HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-08/15/1989-RegularAugust 15, 1989
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on
Tuesday, August 15, 1989, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the City
of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following
Councilmembers: Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and
Winokur.
Staff Members Present: Burkett, Krajicek, Roy
Citizen Participation
A. Proclamation Naming August 20 as Fort Collins Day was accepted by Susan
Cole and Wayne Sundberg.
B. Presentation by Richard Stevens relating to his March visit to Zapopan,
Mexico was introduced by Steve Vandermeer. Mr. Stevens commented on
his visit to Zapopan, Mexico and relayed greetings from Zapopan to the
' citizens of Fort Collins.
Agenda Review: City Manager
City Manager Burkett encouraged citizens to pull Item #9, Public Hearing
Regarding Resolution 89-148 Authorizing the City to Participate in the
1989 Colorado Local Mortgage Bond Program, should they want to make
comments at the Public Hearing.
Councilmember Horak requested Item #11, Resolution 89-150 Authorizing the
Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Agreement with Leggat McCall Advisors,
Inc. for the Purpose of Professional Consulting Services Leading Toward the
Development of Block 31, be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda.
Consent Calendar
This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and
energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends
approval of the Consent, Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this
calendar be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately.
Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be considered separately
under Agenda Item #15, Pulled Consent Items.
-433-
August 15, 1989
5.
Items Related to the Harmony Annexation No 7 Annexation and Zoning
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 1989, Annexing Approximately
4.2 Acres, Known as the Harmony Annexation No. 7.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 1989, Zoning Approximately
3.0 Acres of the Harmony Annexation No. 7 Into the I-P, Industrial
Park District and Approximately 1.2 Acres Into the R-L-P, Low
Density Planned Residential District.
On August 1,
Forth Findings
Annexation No.
Council unanimously adopted Resolution 89-140 Setting
of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Harmony
7.
On August 1, Council also unanimously adopted on First Reading
Ordinance No. 113, 1989 and Ordinance No. 114, 1989, annexing and
zoning approximately 4.2 acres located north of Harmony Road and west
of the Union Pacific railroad tracks. The requested zonings are: (1)
3.0 acres (Preuss, Golden Meadows Business Park II, and southern piece
of City of Fort Collins properties) of I-P, Industrial Park District;
and (2) 1.2 acres (northern piece of City of Fort Collins properties)
of R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential District. This is the
annexation of an enclave area. The property is presently developed as
follows: 1) park/detention pond (northern City piece); 2) industrial
building (Preuss piece); 3) industrial building (Golden Meadows
Business Park II piece); and 4) electric utility substation (southern
City piece). Existing commercial signs located on the property will
have to conform to the City's Sign Code at the conclusion of a five
year amortization period.
APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins
OWNERS: Gloria & Gunther Preuss Golden Meadows Business Park II
4401 Innovation Drive P.O. Box 471
Fort Collins, CO 80525 Fort Collins, CO 80522
City of Fort Collins (2 pieces)
Items Relating to Interstate Associates Annexation
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 115, 1989, Annexing Approximately
7.5 Acres Known as Interstate Associates Annexation.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 1989, Zoning Approximately
7.5 Acres Known as Interstate Associates Annexation, into the H-B
Highway Business District.
C
I
-434-
August 15, 1989
1
[l1
On August 1, Council unanimously adopted Resolution 89-141 Setting
Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Interstate
Associates Annexation.
On August 1, Council also unanimously adopted on First Reading
Ordinance No. 115, 1989 and Ordinance No. 116, 1989, annexing and
zoning approximately 7.5 acres located east of Interstate 25 and south
of Prospect Road. The requested zoning is H-B Highway Business
District.
APPLICANT: Robert A. Silverberg
Silco Fuels, Inc.
P.O.Box 19428
Denver, CO 80219
OWNERS: Silco Fuels, Inc.
P.O. Box 19428
Denver, CO 80219
Marbro Investment Co
P.O. Box 17387
Denver, CO 80217
Richard L. Robinson
2401 West 6th Avenue
Denver, CO 80204
c/o James Stewart & Associates
P.O. Box 429
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Peter J. Prato
7900 E. Union Avenue, Suite 850
Denver, CO 80237
Lawrence A. Atler
370 17th Street, Suite 900
Denver, CO 80202
Edward I. Haligman
7887 East Belleview, Suite 700
Englewood, CO 80111
Edward A. Robinson Nancy S. Hawkins
2401 East 6th Avenue 1783 Grape Street
Denver, CO 80204 Denver, CO 80220
The development review process for planned unit developments and
subdivision requests contains many deadlines that are based on a
particular day of the week; Monday mornings (Conceptual Review), 1st
Friday (Final Review), 3rd Monday (Interdepartmental Review), 3rd
Friday (Work Session), 4th Monday (Planning and Zoning Board Hearing),
etc. The submittal date of new development applications is the only
deadline based on a specific date of the month, 5th of the month. The
5th of the month date has caused problems for both staff and the
development industry. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted
on First Reading on August 1, requires that new development
applications be submitted on the 1st Monday of the month. This change
is housekeeping in nature and will improve the quality of staff
review. Both a telephone survey of private engineers and planners and
a letter of intent to developers were used to determine that there
would be no detrimental impact on the development community. There
-435-
August 15, 1989
M
10.
was no opposition voiced at the public hearing. The Planning and I
Zoning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the changes.
The City of Fort Collins has been invited to participate in the 1989
Colorado Local Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bond Program which is
being sponsored by the City and County of Denver. The Resolution
approves the participation of the City in the 1989 program and
authorizes the City to enter into the delegation agreement with the
City and County of Denver. Through the delegation agreement, Denver
will have the authority to request an allocation from the state-wide
balance of private activity bond authorization which then may be used
to support mortgages by participating lenders.to qualified applicants
within Fort Collins. Under federal guidelines, entities participating
in such programs are to conduct a public hearing at which all
interested persons are invited to attend and express their views, both
orally and in writing, on the proposed issuance of the mortgage bonds.
The City and County of Denver has set a target issue size of
approximately $60,000,000. Denver has contacted several other local
issuers and expected about 14 other jurisdictions to participate in
the local program. The City of Fort Collins has used its 1989 private
activity bond allocation to induce the Carson Burger and Weekly
Project, the Innovative Companies Project, and the ESAB Automation '
Project. In order to participate in the Colorado Local Single Family
Mortgage Revenue Bond program, an allocation of additional funding
authority must be applied for from the state-wide balance. In 1988,
this process led to an allocation to the City of Fort Collins of
approximately $754,000 which has been used to provide below market
home mortgages for first-time low -and moderate -income families.
The Resolution would authorize the Purchasing Agent to enter into a
professional services agreement with Rocky Mountain consultants for
the design and construction engineering of a new water line along East
Prospect Road.
The City/County recommends retaining Leggat McCall Advisors, Inc. to
assist in refining the development alternatives Jor Block 31 and to
provide a framework to decide how best to develop the site. If a
-436-
August 15, 1989
' private/public arrangement is the best alternative, Leggat McCall will
further assist in developing criteria for selecting the developer.
Specifically, its scope of work will entail:
Issues Overview - Consultants will meet with the City/County team
to review objectives and discuss approaches to the project. The
consultants will review past reports, surveys, land plans, and
market information. Key industry people will be interviewed to get
their impressions of the opportunities and constraints.
Market Analysis - will focus on analysis of the specific context
and development trends in the market area from which the site will
draw potential tenants and users, including the public sector;
evaluation of major existing and planned competitive facilities;
identification of product characteristics and conditions requisite
to successful development; evaluation of the potential synergy
among potential users; and identification of supportable
development at the site.
* Financial Analysis - Leggat McCall will consider financial
implications in the process of identifying highest and best use
options. Also, it will consider the financial alternatives both on
the basis of life cycle occupancy costs and on the basis of income
from the surplus development potential of the available land.
' * Development Programming - will prepare a pro forma financial
analysis which will relate revenues, operating costs, financing,
and estimated development costs. The final product will be a
series of recommendations concerning the mix and scale of use which
would be feasible, with identification of market characteristics,
price, rent levels, phasing, absorption, program requirements,
indicated land dues, financing mechanisms and potential income.
12. Resolution 89-151 Authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement with the
State Department of Highways and Burlington Northern Railroad
Regarding Railroad Crossing Improvements at College and Cherry.
This is a request to authorize the Mayor to enter into an
intergovernmental agreement between the State of Colorado Division of
Highways and the City of Fort Collins to upgrade the traffic signal at
the intersection of College Avenue and Cherry Street. This upgrade is
brought about by the improvement to the railroad crossing protection
at the mainline Burlington/Northern Railroad and College Avenue just
north of the intersection of College Avenue and Cherry Street.
The City's Transportation Division will rewire this intersection to
facilitate its coordination with the new railroad crossing protection
then. The agreement calls for the City to do this signal work and
' bill the State for reimbursement. The Transportation Division has
funds available in the 1989 Traffic Construction program to cover this
cost. Work will be done in September of this year with reimbursement
-437-
August 15, 1989
13.
from the State to follow in October
not exceed $22,850.
The total cost of this work will
A vacancy currently exists on the Natural Resources Advisory Board due
to the resignation of Robert Sanz.
Councilmembers Horak and Kirkpatrick reviewed the active applications
on file and are recommending Harold Swope be appointed to fill the
position.
14. Routine Easement.
a. Powerline Easement from Edgar Weldon, Evelyn M. Weldon and Dianne
E. Wages, 228 Fishback Ave., needed to install new underground
streetlight services. Consideration: $10
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #6. A.
91
Item #7. A.
Q
Item #8.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 114 1989 Zoning Approxi-
mately 3.0 Acres of the Harmony Annexation No 7 Into the
I-P. Industrial Park District and Aooroximately 1 2 Acres
Into the R-L-P. Low Density Planned Residential District
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #19.
1
-438-
August 15, 1989
' Councilmember Edwards
adopt and approve all
Councilmembers Azari,
Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to
items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas:
Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and
Resolution 89-150 Authorizing the
Purchasing Agent to Enter into an
Agreement with Leggat McCall Advisors,
Inc. for the Purpose of Professional
Consulting Services Leading Toward
the Development of Block 31 Adopted
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
The City/County has a joint fund established for expenses on Block 31. The
cost of $38,000 for the professional services is budgeted, appropriated,
and will be paid from this joint account reducing the balance to $256,000.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
' The City/County recommends retaining Leggat McCall Advisors, Inc. to assist
in refining the development alternatives for Block 31 and to provide a
framework to decide how best to develop the site. If a private/public
arrangement is the best alternative, Leggat McCall will further assist in
developing criteria for selecting the developer.
Specifically, its scope of work will entail:
* Issues Overview - Consultants will meet with the City/County team
to review objectives and discuss approaches to the project. The
consultants will review past reports, surveys, land plans, and
market information. Key industry people will be interviewed to get
their impressions of the opportunities and constraints.
Market Analysis - will focus on analysis of the specific context
and development trends in the market area from which the site will
draw potential tenants and users, including the public sector;
evaluation of major existing and planned competitive facilities;
identification of product characteristics and conditions requisite
to successful development; evaluation of the potential synergy
among potential users; and identification of supportable
development at the site.
* Financial Analysis - Leggat McCall will consider financial
' implications in the process of identifying highest and best use
options. Also, it will consider the financial alternatives both on
-439-
August 15, 1989
the basis of life cycle occupancy costs and on the basis of income
from the surplus development potential of the available land.
* Development Proarammina - will prepare a pro forma financial
analysis which will relate revenues, operating costs, financing,
and estimated development costs. The final product will be a
series of recommendations concerning the mix and scale of use which
would be feasible, with identification of market characteristics,
price, rent levels, phasing, absorption, program requirements,
indicated land dues, financing mechanisms and potential income.
BACKGROUND
The Block 31 Executive Committee is investigating the development of the
block through a six step process:
- Assemble the City/County
- Document the program and
- Write the prospectus
- Select a developer
- Negotiate
- Manage the delivery
Team
create a development strategy
Since the analyzing of a public -private potential is an undertaking outside
the realm of staff expertise, a consultant should be hired to assist in the
process. Further, the consultant will not only review the potential of a
public -private development, but will assist in evaluating all options:
selling the Block, dividing it in half, continuing the status quo, or
constructing a joint government facility.
In May, the Block 31 Executive Committee advertised a Request for Proposal
seeking qualified firms to evaluate the development potential of the site.
Twelve proposals were received, and reviewed by members of the Executive
Committee. Three firms were interviewed, with Leggat McCall Advisors, Inc.
being the committee's choice. Leggat McCall comes highly qualified having
performed similar studies in Orlando, Florida; Federal City Council,
Washington, D.C.; Downtown Redevelopment, Norwalk, Connecticut; and several
others.
The proposed schedule for the above scope of work requires starting the
project in September 1989. Recommendations will be presented in November
and December, 1989."
Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari,
to adopt Resolution 89-150.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, commented on the lack of
opportunity for public input on the Block 31 project.
Councilmember Horak said he would not support Resolution 89-150 and stated
he believed the analysis (market and financial) could "be conducted
-440-
August 15, 1989
' "in-house" and expressed concern about the make-up of the Executive
Committee.
The vote on Councilmember Kirkpatrick's motion to adopt Resolution 89-150
was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Kirkpatrick, Mabry,
Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: Councilmember Horak.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Edwards reported on the neighborhood meeting held by the
Poudre Fire Authority, Police Services, and Larimer County Mental Health
subsequent to the tragic fire of August 6 and commented on the valuable
service to the community that those entities provide.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick spoke of the New West Fest stagecoach replica
which will be located and available for free rides at the Library Park.
Mayor Winokur encouraged all citizens to participate in the New West Fest
events.
Ordinance No. 101, 1989, Authorizing
' the Issuance of Industrial Development
Revenue Bonds of the City of Fort
Collins for the Carson, Burger & Weekly, Inc. Protect.
Adopted on Second Reading as Amended
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
On March 21, 1989, the Council adopted an Inducement Resolution for the
project in the amount of $1,40O,0O0. This ordinance, which was unanimously
adopted on First Reading on July 18, authorizes the issuance of the
industrial development revenue bonds to be used to finance the construction
of the improvements for the Carson, Burger & Weekly Project. The project
is to be privately owned and the debt is to be paid from the revenue
generated by the project. At the request of bond counsel, this item was
postponed on Second Reading to this date.
Since interest rates were not available at the time the agenda materials
were printed, the rates on pages 4 and 5 of the Ordinance will be read into
the record at Tuesday's meeting. Other minor amendments are reflected on
the attached Ordinance."
Finance Director Alan Krcmarik introduced Dave Dwyer who read the
' amendments to the Second Reading into the record and commented on the
interest rate changes.
-441-
August 15, 1989
Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to '
adopt Ordinance No. 101, 1989, on Second Reading as amended. Yeas:
Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and
Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 118, 1989, Amending
the Code Relating to Vendors'
Retention of a Portion of Sales
Taxes Collected. Adopted on First Reading
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
Adoption of this ordinance will provide an additional $270,000 per year to
the Sales & Use Tax Fund. Through 1997, the proceeds from the vendor fee
cap will be appropriated annually and transferred to the Capital Projects
Fund for the Choices 95 Capitai Improvements.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
During discussions with the City Council regarding funding mechanisms for
the Choices 95 Capital Improvement Program, many options were discussed. '
In addition to the quarter cent sales tax which was approved by the voters
on March 7, 1989, Council included a $100 cap on the present 3Y vendor fee
deduction to complete the Choices 95 funding requirements. This vendor fee
cap would provide the City with approximately $270,000 per year (1990
dollars) in additional revenue, and provide the necessary funding for the
Choices 95 Capital Improvement Program.
Failure to adopt this change to the City Code will leave the Choices 95
funding package short $270,000 per year (1990 dollars). This would require
that Council either reduce the number of projects in the capital
improvement program, or identify another source of revenue to fully fund
the program.
In April of 1989 staff began the outreach process to potentially affected
vendors. Of the over 4,000 sales & use tax vendors in the City of Fort
Collins, approximately 70 are potentially affected by this change in the
vendor fee deduction. Reaction to the proposal from the 70 vendors has
been mixed. Approximately ten vendors have attended meetings held by staff
to discuss the proposal and continue to express their opposition to any
change in the vendor fee deduction. The Chamber of Commerce has also
expressed its opposition to any change in the present vendor fee deduction.
Other vendors, however, have conceded that it does not cost them even $100 '
per month to remit sales and use tax to the City. These individuals have
stated to City staff that although they do not like the fact that the
-442-
August 15, 1989
' change will impact their revenues, they cannot justify opposing the
measure.
The money currently retained by the vendors is in fact paid by the
taxpayers for the purpose of funding City services. Allowing vendors to
retain part of the sales tax they collect is intended to be a gesture of
good faith on the part of the City. There does not appear to be sufficient
evidence to justify allowing a business to keep significant amounts of
taxpayer money. Although staff has been sensitive to the concerns of the
vendors, we, as stewards of the public trust, also have a fiduciary
responsibility to Fort Collins residents to use their money for the
purposes for which it was intended. Although imposing this $100 cap on the
present vendor fee deduction is opposed by some who feel the City is taking
"their" money away, it is important to stress that the money in question is
not the vendors' but the taxpayers'.
During the outreach process with vendors, City staff spent a considerable
amount of time visiting with vendors to determine their costs in remitting
sales and use tax to the City. We visited with businesses of different
sizes and types. Some of the businesses were fully automated, or
computerized, while some were totally manual. The vendors who attended the
meetings expressed to us that it cost them considerably more than $100 per
month to remit sales and use tax to the City, and that any change in the
present vendor fee deduction would place an unfair burden on a small
segment of the community. We visited with the vendors to see how long it
' takes to remit the tax, in an attempt to try to justify why they should
keep, in some cases, thousands of dollars per month. Our findings did not
justify their claims. Staff could not document significant costs involved
in remitting sales and use tax to the City.
What we found was that there is not a lot that a business does that would
not be done if there were no Sales Tax. The information retained is what
any business would retain in order to track sales, etc. The only true
additional work is filling out the form at the end of each month.
During our last meeting with vendors on July 21, we asked them what they
felt the solution should be. Their response was to not do anything that
would impact any business already receiving the 3% vendor fee deduction.
Their preference is that the City not change the ordinance at all, but, if
it is changed, existing businesses should be "grandfathered".
Administratively that does not seem to be an equitable solution, and does
not accomplish the objective of funding Choices 95.
When the sales tax was adopted in 1968, it was estimated that a 3% vendor
fee on a 1% sales tax would offset costs of collection. Since that time
the amount retained by vendors has increased as the sales tax rate has
increased and as inflation has grown. In effect, the amount now retained
by vendors in the form of the fee is substantially higher (a factor of 2.75
more) than when it was established.
' As a general rule, costs of complying with taxes are not compensated by
taxing authorities. Approximately half of the 46 states that have a sales
-443-
August 15, 1989
tax do not allow a vendor fee. When the State of Colorado adopted its
sales tax in 1935, a vendor fee of 3.33% was established and many home rule
cities adopted a similar fee. More recently, the trend is toward lower
vendor fees, establishing a limit on the amount of the fee, or not allowing
a vendor fee at all.
Communities across Colorado are looking at changes in the vendor fee
deduction as a way to increase sales & use tax revenues. Many states, and
some Colorado municipalities, do not allow vendors to retain any money to
assist in off -setting costs related to remitting Sales and Use Tax. The
following list demonstrates where Fort Collins is in relation to other home
rule municipalities:
MUNICIPALITY VENDOR FEE SALES & USE TAX RATE
Alamosa
5%
1%
Cherry Hills Village
5%
3%
Breckenridge
3.33%
2%
Canon City
3.33%
2%
Central City
3.33%
4%
Cortez
3.33%
3.5%
Durango
3.33%
2%
Glendale
3.33%
3.5%
Grand Junction
3.33%
2.75%
Lamar
3.33%
3%
Montrose
3.33%
3%
Pueblo
3.33%
3.5%
Rifle
3.33%
2.5%
Colorado Springs
3%
2.5%
Edgewater
3%
3.5%
Fort Collins
3%
2.75%
LaJunta
3%
3%
Arvada
3% w/S100
Cap
3%
Longmont
3% w/5100
Cap
2.75%
Golden
2.5%
2%
Lafayette
2.5%
2%
Littleton
2.5%
3%
Westminster
2.5%
3.25%
Commerce City
2%
3%
Denver
2%
3.5%
Wheatridge
2% w/5100
Cap
2%
Englewood
1.6%
3.5%
Boulder
1.5%
2.53%
Thornton
1.5%
3.5%
Lakewood
1%
2%
Northglenn
1%
2%
Aurora
0.5%
3.5%
Avon
0
4%
Delta
0
2%
Greeley
0
3%
Greenwood Village
0
3%
1
-444-
August 15, 1989
' Steamboat Springs 0 4%
Vail 0 4%
Note
All statutory cities have the same 3.33% vendor fee deduction that the
state allows. A copy of the findings submitted to vendors on July 21 is
attached for further reference."
Deputy City Manager Skip Noe reviewed the outreach process in detail and
outlined a May meeting in which 70 businesses and 120 people were invited
to review the proposal. He spoke of the conclusions that were reached
regarding collecting and remitting sales tax and commented on the July
meeting when staff's findings, options, and recommendations were discussed.
Gene Markley, 2109 County Club Cove, opposed any changes to the vendor
deduction.
Brad Bischoff, President Chamber of Commerce, spoke against the vendor's
fee cap.
Dick Dellenbach, President Dellenbach Chevrolet, spoke against and urged
Council not to adopt the ordinance.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, stated he believed that the vendor
' fee deduction should not be changed.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick,
to adopt Ordinance No. 118, 1989 on First Reading.
Councilmember Edwards described his personal experiences as a retailer
regarding collection and remittance of sales tax revenue and the cost of
reporting sales tax. He stated his support for the motion.
Councilmember Azari noted her discomfort with the vendor fee cap issue and
commented on the possible long-range development of the capital
improvements program. She stated she was unsure if the $100 cap was
appropriate and stated she would not support the motion.
Councilmember Mabry noted that over time his support for the vendor fee cap
has waned and stated he would not support the ordinance due to the unknown
cost to vendor collectors to provide that service to the City.
Councilmember Maxey commented on the State sales tax collection system and
stated that he believed putting a fee cap on the dollar amount is not
equitable.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick commented on the reporting requirements and
stated she believed that the cost of reporting could be calculated. She
' supported the motion and encouraged businesses to look into ways to provide
specific information regarding the costs of sales tax collection and
-445-
August 15, 1989
remittance She noted her displeasure with the creative financing ideas I
proposed during the Choices 95 proposal discussions.
Councilmember Horak clarified that his support for the motion did not
relate to Choices 95.
Councilmember Azari stated she did not believe the fee was equitable and
noted she would not support the motion.
City Manager Burkett explained the rational behind the staff decision to
propose a cap versus a rate reduction in the fee.
Finance Director Alan Krcmarik reported on the state law setting the 5% fee
for collecting sales tax revenue on motor vehicles.
Mayor Winokur commented on the commitment and obligations that were
associated with the Choices 95 package. He stated he believed that the
City is paying too much for the sales tax collection service and suggested
the need for additional data on the issue to bring about an exact
reimbursement amount. He noted that over the past twenty-one years
businesses have become more efficient and suggested that the costs
associated with collecting sales tax have been reduced. He stated his
appreciation for being provided with ample information on the relative
costs. He indicated the need for additional and more specific information
on the issue (between first and second reading of Ordinance No. 118, 1989).
Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to
,
postpone consideration of Ordinance No. 118, 1989 on First Reading until
September 5. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari and Maxey. Nays: Councilmembers
Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, and Winokur.
THE MOTION FAILED. The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to adopt
Ordinance No. 118, 1989 on First Reading was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, and Winokur. Nays:
Councilmembers Azari, Mabry, and Maxey.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 89-153 Appointing Members
of the Council Ethics Review Board Adopted
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed Resolution would appoint three regular members and one
alternate member to the newly created Ethics Review Board.
On August 1, 1989, Council adopted on Second Reading Ordinance No. 112, '
1989, which created an Ethics Review Board in place of the existing Board
of Ethics which had previously been created by Resolution 81-151: The
-446-
August 15, 1989
passage of the new ordinance repealed all previous resolutions, ordinances,
etc., regarding ethical rules of conduct and the Board of Ethics. Although
the functions of the new Ethics Review Board are substantially similar to
those of the existing Board, the adoption of the ordinance creates a need
to appoint members to the new Ethics Review Board, including an alternate
member." Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember
Mabry, to adopt Resolution 89-153 with the insertion of the following
names: Councilmembers Mabry, Edwards, and Horak as regular members and
Councilmember Maxey as an alternate member. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari,
Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Motion Directing Staff to Prepare Formal
Policy Guidelines for use of 10% Lodging
Tax Maintenance and Mitigation Fund
(Postponed from August 8, 1989),
Tabled Indefinitely•
and
Motion Effective January 1, 1990, to
Reorganize and Reallocate the Current
Lodging Tax to 75% for the Convention and
' Visitors Bureau, to be Used for Conventioneering
and Visiting Services and 25% to the
Cultural Resources Board, to be Used for
Cultural Programing. Adopted
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the August 8 adjourned meeting, a motion was made and seconded to direct
staff to prepare formal policy guidelines for the use of the 10% Lodging
Tax Maintenance and Mitigation Fund. Council consideration of the motion
was postponed until this date."
Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to
table consideration of the Lodging Tax Maintenance Motion. Yeas:
Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Mabry, and Maxey. Nays: Councilmembers
Horak, Kirkpatrick, and Winokur.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick,
to, effective January 1, 1990, reorganize and reallocate the current
lodging tax to 75% for the Convention and Visitors Bureau, to be used for
convent ioneering and visiting services and 11% to the Cultural Resources
Board, to be used for cultural programming.
-447-
August 15, 1989
Councilmember Mabry stated that staff (by whatever mechanism necessary)
should return to the September 5 meeting with appropriate legislation to
implement the change.
Karla Neidan, Executive Director, Convention and Visitors Bureau, spoke in
favor of the motion.
City Manager Burkett clarified the current contract negotiations and stated
that an RFP would be issued and the details of the new contract would be
brought to Council for its review.
Jane Folsom, Cultural Resources Board Chairperson, spoke in support of the
motion.
Councilmember Horak stated he would not support the motion and commented on
the importance of guidelines for the mitigation account. He stressed the
need for additional review of the issue in order to ensure the proper
funding percentages.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick commented on the effects of tourism and
conventioneers on the community. She described the benefits of including
the probable costs for additional police staff for the CSU football events
and indicated that in theory, the mitigation fund had some merit. She
stated she would support the motion.
Councilmember Azari commented on the dollars that had been set aside for
direct services for the development of tourism and for providing programs
and encouraged Council to accept the 75/25 option.
Mayor Winokur stated he could not justify eliminating the fund. He stated
he believed the most effective approach would be a combined effort of both
regulatory and public resources and stated he was unsure what the
additional money would buy the City. He suggested pooling the additional
money to provide transit services, air quality services, etc.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick suggested that the RFP proposal for convention
visitor services should reflect an interest in recognizing the effects of
tourism. She stated that when the proposal returns to Council, it should
reflect an increased funding level (particularly to the Convention and
Visitor's Bureau) but stated she did not believe the increase should be
construed as a substitute for membership dollars.
Councilmember Azari commented on the possibility of additional funding to
both groups and stressed the need for the guidelines from the Cultural
Resources Board to reflect a high level of coordination with the Convention
and Visitor's Bureau.. She stressed the need for attention to be directed
to the results of the programs that are funded through the Cultural
Resources Board to ensure the environmental issues are addressed.
The vote on Councilmember Mabry's motion effective ''January ,1, 1990, to
reorganize and reallocate the current lodging tax to 75% for the, Convention
and Visitors Bureau, to be used for convent ioneering and visiting services
1
-448-
August 15, 1989
' and 25% to the Cultural Resources Board, to be used for cultural
programming was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards,
Kirkpatrick, Mabry, and Maxey. Nays: Councilmembers Horak and Winokur.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Edwards requested that the Ethics Board convene to address
the hypothetical issues surrounding the creation of a Community Development
Corporation and potential financing regarding the old Post Office.
Mayor Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick, to
direct staff return to Council with the appropriate paperwork to earmark
the existing $60,000 (or the entire balance of the maintenance and
mitigation account) for expenses in conjunction with the City of Fort
Collins hosting the 1992 Colorado Municipal League conference.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick indicated the need for a formal resolution or
ordinance to describe more completely the types of expenditures that might
be necessary. ,
Councilmember Edwards stated he was unclear about the impact of the CML
conference being held in Fort Collins.
' Mayor Winokur clarified that the City Government of Fort Collins would be
the official hosts of the conference and recommended in the formulation of
the resolution, that Councilmembers provide their opinions to the City
Manager and staff regarding the conference.
City Manager Burkett spoke of the potential range of costs for hosting the
CML conference and stated he believed it would not be necessary to use the
entire $60,000 for the conference expenses.
Councilmember Horak noted his discomfort with the idea of giving the money
to the Convention and Visitors Bureau or the Cultural Resources Board. He
suggested that the funding for hosting the CML conference could be located
in surplus funds available at the time of the conference and suggested that
the $60,000 should still be tied to its original purpose.
The vote on Councilmember Winokur's motion to earmark the existing $60,000
of the maintenance and mitigation account for expenses in conjunction with
the City of Fort Collins hosting the 1992 Colorado Municipal League
conference was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey,
and Winokur. Nays: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, and Horak.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
-449-
August 15, 1989
Executive Session Authorized
Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards, to
adjourn into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing matters
relating to land acquisition. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak,
Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
At the conclusion of the Executive Session, Councilmember Mabry made a
motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards, to adjourn the meeting. Yeas:
Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and
Winokur. Nays: None.
The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
ATTEST -
City Clerk
Mayor
I-J
-450-