer is to attract and retain quality employees and to
recognize and reward quality performance.
In order to accomplish this goal the City Council and the Municipal Judge meet once a year to
discuss last year's performance and set goals for the coming year.
rx
December 5, 2006
In 2006, the total compensation paid to the Municipal Judge included the following:
SALARYAND BENEFITS
ANNUAL
NON -MONETARY BENEFITS
Salary
$ 99,256
Vacation (30 days per year)
Life Insurance
348
Holidays (11 days per year)
Medical Insurance
7,704
Dental Insurance
528
Long Term Disability
983
ICMA (457)
2,978
ICMA (401)
9,926
Total Monetary Compensation
$ 121,723
The process established for evaluating the performance of the City Manager, City Attorney, and
Municipal Judge, adopted by the Council via Resolution 2000-123 on October 17, 2000 and further
amended by the adoption of Resolution 2001-018 on February 6, 2001, provides that any change
in compensation for the City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge will be adopted by the
Council by ordinance in sufficient time for the change in compensation to take effect as of the first
full pay period of the ensuing year.
Resolution 2006-127 authorizes the Mayor to execute a Seventh Addendum to the existing
Employment Agreement between the City and the Judge, extending said Agreement for a term
commencing on January 1, 2007 and ending on December 31, 2008, and revising other terms and
conditions of said Agreement so as to add provisions relating to working less than full-time, as set
out in the salary ordinance, including a reduction in vacation benefits. "
Councilmember Weitkunat made amotion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adopt Resolution
2006-127.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the Council had asked him to summarize the interactions with the three
employees and provide information about the criteria for rating the individuals. He stated Kathleen
Lane was the Municipal Judge and that the system was a pay for performance system. He stated the
Municipal Judge was rated on judicial duties, Municipal Court administrative duties, and Liquor
Licensing Authority duties. He stated court employees and prosecutor peer ratings were also
considered as related to legal ability, integrity, communication skills, judicial temperament,
administrative performance, sentencing and overall judicial performance. He stated the Council
rated Judge Lane and found that her overall performance exceeded expectations. He stated in light
of the budget difficulties the Municipal Judge requested, and the Council negotiated with her, a
salary increase based on merit pay (a 4% increase). He stated the Municipal Judge had been
proactive in helping with the budget crisis and had determined that she could work 80% of the time
for the coming year. He stated the Council was pleased with the performance of Judge Lane.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
M
December 5, 2006
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Weitkunat made amotion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adopt Ordinance
No. 202, 2006 on First Reading, inserting the figures $82,581 (base salary) and $103,376 (total
compensation) effective January 1, 2007. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the Compensation
and Benefits of the City Attorney, Adopted
The following is staff's memorandum on the item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 2006-128 Approving a Sixth Addendum to the City Attorneys Employment
Agreement.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 203, 2006, Amending Section 2-581 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the City Attorney.
City Council met in Executive Session on November 14, 2006 to conduct the performance review of
City Attorney Steve Roy. Ordinance No. 203, 2006, establishes the 2007salary of the City Attorney.
Resolution 2006-128 adopts an addendum to the City Attorneys employment contract.
BACKGROUND
City Council is committed to compensating employees in a manner which is fair, competitive and
understandable. The goal as an employer is to attract and retain quality employees and to
recognize and reward quality performance.
In order to accomplish this goal the City Council and the CityAttorney meet once a year to discuss
last year's performance and set goals for the coming year.
In 2006, the total compensation paid to the City Attorney included the following:
m
December 5, 2006
SALARY AND BENEFITS
ANNUAL
NON-MONETARYBENEFITS
Salary
$ 137,000
Vacation (35 days per year)
Life Insurance
480
Holidays (11 days per year)
Medical Insurance
7,704
Dentallnsurance
528
Long Term Disability
1,356
ICMA (457)
4,110
ICMA (401)
13,700
Total Monetary Compensation
$ 164,878
An addendum to the City Attorney's employment agreement approved by the Council in December
2004 states that, assuming satisfactory performance, the City Attorney's base salary will be
increased to no less than $152, 500 as of the first pay period in January, 2007. Because of the fiscal
constraints that have limited the compensation increasesfor other City employees, the City Attorney
has proposed that half of the 2007 increase called for by the agreement be postponed until January
of 2008. A contract addendum making that change is presented for Council consideration.
The process established for evaluating the performance of the City Manager, City Attorney, and
Municipal Judge, adopted by the Council via Resolution 2000-123 on October 17, 2000 and further
amended by the adoption of Resolution 2001-018 on February 6, 2001, provides that any change
in compensation for the City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge will be adopted by the
Council by ordinance in sufficient time for the change in compensation to take effect as of the first
full pay period of the ensuing year. "
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt
Resolution 2006-128.
Mayor Hutchinson stated City Attorney Steve Roy was the chief legal officer of the City and that this
position demanded an "incredible" variety of skills, knowledge and abilities. He stated the City
Attorney was rated on eight major areas: general legal counsel, legislative services, litigation, office
administration, management relations, personal attributes and skills, strengths and areas for
improvement. He stated City Attorney Roy's overall performance had been "superb" and exceeded
expectations at the highest level. He stated City Attorney Roy asked for a reduction in the amount
of his raise due to the financial circumstances of the City and asked that the contract be approached
a half a year at a time. He stated the compensation would be only half of the contractual obligation.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Weitkunat made amotion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to adopt Ordinance
No. 203, 2006 on First Reading, inserting the figures $144,750 (base salary) and $174,297 (total
86
December 5, 2006
compensation) effective January 1, 2007. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance No. 204, 2006,
Amending Section 2-596 of the City Code and Setting
the Salary of the City Manager. Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council met in Executive Session on November 14, 2006 to conduct the performance appraisal
of City Manager Darin Atteberry. Ordinance No. 204, 2006, establishes the salary of the City
Manager.
BACKGROUND
City Council is committed to compensating employees in a manner which is fair, competitive and
understandable. The goal as an employer is to attract and retain quality employees and to
recognize and reward quality performance.
In order to accomplish this goal the City Council and the City Manager meet once a year to discuss
last year's performance and set goals for the coming year.
In 2006, the total compensation paid to the City Manager included the following:
SALARYAND BENEFITS
ANNUAL
NON -MONETARY BENEFITS
Salary
$ 159,730
Vacation (30 days per year)
Life Insurance
557
Holidays (11 days per year)
Medical Insurance
7,704
Dental Insurance
528
Long Term Disability
1,581
ICMA (457)
4,792
ICMA (401)
15,973
Car Allowance
9, 000
Total Monetary Compensation
$ 199,864
The process established for evaluating the performance of the City Manager, City Attorney, and
Municipal Judge, adopted by the Council via Resolution 2000-123 on October 17, 2000 and further
amended by the adoption of Resolution 2001-018 on February 6, 2001, provides that any change
in compensation for the City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge will be adopted by the
Ml
December 5, 2006
Council by ordinance in sufficient time for the change in compensation to take effect as of the first
full pay period of the ensuing year. "
Nate Donovan, 2400 Hampshire Square, thanked the City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal
Judge and the City staff in general for their "great work." He stated the Councilmembers and the
Mayor also put in a lot of time on the public's business.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Ordinance
No. 204, 2006 on First Reading, inserting the figures $163,404 (base salary) and $213,594 (total
compensation) effective January 1, 2007.
Mayor Hutchinson stated CityManager Dann Atteberrywas rated on three main areas: City Council,
City organization and leadership skills. He stated the City Manager was in charge of a full service
city government and a $454 million budget. He stated the Council rated City Manager Atteberry as
exceeding expectations in a challenging time of transition. He stated City Manager Atteberry had
expressed concerns about employee morale and budget difficulties. He stated City Manager
Atteberry asked that his raise coincide with the raise to be given to a majority of City employees
(2.3%). He stated the Council reluctantly honored that request.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adiournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. a":
Mayor
ATTEST:
6 V