HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 01/20/2004 - CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE COUNCIL MEETING ITEM NUMBER: 7
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: January20, 2004
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
STAFF: John Fischbach
SUBJECT
Consideration and approval of the Council meeting minutes of November 4 and November 18,
2003.
November 4, 2003
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, November 4,
2003, 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:Bertschy,Hamrick,Kastein,Martinez,Roy,Tharp and
Weitkunat.
Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Krajicek, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Joyce Schneider, representing the property owner at 2600 East Vine Drive, spoke in favor of
realignment of Vine Drive north of the properties and so as to protect the historic Plummer School.
She stated she was in the process of obtaining historic designation for her property across from the
Plummer School. She expressed a concern that the grade separation might mean backing up the
historical properties with a mound of dirt.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Bertschy thanked the citizen for her comment and stated he would like to see the
City look into the issue.
Agenda Review
City Manager Fischbach stated item #9 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2003, Authorizing
the Issuance of City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Downtown Development Authority Taxable
Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2003, Dated Their Delivery Date, in the
Aggregate Principal Amount of $1,000,000 for the Purpose of Financing Certain Capital
Improvements and Capital Projects; and Providing for the Pledge of Certain Incremental Ad
Valorem Tax Revenues to Pay the Principal of, Interest on and Any Premium Due in Connection
with the Redemption of the Bonds would be withdrawn from the Consent Calendar for discussion
as requested by Councilmember Roy.
CONSENT CALENDAR
7. Consideration and adoption of the Council meeting minutes of September 16,October 7 and
October 21, 2003.
210
November 4, 2003
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2003, Appropriating Revenue from the Colorado
Department of Transportation in the Transportation Fund for the US 287/South College
Avenue Bicycle Lane Project.
The City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning office received a grant from CDOT
Enhancement Funds for FY 2003-05 to construct on-street bicycle lanes on South College
Avenue/US 287 from Harmony Road/SH68 southward to Carpenter Road/CR32. Ordinance
No. 141, 2003,was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 21, 2003.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2003, Authorizing the Issuance of City of Fort
Collins.Colorado, Downtown Development Authority Taxable Subordinate Tax Increment
Revenue Bonds,Series 2003,Dated Their Delivery Date,in the Aggregate Principal Amount
of $1,000,000 for the Purpose of Financing Certain Capital Improvements and Capital
Projects: and Providing for the Pledge of Certain Incremental Ad Valorem Tax Revenues to
Pay the Principal of,Interest on and Any Premium Due in Connection with the Redemption
of the Bonds.
The City of Fort Collins created the Downtown Development Authority to make desired
improvements in the downtown area. Through tax increment financing,the DDA has made
significant contributions to the redevelopment and improvement of the downtown area. This
Ordinance,which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 21,2004,provides
funding from unreserved fund balance in the DDA Debt Service Fund to make additional
improvements in the downtown area. This Ordinance also authorizes the issuance of $1
million of short term bonds for the projects which will be paid from the tax increment
revenue.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 143,2003,Authorizing the Conveyance ofApproximately
4,561 Square Feet of City Land to the Hetzel Family in Exchange for Certain Easements for
the LaPorte Trail Connection and Additional Compensation.
Through negotiations with the Hetzel family,the City will acquire needed easements for the
La Porte Trail project in exchange for monetary considerations and land not needed for the
trail. The Hetzel driveway is located on a portion of the land the City will be deeding to the
Hetzels. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 21, 2003.
11. Items Relating to Various Code Changes.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 144,2003,Amending Sections 20-2 and 20-3 of the
City Code Pertaining to the Abatement of Unsanitary or Dangerous Premises.
211
November 4, 2003
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 2003,Amending Section 9-2 of the City Code
Pertaining to the Uniform Fire Code.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 146,2003,Amending Section 2-671 of the City Code
Pertaining to the Powers and Duties of the Director of the Office of Emergency
Management.
Following the blizzard of March, 2003, City and Poudre Fire Authority staff reviewed the
need for any City Code amendments that would be helpful in effectively dealing with future
emergency situations.The three proposed Ordinances are intended to clarify the authority of
the City and PFA to take emergency actions,provide for the publication of emergency rules
and regulations adopted by the City Manager, and provide a penalty for a knowing violation
of such emergency rules and regulations.
12. Resolution 2003-118 Adopting Amendments to the Financial Management Policies.
The budget process for the City of Fort Collins is driven by many financial management
policies. To facilitate comprehensive review of the financial management policies, the
management staff compiles the policies into a separate document. Each year, staff reviews
and updates the policies. Staff presents the updated and revised policies to the Council for
adoption by Resolution. The policies remain in effect until subsequently amended or
repealed by Council action. Pursuant to Council direction, Section 3.4 of the policies
pertaining to Human Resource Management and Productivityhas not been changed,pending
further review and discussion by the Council.
13. Resolution 2003-119 Authorizing the City Manaper to Grant Revocable Permits to Xcel
Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Certain City Property Under and
Adiacent to the Poudre River for Environmental Investigation and Remediation Activities.
In order to facilitate environmental investigation and remediation work to proceed in and
adjacent to the Poudre River between Gustav Swanson Natural Area and the Northside
Aztlan Center property,the City will need to grant revocable permits, in the form of license
agreements,to Xcel Energy and the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency. At this time the
specific work plans for the work to be carried out are not completed. However,because there
is an ongoing release of tarry material into the Poudre River, the work will need to proceed
promptly once the details of the plans are completed. Consequently, staff is recommending
that the City Council adopt this Resolution in order to authorize the City Manager to enter
into the necessary license agreements, including such terms and conditions as may be
necessary to protect the interests of the City and minimize impacts to the City's property.
212
November 4, 2003
14. Resolution 2003-120 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Great
Lakes Airlines to Provide Scheduled Bus Service at the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal
Airport.
Great Lakes Airlines desires to operate scheduled bus service from the Fort Collins/Loveland
Municipal Airport to Denver International Airport (DIA). The bus service will operate
initially with 4 round trips per day during the week and 3 round trips on Saturday and
Sunday. The bus service is very unique because it allows ticketed airline passengers to go
through security check-in here and be dropped off at Concourse "A" at DIA, thereby
bypassing security screening, baggage check-in and more expensive pay parking at DIA.
This is the first time such gate-to-gate service has been offered between two airports. The
Transportation Security Administration(TSA)is processing final approval of the service and
DIA has approved the service to operate from their airport.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2003, Appropriating Revenue from the Colorado
Department of Transportation in the Transportation Fund for the US 287/South College
Avenue Bicycle Lane Project.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2003, Authorizing the Issuance of City of Fort
Collins,Colorado,Downtown Development Authority Taxable Subordinate Tax Increment
Revenue Bonds,Series 2003,Dated Their Delivery Date,in the Aggregate Principal Amount
of $1,000,000 for the Purpose of Financing Certain Capital Improvements and Capital
Projects;and Providing for the Pledge of Certain Incremental Ad Valorem Tax Revenues to
Pay the Principal of, Interest on and Any Premium Due in Connection with the Redemption
of the Bonds.
10. Second Readinp of Ordinance No. 143,2003,Authorizing the Conveyance of Approximately
4,561 Square Feet of City Land to the Hetzel Family in Exchange for Certain Easements for
the LaPorte Trail Connection and Additional Compensation.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
11. Items Relating to Various Code Changes.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. l 44,2003,Amending Sections 20-2 and 20-3 of the
City Code Pertaining to the Abatement of Unsanitary or Dangerous Premises.
213
November 4, 2003
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 2003, Amending Section 9-2 of the City Code
Pertaining to the Uniform Fire Code.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 146,2003,Amending Section 2-671 of the City Code
Pertaining to the Powers and Duties of the Director of the Office of Emergency
Management.
Councilmember Tharp made a motion,seconded by Councilmember,to adopt and approve all items
not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Staff Reports
City Manager Fischbach reported on staff follow-ups to items listed on the City Council status
report. He also reported that the Sheldon Lake drainage improvement project received the Gold
Hard Hat Award from Colorado Construction Magazine in a statewide competition. He stated the
project removed 250 structures from the 100-year floodplain and included improvements to the water
quality and fish habitat of the lake and other benefits. He reported that the Library was recently
ranked tenth in the nation in the Hennin's Public Library Ratings Index(HAPLR)for public libraries
serving between 100,000-250,000 people. He reported that Natural Resources had received a
$23,000 EPA grant to conduct Care for the Air teacher workshops.
Councilmember Reports
Mayor Martinez stated he has asked for more information about how the Police Department could
realign to put more officers on the street. He asked for an update on collective bargaining. City
Manager Fischbach stated he had four meetings with the police officers and would be meeting with
the Police Chief this week. He stated a written report would be prepared regarding police
redeployment and that Fort Collins continues to be a safe community. Councilmember Kastein
asked about police vacancies. City Manager Fischbach stated there were two vacancies that had been
recently filled and that 10 people were out on light duty or injuries.
Councilmember Tharp reported on the Legislative Review Committee discussions regarding
proposed legislation that would be of interest to the City. She also reported on the 1-25 Policy
Committee quarterly meeting.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if the I-25 Policy Committee would be continuing discussions in
light of Weld County's statement that the County is not interested in the open space component of
the corridor.
214
November 4, 2003
Councilmember Tharp stated the group was operating under a memorandum of understanding rather
than an intergovernmental agreement.
Councilmember Kastein reported on the MPO subcommittee discussions relating to funding
strategies for interchange projects.
Resolution 2003-121
Approving the Exercise of the City's Option from
North Poudre Irrigation Company to Proceed with
the Development of the Halligan Reservoir Enlargement
Project and to Authorize Other Related Actions, Adopted.
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"Financial lmp ct
The development and construction of the Halligan Reservoir Enlargement Project is estimated to
cost the City about$14 million during the next 5-7 years. Approximately$4.2 million is budgeted
for 2004 and 2005, and the remainder will be budgeted in subsequent years. Bonds will be sold to
fund the project and repaid using cash collected under the City's raw water requirements. At the
time of exercising the option, the City must pay to North Poudre Irrigation Company a payment in
the amount of$188,223.51. In addition, a non-interest bearing revenue bond will be issued to
secure the City's remaining$4.15 million payment obligation to North Poudre for the rights it will
convey to the City.
Executive Summary
This Resolution will authorize the City to exercise the option the City has with the North Poudre
Irrigation Company(NPIQ to acquire from NPIC its property rights and the right to proceed with
the permitting and development of the Halligan Reservoir Enlargement Project. Under the option
agreement, the City will acquire all property and other rights necessary for the proposed
enlargement and this will allow the City to pursue permitting, design and construction of the
enlargement. This resolution also provides direction and authority to enter into agreements with
permitting agencies, NPIC, potential participants in the project and other entities necessary to
develop and ultimately to construct the project.
BACKGROUND
Halligan Reservoir, located on the North Fork ofthe Poudre River, currently has a capacity of6,408
acre feet, but could be enlarged to about 40,000 acre-feet. The project would supply the City with
215
November 4, 2003
long-term carryover storage that would be used primarily to supplement supplies during a multi-
year drought. The Halligan Reservoir project was identified in the 1980's as an excellent project
for developing long-term storage capacity. The projected unit cost of constructing an enlarged
reservoir at that site is much lower than most sites because of the topography. Since the project
would enlarge an existing reservoir, the environmental impacts would be relatively minor. Recent
studies of the City's water supply system have shown that additional storage capacity is needed to
effectively manage the City's water rights portfolio and provide long-term drought protection. The
enlargement of Halligan Reservoir would be a key component in meeting the future water supply
needs of residents in the Fort Collins area.
The City has paid approximately $1.025 million in annual option payments since 1993 in order to
preserve its option to proceed with the Halligan Reservoir project. After the payment of
$188,223.51 is made at the time of exercise of the option, annual payments continue under the
Option Agreement through the year 2030, in the total additional amount of approximately $4.15
million. If the City chooses not to exercise its option and the agreement terminates,NPIC is entitled
to retain the City's prior payments and the City relinquishes its conditional storage rights in
Halligan Reservoir and has no f rther rights under the agreement. If the City exercises its option
to proceed with the project, but fails to proceed to construct the project, it is required to relinquish
its rights in the property, conditional storage and the project to NPIC, together with all amounts
previously paid to NPIC.
Development of additional storage capacity at Halligan Reservoir is consistent with the Water
Supply and Demand Management Policy that was adopted by City Council in September of this year.
This policyprovides that the City shall pursue new storage capacity in the range of12,500 acre-feet
to 14,000 acre-feet to meet both operational and long-term carryover storage needs. It has been
determined that approximately 12,000 acre-feet of storage capacity at Halligan Reservoir would
meet projected long-term carryover storage needs and help meet future water demands during a I-
in-50 type drought.
Under the Halligan Option Agreement, NPIC retains the storage rights for the f rst 6,400 acre-feet
in the reservoir. With the 12,000 acre-feet desired by Fort Collins, a reservoir with a minimum of
Reservoir may have a capacity o u to
I8,400 acre-feet is needed. Since the enlarged Halligans y p y f p
40,000 acre feet, there is an opportunity to form partnerships with other local entities and provide
needed storage capacity for others in this area. The Utilities'projected cost for Halligan would be
about $26 million if the City were to build a reservoir large enough to meet only the needs of
Utilities'customers. By building the 40,000 acre-foot reservoir with partners to serve the region
in and around Fort Collins, Utilities'cost would be about$14 million. These estimated costs include
engineering and environmental studies, environmental mitigation,project management, design and
construction. NPIC has expressed a desire for an additional5,000 acre-feet of new storage capacity
at Halligan and the three water districts that serve areas in and around Fort Collins are interested
in acquiring the remaining capacity that maybe available. This resolution would authorize the City
216
November 4, 2003
to enter into agreements with partners and others to work toward the cooperative development of
the project.
The City's share of the Halligan Enlargement Project will be paid by development fees collected by
the City. Projections show that approximately$90 million in cash is expected to be turned over from
developers in satisfaction ofraw water requirements during theplanningperiod from 2000 to 2040.
This assumes that about 50%of the City's raw water requirements for typical new developments will
be turned over in theform ofcash-in-lieu payments. The balance will be in the form ofwater rights.
The cash turned over will be available during the planning period forfinancingfor the enlargement
of Halligan Reservoir as well as for the development of gravel pits for storage and for other
improvements to the City's raw water system.
Engineering and environmental studies on Halligan Reservoir have been ongoing during the last
couple ofyears. Discussions have been held with federal and state agencies, adjacent landowners,
potentialpartners, and other interested parties. The City currently holds an option to acquire some
of the land surrounding the existing Reservoir for enlargement ofthe Reservoir, in exchange for the
grant of certain surface rights on the Reservoir upon completion of the project. Further progress
on completing the acquisition of these property rights, along with other property needed for the
enlargement project, is expected in the coming months.
City staff continues to believe the project will provide significant benefits to the City, is cost
effective, can provide environmental enhancements, and will be permitted by the necessary federal,
state, and local agencies. The National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA)permittingprocess will
require an environmental impact statement(EIS) that will require an extensive public process that
will include an analysis of alternatives and an evaluation of potential impacts. This process is
expected to take 2-3 years. Federal agencies will have final permit approval of the project. If the
project is successfully permitted, it will take another 3-4 years for design and construction, and the
enlarged reservoir could be completed and ready to use by 2009 or 2010.
Approval of this resolution allows the City of Fort Collins to be the project proponent on behalf of
the Halligan Enlargement Project. It does not assure that the Halligan Project will be built nor that
enlargement of Halligan Reservoir will be the selected option by the federal permitting agencies in
the EIS process. NEPA requires federal agencies to use the EIS process to evaluate potential
adverse impacts of the project, consider all potential alternatives, and permit the least
environmentally damaging alternative. Therefore, the EIS process will evaluate all practicable
alternatives, including a no-action alternative, that can meet the basic project purpose and need.
This can be a complex and protracted process, and will involve the evaluation of other alternatives
such as Northern Colorado Water Conservancy Districts Northern Integrated Supply Project
(NISP). As a result, it could result in the permitting of a project other than Halligan to meet
regional water storage needs. As the project proponent, City staff will work with other interested
217
November 4, 2003
parties and theparticipants to develop an environmentally sound, cost-effective approach to meeting
the Fort Collins regional water needs and to propose the most permittable project to do so.
The City is required, under the Option Agreement, to operate and maintain the Reservoir upon the
exercise ofthe Option. City staffhas discussed with NPIC thepossibility ofan agreement that would
provide for operation and maintenance of the Reservoir by NPIC. The Resolution authorizes the
City Manager to enter into such an agreement, along with other agreements related to the process
of evaluating,planning and obtaining environmental approvals for the project.
Water Board and City staffrecommend that the resolution be approved that would authorize the City
Manager to:
1. exercise the City's option contingent upon final approval ofthe issuance ofthe revenue
bond to secure the Water Utility Enterprise obligations for future payments to NPIC;
2. proceed with such work as may be necessary to pursue enlargement of Halligan
Reservoir to a capacity of up to 40,000 acre-feet, to the extent economically and
environmentallyfeasible, including acquisition ofadditionalproperty rights requiredfor
the enlargement project;
3. enter into an agreement with NPICfor operation and maintenance of Halligan Reservoir
pending the enlargement project;
4. negotiate and enter into agreements with NPIC and other local water suppliers to
cooperatively investigate,plan and obtain regulatory approvalsfor theproject and share
related costs;
S. negotiate and enter into an agreement with the City of Greeley for cooperation,
coordination and cost-sharing for environmental approvals for the Halligan Reservoir
project and Greeley's proposed Seaman Reservoir enlargement project;
6. negotiate and enter into one or more agreements with the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers
,for cooperation, coordination, investigation and analysis related to federal
environmental regulatory requirements; and
7. enter into negotiations with other interested parties to develop agreements for
cooperativefinancing ofconstruction of the project and ongoing operation, in exchange
for shared use of the new water storage capacity to result,for presentation to the City
Council for approval. "
City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item.
Brian Janonis, Treatment Plant Design Engineer,presented background information regarding the
project, the option agreement with North Poudre Irrigation Company, recent studies and staff's
recommendation. He stated the Water Supply and Demand Management Policy was adopted by
Council on September 16, 2003. He stated this was a multifaceted policy that provided direction
regarding conservation efforts, water rates and water storage. He stated the policy set out a
218
November 4, 2003
requirement of 12,500 to14,000 acre-feet of storage capacity and that staff had identified 12,000
acre-feet of carry over storage for drought protection. He stated the policy directed staff to promote
regional cooperation and encouraged stream flow and ecosystem protection. He stated Halligan
Reservoir was an irrigation reservoir built in 1909 northwest of Livermore,was owned and operated
by North Poudre Irrigation Company and stored about 6,400 acre-feet of water. He stated Council
adopted an agreement with the Phantom Canyon Ranches in 1987 that laid the foundation for the
development of Halligan Reservoir by providing the City with an option to acquire property that
would be inundated with an expansion of the reservoir. He stated staff completed a feasibility study
in 1989 that confirmed that Halligan Reservoir was a good option and that in 1993 Council approved
an option agreement with the North Poudre Irrigation Company for the transfer of ownership of the
reservoir,NPIC property and conditional water right to the City. He stated two extension agreements
would expire in December of 2003. He outlined the key provisions of the option agreement: (1) a
conditional decree for 33,462 acre-feet of enlargement;(2)transferof400 acres ofNPIC land around
the reservoir and the dam; (3)payments by the City to NPIC totaling about$5.4 million until 2030.
He stated if the option was not exercised that the City would lose its payments to date amounting to
over $1 million. He stated the 1989 study was updated in 2002 with regard to three dam sites and
that environmental issues were identified(the Preble's jumping mouse and wetlands). He stated the
recommendation after further study was to enlarge Halligan Reservoir to 40,000 acre-feet and to
construct a roller compacted concrete (RCC) dam at the middle site. He presented visual
information showing the reservoir, the existing dam, the middle site and NPIC property. He stated
the 40,000 RCC dam at the middle site would be built with partners and would result in the City
obtaining 12,000 acre-feet at a cost to the City of$14 million. He stated building the reservoir just
for the City's needs(12,000 acre-feet at the middle site)would cost the City about$26 million. He
stated a Preble's jumping mouse trapping study was conducted in the area that would be inundated
and that DNA studies were being conducted. He stated a wetlands delineation study had also been
completed and that about 3 acres of wetlands would be impacted in the inundation area. He spoke
regarding additional wildlife and geotechnical studies and property ownership and mining claim
research. He stated the project was considered to be cost effective and feasible and that staff was
continuing to work with interested parties to develop an environmentally sound solution to meet
regional water needs. He stated staff was recommending:exercising the Halligan option with NPIC
contingent upon Council bond approval which was scheduled on the Enterprise Board meeting
agenda; pursuing the reservoir enlargement for up to 40,000 acre-feet, including property
acquisitions; entering into agreements with NPIC for O&M of the existing reservoir, with O&M
shifting to the City once the title transfer was complete; entering into agreements with potential
partners regarding the project development; entering into agreements with the City of Greeley
regarding environmental approvals and permitting for Halligan and Greeley's Seaman Reservoir
project; entering into agreements with the US Army Corps of Engineers for the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) permitting process and environmental impact study; and
negotiating with potential partners regarding sharing of reservoir capacity and project costs. He
stated if the option was exercised that staff anticipated exploring partnership agreements in 2003-
2004, entering the NEPA process in the spring of 2004, completing the environmental impact
219
November 4, 2003
statement in 2005,receiving a project permit in 2006, completing design in 2007 and constructing
in 2008/2009 to have a completed project in 2010.
David Wright, Citizen Planners, spoke in favor of the exercise of the option and supported the
maintenance of the site agreements with Greeley and working with the Corps of Engineers. He
stated Citizen Planners is concerned with a maximum of 40,000 acre-feet and favored not locking
in a maximum. He supported leaving other options open instead because smaller options might best
serve the community. He stated there would be value in having the City own the project by itself
with no other partners because there were many complaints about sprawl outside of the City. He
stated if the City owned the project and had control over the water that this would be a tool to control
the quality of growth and leave the City in a leadership position. He stated Citizen Planners did not
support partnering with other entities on the project. He stated the larger project might mean more
runaway sprawl outside of the City and that there would be pollution and other costs to the City. He
stated the smaller reservoir would cost more per acre-foot and that he would argue that "spending
less might make a mess"because of urban sprawl.
Tom Horn, 1601 Quail Hollow Drive, supported the exercise of the option because of the City's
investment. He stated he would like to see the City take a leadership role and cooperatively
participate with other entities. He stated the responsibility of the City is to take care of the City's
needs with a spirit of cooperation and in an economically sound manner. He stated the staffs
recommendation is valid and that there are a number of decisions to be made with regard to the
project. He stated the drought situation has made it clear that additional water storage is needed to
take care of current and future needs.
Kelly Ohlson,2040 Bennington Circle, stated there is a trend in the country to decommission dams
that were no longer necessary and were economically and environmentally damaging. He stated he
supported the City exercising the option and that he did have some concerns. He stated the City is
the best entity to take the lead on this project and that there are long-term storage needs for drought
and growth management area build-out. He stated the City should take responsibility"in its own
backyard"to meet those needs. He stated he had concerns that Section 2 of the Resolution indicated
that 40,000 acre-feet of storage would be built. He suggested clarification language to make it clear
that the storage could go to 40,000 acre-feet if all economic and environmental standards are met.
He suggested additional discussions about the number of acre-feet needed to meet the City's needs.
He asked that the language be clarified or that the Council make it clear for the record that the City
is exercising an option that could allow up to 40,000 acre-feet to be built. He stated Section 2 also
referred to economic and environmental standards and stated he hoped that this was not referring
only to federal standards, which are not that strict. He asked that the City require additional
appropriate environmental mitigation, stream flows and recreational flows. He asked that the
Resolution's language regarding standards be clarified and strengthened. He noted that the Water
Board vote on the matter was 5-3 and that many of these issues were discussed by the Board.
220
November 4, 2003
Councilmember Tharp stated she had concerns about the Water Board's split vote and asked a Board
representative to explain the concerns.
Tom Sanders, Water Board Chairman, stated the Board discussed the matter last July and that the
vote was 5-3. He stated no Board members opposed the exercise of the option and that one of the
main issues was how specific the wording of the recommendation to the Council would be. He
stated the issues discussed were environmental issues and that the Board felt that the City should be
the lead agency on this project. He stated the Water Board did not have enough information to make
a determination that 40,000 acre-feet of storage was needed and that the Board wanted to be less
specific on that. He stated the Board also did not want to go with the minimum amount of storage
(12,500 acre-feet)because the Board wanted the City to work in cooperation with regional partners.
He stated some Board members voted against the motion because they wanted a differently worded
motion to be considered.
Councilmember Tharp asked about the relationship between Halligan Reservoir and Greeley and the
Seaman Reservoir. She stated her hope was for one dam rather than more dams. Janonis stated
Greeley is evaluating whether to be part of the partnership or to develop its own project at Seaman
Reservoir at the existing site. He stated one advantage of having a reservoir downstream is that the
City can release environmental flows and capture those flows in Seaman Reservoir to create better
riparian habitat without losing the water. He stated the two reservoirs would operate in conjunction
with each other.
Councilmember Tharp asked if the enlarged Halligan Reservoir will meet the needs of the existing
partners and Greeley so that it will not be necessary to enlarge the Seaman Reservoir dam. Janonis
stated it was unknown whether this would be possible. He stated Greeley is looking at a Seaman
Reservoir project in 10-20 years. He stated the two reservoirs could work jointly in providing some
environmental benefits.
Councilmember Tharp stated she would prefer enlarging Halligan Reservoir rather than seeing a
project at Seaman Reservoir as well, recognizing that might not be an option because the City did
not own Seaman Reservoir.
Councilmember Roy asked about the cost of property acquisition. Janonis stated the budget for the
40,000 acre-foot project includes $500,000 for land acquisition and $8.9 million for property
acquisition for environmental mitigation. He stated the environmental impact statements are
budgeted at $1 million.
Councilmember Roy asked about the Water Board concerns regarding how an enlarged Seaman
Reservoir would take water from the main stem of the Poudre River and stream flow of the North
Fork. Dennis Bode,Water Resources Manager,stated part of the question is whether there is enough
water in the North Fork to meet Greeley's needs at Seaman Reservoir. He stated there might not be
221
November 4, 2003
enough water at all times and that Greeley is looking at taking water out of the main stem of the
Poudre River. He stated this would primarily involve releasing water from existing facilities in the
upper Poudre River.
Councilmember Roy asked for more information about the two Seaman projects. Janonis and Bode
stated under the Northern Colorado Integrated Supply Project, Greeley would have an option to
enlarge Seaman Reservoir to 160,000 acre-feet. Janonis stated Greeley is talking about the smaller
project that would involve enlarging the dam at the existing site.
Councilmember Roy asked what the City's acre-foot need would be at build-out. Janonis stated an
additional 12,000 acre-feet will be needed.
Councilmember Roy asked what the projected population would be at that 12,000 acre-feet. Bode
stated long-term planning to 2040 projected a total population of 165,000 people served by water
delivered by the City Water Utility. He stated other water rights would help satisfy the needs.
Councilmember Kastein asked about the$14 million quoted as the City's share for the 40,000 acre-
feet of storage and the total project cost for that larger dam. Janonis stated the total project cost is
estimated at $39 million.
Councilmember Kastein noted that the City's share would be roughly one-third of the total cost. He
asked what the effect would be on ratepayers for either of the project options. Janonis stated there
would be effect on ratepayers in terms of the monthly service charge and that funding would be
through the cash-in-lieu-of water requirement for development. He stated about 50% of the raw
water requirement is paid for by the cash-in-lieu-of water revenue.
Councilmember Kastein asked about the benefit to ratepayers if$14 million is paid by the City for
raw water that could cost $26 million. Bode stated the effect is reliability and having additional
money available for additional water rights or other projects.
Councilmember Bertschy asked if his reading of the language of the Resolution was correct and that
the maximum of 40,000 acre-feet would not necessarily be built. Janonis stated the intent is that the
project would be up to 40,000 acre-feet.
Councilmember Bertschy asked for clarification from legal staff. City Attorney Roy stated the
Resolution as written would authorize any project up to 40,000 acre-feet and that the language did
not imply that the project would be 40,000 acre-feet. He stated the language could be further
clarified.
Councilmember Bertschy asked about the approval process for the size of the reservoir. Janonis
stated an environmental impact statement process will include a public comment and participation
222
November 4, 2003
period,review by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service on endangered species,and review bytbe Corps
of Engineers on demand management.
Councilmember Bertschy asked if the City would retain ownership if partnership agreements were
entered into with other entities. Janonis stated the intent is that North Poudre Irrigation Company
will have the first 6,500 acre-feet, that the City will have the next 12,000 acre-feet and that other
partners will receive a pro rata share of what was permitted.
Councilmember Bertschy asked about ownership of the reservoir and land. Janonis stated he
anticipated that the City will retain control in some way. Carrie Daggett, Senior Assistant City
Attorney, stated the Resolution is written to require the agreements to come back to the Council for
approval. She stated this Resolution will authorize staff to proceed and work on negotiations for the
ultimate arrangement with any partners.
Councilmember Bertschy asked about the agreement with Greeley for sharing of expenses on an
environmental review and how that would work when the two cities are not on the same timetable.
Janonis stated there will be a programmatic environmental impact study because the federal agencies
are interested in cumulative environmental impacts. He stated Greeley would receive preliminary
program approval and would seek final approval at the time it was ready to proceed with its project.
Councilmember Hamrick stated one of his major concerns was the approval process. He noted that
one Water Board member was concerned about stating the maximum size of the reservoir. He
stated he was interested in language in the Resolution that would preclude blanket approval to
proceed with a certain size of reservoir. He asked about language that would require the matter to
come back to the Council for review. Daggett stated the Resolution does not specifically provide
for the reservoir plan to come back to the Council for approval. She stated there will be a number
of steps in the process that will require the Council to take action i.e. the issuance of bonds,
appropriations, etc. She stated the Resolution does not specify that Council approval would be
required for the actual size of the reservoir.
Councilmember Bertschy asked for clarification about Section 7, which requires the agreement to
be presented to the Council for final approval. Daggett stated staff will be proceeding with the
permitting process and planning of the reservoir and that the agreements with other parties will come
to the Council early in the process.
Councilmember Hamrick stated he would like to see some interim steps to determine the optimum
size of the reservoir and to have that come back to the Council for review. He expressed a concern
that the Resolution gives"carte blanche"approval to negotiate all the way up to 40,000 feet before
coming back to Council. City Manager Fischbach stated Section 2 could be revised to read "to
pursue the enlargement of Halligan Reservoir, provided that the final capacity and design shall be
223
November 4, 2003
economically feasible and in compliance with all applicable environmental standards and
requirements, and be subject to Council approval."
Councilmember Hamrick stated he would like staff to touch bases with Council throughout the
process rather than at the end of the process. He asked if the existing water storage for the City is
adequate to cover our water needs for the current population. Janonis replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if the recent drought was a 100-year drought. Janonis stated the
drought may not yet be over.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if this project would be needed if the population is not expanded.
Janonis replied in the negative. He stated the City spent a lot of money renting water to help get
through the drought situation.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked about the money already spent for the option and the continuance
of payments for the option. Janonis stated payments are made to continue the option and that a
decision needs to be made to avoid continued option payments. He stated if the City decides to
exercise the option that the money already paid would go toward the cost.
Councilmember Weitkunat noted that there are checks and balances throughout the process that
could"squelch the deal." Janonis stated 26 different permits and approvals are required from about
16 different agencies to get to the final end product.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated this is a time to be decisive to ensure water for future generations.
She asked if an even greater capacity for Halligan Reservoir had been discussed. Janonis stated three
different levels up to 40,000 acre-feet were discussed. He stated 40,000 makes sense economically.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the minimum requirement for Fort Collins would be about
12,600 acre-feet. Janonis stated 12,000 acre-feet would be the minimum requirement.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would be more concerned that a minimum was written in the
Resolution instead of a maximum capacity.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she believed that the wording relating to a maximum of 40,000
acre-feet will meet the need.
Councilmember Tharp stated the City would be exercising the option and authorizing the City
Manager to proceed. She asked if such a role was usually assigned to the City Manager. City
Attorney Roy stated it was appropriate to assign the role to the City Manager as the chief
administrative official of the City.
224
November 4, 2003
Councilmember Tharp stated she would like to see language requiring the capacity issue to come
back to the Council for approval. She asked if there are other places in the Resolution where it
would be prudent to bring issues back to the Council as interim steps were made. City Manager
Fischbach suggested the following language in Section 2: to strike the reference of a capacity of up
to 40,000 acre-feet and to read "the enlargement of Halligan Reservoir, provided that the capacity
and design shall be economically feasible and in compliance with all applicable environmental
standards and requirements, and subject to semi-annual review by the City Council."
Councilmember Tharp asked about the population figure of 165,000 for build-out for the City when
other departments use the figure250,000. City Manager Fischbach stated the Water Utility build-out
figure was being used and that other utilities would be serving the additional residents. Janonis
stated the Water Utilityprovided water service to 49% of the Urban Growth Area.
Councilmember Roy asked how wetland mitigation will occur. Janonis stated wetland mitigation
is site specific and depends on the direction given by the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Councilmember Roy asked how long the environmental impact study will take. Janonis stated it
would typically take about 2-3 years.
Councilmember Hamrick asked about the impact on fees. Janonis spoke regarding the projections
regarding cash-in-lieu-of water rights fees received from development that would amount to about
$90 million.
Councilmember Hamrick asked what would be done with the money that was not spent. Janonis
stated there are other projects in addition to Halligan,including gravel pit storage along the Poudre
River and purchase of water rights when available.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if working with Greeley will impact Gateway Park. Janonisreplied
in the negative and stated Greeley is sensitive to Fort Collins' concerns about Gateway Park.
Councilmember Hamrick asked about the downside of partnering with Tri-State water companies.
Bode stated there would be benefits to Fort Collins.
Councilmember Hamrick requested a follow-up memo on the downside(environmental or other)of
such partnerships. Janonis stated the federal agencies are encouraging the City to seek out such
partnerships for more regional solutions.
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt
Resolution 2003-121 with the following amendment in Section 2: "The City Manager is hereby
authorized upon the exercise of the option to proceed with such investigation, planning,regulatory
review processes, site acquisition, design and construction work as he determines to be necessary
225
November 4, 2003
to pursue the enlargement of Halligan Reservoir to a capacity not to exceed 40,000 acre-feet,
provided that the final capacity and design shall be the most economically feasible and in compliance
with all applicable environmental standards and requirements."
City Attorney Roy asked if the intent is to have final or periodic Council review of the design and
capacity.
Councilmember Kastein stated it would be fine to include a semi-annual review by the Council.
The consensus was to include the language relating to the semi-annual review.
Councilmember Kastein stated there should be language relating to a maximum size of 40,000 acre-
feet and that it is also important to say that 40,000 acre-feet was the maximum that would be
economical. He stated the language will indicate that the City wants to optimize the economic
benefit to the City.
Councilmember Bertschy asked for clarification regarding the language that specified "the most
economically feasible."
Councilmember Kastein stated he was unsure if the language would tie the City into the most
economically feasible solution.
Councilmember Bertschy stated the most economically feasible option could be not exercising the
option.
Councilmember Kastein stated he would like a statement that the City does intend to build storage
capacity,that the need is for something between 12,000 and 14,000 acre-feet and that this should be
accomplished with the most economical option.
Mayor Martinez offered a friendly amendment to leave off the word"most'and state that the option
selected will be"economically feasible."
Councilmembers Kastein and Weitkunat accepted the friendly amendment.
Councilmember Hamrick stated he would like clarification regarding how the statement "not to
exceed 40,000 acre-feet'would be interpreted. City Attorney Roy stated his interpretation would
be that the storage capacity will not exceed 40,000 acre-feet. He stated he would interpret it to mean
that the capacity could be anything up to 40,000 acre-feet. He stated implicitly it would give a target
and that a literal interpretation would be that the capacity could be anything from zero to 40,000
acre-feet.
226
November 4, 2003
Councilmember Roy asked the City Attorney to restate the motion. City Attorney Roy restated the
motion as follows: "The City Manager is hereby authorized upon exercise of the option to proceed
with such investigation, planning, regulatory review processes, site acquisition, design and
construction work as he determines to be necessary to pursue the enlargement of Halligan Reservoir
to a capacity not to exceed 40,000 acre-feet, provided that the final capacity and design shall be
economically feasible, shall comply with all applicable environmental standards and requirements,
and shall be subject to semi-annual review by the City Council."
Councilmember Roy stated the citizens of Fort Collins participated in a strong conservation program.
He stated tiered water rates and a willingness of the citizens to conserve made it possible for him to
support the motion. He stated the community is willing to conserve water and that the Council could
reasonably go forth with this project.
Councilmember Tharp stated she was convinced that the City needed additional water storage. She
stated she would continue to support the concept of one dam shared by regional partners. She noted
that a strong conservation program is one of the criteria that would be looked at during the permitting
process. She stated she supported having the issue brought back to the Council periodically. She
stated it is true the project could provide water for growth outside of the region and that water could
be a tool to control growth. She stated she did not see this as the role of the City and that there
should be sharing with neighbors. She stated the City could show leadership with regard to good
development.
Councilmember Hamrick stated he was concerned about the areas outside of the City that do not use
water in an environmentally sensitive manner. He stated the City's values should not be sacrificed
in a cooperative venture and that other entities should be held to a higher standard. He expressed
concern about cooperation with other entities and what they would intend to do with the water. He
stated he was in support of exercising the option because it made financial sense. He stated he would
not support going all the way to a capacity of 40,000 acre-feet if it does not suit the City's needs.
Councilmember Bertschy stated he supported exercising the option. He stated he had concerns about
the environmental impact of any design at that location. He noted that there was a lengthy process
and that it was good that the Council will be reviewing the matter periodically.
Councilmember Kastein thanked the staff for its work on the issue. He stated it made a lot of sense
to cooperate with the City's neighbors when the City could get the water it needed at half the cost.
He stated this was an opportunity for the Council to add storage capacity for the future.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated it was extremely important for the City to exercise the option. She
stated this should be done with a vision for the future. She stated the review process will cover all
environmental concerns and that the City should work cooperatively with other entities.
227
November 4, 2003
Mayor Martinez stated he would support the motion. He stated it was not the City's job to leverage
how things happened for other entities.
The vote on the motion to adopt Resolution 2003-121 with the amendment as stated by the City
Attomey was as follows:Yeas Councilmembers Bertschy,Hamrick,Kastein,Martinez,Roy,Tharp
and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Resolution 2003-122
Accepting a Property Owner Petition Regarding the
Initiation of a Special Improvement District, Stating the
Need For, the Nature Of, and the Location of the
Improvements to Be Made, Describing the Area to Be
Assessed for the Same, and Directing the Director of Community
Planning and Environmental Services to Prepare and Present
to the City Council the Necessary Information for the
Formation of Said District, Adopted.
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"Financial Impact
This Special Improvement District will be financed privately by property owners developing in the
proposed district, with normal Street Oversizing Program participation. There will not be any City
of Fort Collins Special Improvement District Bonds issued.
Executive Summary
Traffic congestion at the Timberline/Prospect intersection is well below the City's Level of Service
requirements, with almost all legs and turn movements failing during the AM and PM peak rush
hours. In accordance with the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, any new development which
impacts this intersection cannot proceed until these existing deficiencies are corrected. In the
absence ofany City Capital Improvement,fundingfor this intersection, two impacted developers are
electing to privately fund these improvements in order to proceed with their development projects.
These developers are expected to constitute the majority of theproperty owners within theproposed
District. They are proposing the initiation of the District to spread a portion of the costs to other
undeveloped property in the area benefited by the improvements through assessments.
This Resolution accepts thepetition ofone oftheparticipatingproperty owners and directs City staff
to prepare the plans and cost estimates. The Resolution is the first step in creating the District. In
228
November 4, 2003
subsequent actions, City Council will be asked to accept the completed plans, approve the
assessment method, hold a public hearing, and then create the SID by Ordinance.
Timberline Road,from Drake to Prospect is currently the highest deficiency segment in the City's
street network. The Timberline/Prospect intersection experiences failing levels of service in both
the AM and PM peak hours. Attempts by the City to create a funding mechanism for the necessary
improvements have not been successful.
BACKGROUND
The City's Adequate Public Facilities(APF) Ordinance does not allow any additional development
to impact failing intersections. A conceptual estimate indicates that $2.3 million is needed to
improve the intersection to meet minimum levels of service necessary to allow additional
development in the area. The improvements contemplated are:
• Dedicated right turn lanes on all legs of the intersection
• Double left turn lanes on Timberline
• Additional through lanes on Timberline
These interim improvements will add capacity to the intersection, but will not include landscaped
medians, concrete paving, enhanced crosswalks, or other elements not necessary to increase levels
of service.
There are two large development parcels which are currently affected by the APF Ordinance. The
James Company controls 221 acres on the east side of Timberline and north of Drake and is
proposing development ofapproximately 925 residential lots. Timberline-Drake,Inc. is proposing
448 to 682 residential units and 7.2 acres of employment on the west side of Timberline and north
of Drake. Neither of these developments can build in the absence of improvements to
Timberline/Prospect. These developers have elected to fund the$2.3 million APF improvements in
order to proceed with their development projects.
There are other smaller undeveloped parcels in the one-mile radius area around
Timberline/Prospect that are also affected by the City's APF Ordinance. Some have expressed
interest in participating in the cost of improving the Timberline/Prospect intersection while others
have indicated a desire to wait until the improvements are made before developing.
The James Company and Timberline-Drake Investments have proposed the formation of an SID as
a financing mechanism to allowforfair and equitable assessment ofall benefitting property owners.
The terms of the district would generally be:
229
November 4, 2003
1. The amount financed is estimated to be $2.3 million, or the amount needed to make the
"APF"improvements to the Timberline/Prospect intersection.
2. No municipal or City-backed bonds will be issued. Financing will be by the developers,
using cash or private placement bonds. The City would be the collection agency for
assessments, but would not incur any financial liability.Actual payment of the$2.3 million
by the James Company and Timberline-Drake Investments will not occur until construction
bidding (February 2005) to avoid capitalized interest. Security in the estimated amount of
$2.3 million will be necessary in order for development to continue during theformation of
the Special Improvement District.
3. It is anticipated that the proposed assessment method will be based on twofactors associated
with benefitting undeveloped property. These factors are trip generation and proximity to
the intersection within a one-mile radius. Efforts will be made to obtain consent of any
potentially assessable property owner prior to the creation of the District.
4. The properties included in the SID will begin repayment of their proportionate share (the
assessments) upon completion of the construction and final accounting of the costs
(tentatively in late 2006).
Providing a 10 year repayment schedule for properties being assessed could be an incentive for
properties to participate in the SID without opposition. However, in accordance with the TABOR
Amendment, a vote of district properties may be necessary to allow the City to enter into a multi-
year obligation to collect assessments over time. The alternative to a 10 year payback is an
immediate one time assessment ofthefull amount due. This one time assessment, without the option
to pay in installments, would likely produce a greater protest from any involuntary participants in
the District.
The initiating developers will also immediately provide $100,000 in funds to allow the City to
prepare the plans, estimate of costs, and maps of the district in order to complete the engineering
design without cost to the City.
The improvements to Timberline along the frontage of the developing parcels will be funded in
accordance with normal Street OversizingProgramparticipation. The entire segment of Timberline
from Drake to Prospect, and the Timberline Prospect intersection improvements, are planned to be
constructed at the same time in order to reduce the impacts of construction on motorists and to take
advantage of cost savings due to economies of scale. A tentative timeline would be:
• November 2003 --Acceptance of the petition
• November 2003 to August 2004—Engineering design
230
November 4, 2003
• August/September2004—Second Resolution Accepting Plans, SID Creation Ordinance, call
election within the District for TABOR requirement if necessary
• August 2004 to February 2005—ROWAcquisition
• March 2005 to August 2006— Construction
• Assessment Ordinance immediately after construction
Staff has reviewed the form of the petition of the proposed District andfind it in compliance with
adopted City Council policies regarding Special Improvement Districts. Staff believes the SID
P t3' P 8 8 P P �
proposed for financing the corrections to the Adequate Public Facilities deficiencies is:
• Fair and equitable to undeveloped property owners in the District
• In the public's interest due to the health and safety problems associated with the
Timberline/Prospect intersection
• A no riskfinancial solution to the City to fund improvements
The petition states that the Petitioner can withdraw the petition, as long as the Petitioner does so
within five days of the passage of the resolution approving the plans, specifications, map and
estimate of the City Engineer. Staff anticipates that this resolution will likely be presented to the
Council in the summer or fall of 2004. If the Petitioner does withdraw the petition, it will still be
up to the Council to decide whether to rescind the SID proceedings and call a halt to the SID. Even
if the SID is terminated, however, the improvements will still be made, assuming that the property
owners choose to construct their developments. The developers would then be limited to seeking
reimbursement of their f coding through reimbursement agreements rather than through the SID. "
City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item.
Matt Baker,Street Oversizing Coordinator,presented background information regarding the agenda
item and the proposed improvement district. He presented visual information regarding the traffic
conditions at this intersection and spoke regarding proposed project costs to be funded through the
SID mechanism and street oversizing. He stated developers will be responsible for local access costs
adjacent to their developments. He stated the total project cost for these interim improvements
would be$6.9 million. He spoke regarding proposed developments and undeveloped parcels in the
area. He stated developers had elected to advance the City $2.3 million for Adequate Public
Facilities (APF) improvements in order to proceed with their development projects and that the
developers are petitioning for the formation of a Special Improvement District to allow some of the
cost of the APF improvements to be fairly apportioned to all of the undeveloped property that would
benefit. He stated the amount financed will be the $2.3 million needed to construct the APF
improvements at the Timberline/Prospect intersection. He stated there will be no City-backed bonds,
that the entire funding will be from the developers in a security interest instrument and that the City
will collect assessments but will not incur any financial liability. He stated this Resolution is the first
step in the creation of a Special Improvement District and that Council will be asked for other
231
November 4, 2003
approvals for the creation of the SID and an assessment ordinance. He stated the petitioner will
provide money for the engineering design in the amount of about$100,000. He stated the formation
of a SID will take several months and that the developers will have to post security in the entire
amount of$2.3 million if they want to proceed with development prior to the establishment of the
SID. He spoke regarding the process for payment of assessments and the possibility of a TABOR
election in 2004. He outlined the remaining steps in the process. He stated the creation of a SID will
allow the completion of the Prospect/Timberline intersection improvements when there is no other
available funding source. He stated there will be no financial risk to the City and that the developers
will pay about 70%of the assessments. He stated the ultimate improvements will not be built with
this project. He stated staff s recommendation is to proceed with adoption of the Resolution.
("Secretary's Note: Council took a brief recess at this point.)
Councilmember Hamrick asked why a TABOR election might be required. City Attorney Roy spoke
regarding the possible TABOR election.
Councilmember Hamrick asked about the elements(landscaped medians,concretepaving,enhanced
sight crosswalks, etc.) that will not be included in the interim improvements because they are not
needed to increase levels of service. He asked if the SID would be able to legally pay for those types
of improvements and when those improvements will be done. Ron Phillips,Transportation Services
Director,stated staff hoped to obtain federal funds for the project and that will determine when and
if the full improvements will be made with this project. He stated the full improvements will be
designed and that the interim improvements will be constructed if federal funding is not obtained.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if the improvements will be done when developments on either side
of Timberline would be done. Baker stated they would be partially done and noted that there were
City properties adjacent to Timberline on the west side of the road and that those properties would
not develop.
Councilmember Hamrick noted that there are existing bicycle lanes and asked if they will still be
there. Baker replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Roy asked how many other road projects had been funded with Special
Improvement Districts in Fort Collins. Baker stated there have been 6 to7 Special Improvement
Districts since 1978.
Councilmember Roy asked if they were structured the same as this SID. Baker stated the previous
SIDs were traditional SIDS in which the City issued Special Assessment District bonds and the
assessments were collected to pay off the bonds. He stated this SID is not being backed by City
bonds and that the special assessments will be collected to pay back the advance to the petitioners.
He stated the City will not be incurring any financial liability for this District.
232
November 4, 2003
Councilmember Roy asked what it will cost to retrofit the improvements at this intersection when
improvements are eventually made at a higher level. Baker stated the intent of the interim
improvements is to build the east side of the roadway with curb, gutter and sidewalk and with
permanent roadway improvements to where the median will eventually be. He stated asphalt paving
will be used from there to add capacity and bike lanes. He stated retrofitting will involve removing
asphalt, adding medians and widening the west side to have curb, gutter and sidewalk.
Councilmember Roy asked if this SID will be paying for that retrofitting. Baker replied in the
negative.
Councilmember Roy asked what the retrofitting will cost. Baker stated the right-of-way on the west
side will be funded by the SID. He stated the interim right-of-way will be much less expensive that
the ultimate right-of-way. He stated the estimates are not available and that he could follow-up with
a memo to the Council.
Councilmember Roy stated he would be interested in seeing the estimates. He stated the staff memo
referenced"involuntary special improvement district" and asked for an explanation of that phrase.
Baker stated a SID is voluntary when every property that was assessed is involved in the petition for
the SID. He stated a SID is involuntary if it includes properties that would benefit but have not
volunteered to be in the District.
Councilmember Roy asked about a reference in a staff memo to "features that would not be
affordable" under this proposal (concrete pavement, improving the intersection to its full
configuration,landscaped medians, and curb/gutter/sidewalk). He asked who would not be able to
afford these improvements. Phillips stated the full improvements ($11.4 million) would not be
affordable under the interim project ($6.9 million). He stated the interim project would address
health and safety and congestion issues for the near-term.
Councilmember Roy asked if the City's street standards will be lessened under this proposal.
Phillips replied in the affirmative for the interim project and stated the full project will eventually
be built to the City's full standards. He stated the City's construction standards will not be lessened
and that the full arterial street will not be built with the interim project.
Councilmember Roy asked how much it would cost to build the full improvements. Phillips stated
that there is about a $4 million difference between building the full project compared with the
interim project.
Councilmember Roy asked if that$4 million will eventually be paid by the City. Phillips stated that
that was one possibility and that staff was working to obtain federal money for the project.
233
November 4, 2003
Councilmember Tharp asked if other money was available to accomplish the full project if a federal
grant is obtained. City Manager Fischbach stated staff is working on the funding package. He stated
this action will not preclude that possibility and that this entire project will be done if federal funding
is obtained. He stated the question is whether Harmony and Shields could also be done.
Councilmember Kastein asked if staff could look at a configuration that would mean not having to
rip up any interim improvements later. He noted that Harmony was also a high priority project for
safety reasons. Baker stated Council will be asked to accept the construction plans during the
process for establishment of the SID.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Tharp,to adopt Resolution
2003-122.
Councilmember Roy stated he would not support the motion and expressed a concern that there had
been no road projects like this one. He stated the City's standards would be lessened in the interim
project and that this could cost the City more than if the project was done correctly the first time.
He stated he was concerned with setting a precedent for projects in which developers create their
own funding mechanisms for solutions to specific problems rather than having a unified approach
by the City to such projects. He stated he believed that this could end up costing the City more
money in the long run.
Councilmember Hamrick asked for comments regarding whether this could actually cost the City
more in the long run. Phillips stated inflationary costs will be added to the project cost for every year
of delay. He stated there will be some additional costs because of pavement that would be put in and
then eventually removed to put in a median. He stated there will be some additional costs to the
City if a project is done in stages. He spoke regarding the costs to the public if no improvements are
made.
Councilmember Hamrick asked when this issue would be coming back to Council. Phillips stated
the Council will see the matter in August and then twice more after that.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if the Council could vote to stop the process at that time based on
any additional cost information. City Attorney Roy stated Council would have the option at anytime
to rescind the proceedings. He stated there would be some complications after notice goes out to the
other property owners and that notice will not be given until after the next Resolution at which time
more information will be available.
Councilmember Hamrick stated he shared Councilmember Roy's concerns about setting a precedent.
He stated he would support the motion because Council will have another chance to take a look at
the SID when more information is available about costs.
234
November 4, 2003
Councilmember W eitkunat stated a petition was received,that it followed adopted policy with regard
to Special Improvement Districts,and that private citizens have"stepped up to the plate"to help the
City address a problem with inadequate public facilities. She spoke regarding health and safety
issues at the Prospect/Timberline intersection. She stated there would be no financial risk to the City
and that she strongly supported this direction. She urged the Council to take advantage of this
opportunity to address the problem at the intersection.
Councilmember Bertschy stated he would support the Resolution and that this is an example of
growth paying its way. He expressed hope that federal money will help the City finish the entire
intersection.
Councilmember Tharp stated she was in support of the motion and expressed a concern that the City
address the issue of long term funding for transportation needs.
Mayor Martinez stated he would support the motion.
Councilmember Kastein stated he would support the motion. He stated development will be paying
its own way at the cost of more expensive houses within the development. He stated there were 26
high priority roadway projects in the transportation master plan and that this SID will address part
of the need for one of the projects.
Mayor Martinez asked if there are any other Special Improvement Districts at this time. Baker stated
all of the SIDS had been paid off and closed out. Phillips stated benefits of the $2.3 million far
outweigh any future increased costs due to the phasing.
Mayor Martinez asked if there is any "bad debt' from previous SIDS. Alan Kremarik, Finance
Director,stated there were some problems with previous SIDS. City Manager Fischbach stated those
SIDS were structured differently. He stated there is no possibility of bad debt on the proposed SID.
Krcmarik stated the City was able to sell off the property and pay the City back in the previous
instances. City Attorney Roy emphasized the difference between the previous situations and the
current situation and stated the City will not be issuing any debt for this District. He stated the
developers who are advancing the money are the ones who will be at risk for the nonpayment of the
assessment.
Mayor Martinez stated this should go forward because the developers are putting their money up
front to pay for the project and that development is paying its own way in this case. He stated this
project is needed.
Councilmember Hamrick asked how much the cost of houses in the development will increase due
to this SID. Phillips stated the average per residential dwelling unit is in the$1,800 to$2,500 range.
235
November 4, 2003
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein,
Martinez, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Roy.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance No. 142, 2003
Authorizing the Issuance of City of Fort Collins, Colorado,
Downtown Development Authority Taxable Subordinate Tax
Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2003, Dated Their Delivery Date,
in the Aggregate Principal Amount of$1,000,000 for the Purpose
of Financing Certain Capital Improvements and Capital Projects; and
Providing for the Pledge of Certain Incremental Ad Valorem Tax Revenues
to Pay the Principal of, Interest on and Any Premium Due in Connection
with the Redemption of the Bonds. Adopted on Second Reading.
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
The City of Fort Collins created the Downtown Development Authority to make desired
improvements in the downtown area. Through tax increment financing, the DDA has made
significant contributions to the redevelopment and improvement of the downtown area. This
Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 21, 2003, provides
funding from unreserved fund balance in the DDA Debt Service Fund to make additional
improvements in the downtown area. This Ordinance also authorizes the issuance of$1 million of
short term bonds for the projects which will be paid from the tax increment revenue. "
City Manager Fischbach stated staff was available to answer any questions.
Councilmember Roy asked about the DDA criteria i.e. the effects on and proximity to the Poudre
River Corridor. He stated he had similar concerns about Project Bluestream at the last meeting and
asked about the criteria used in determining funding eligibility for the First National Bank project.
He asked if the project would "provide seeds for the future in an area in need of redevelopment,
including but not limited to infrastructure,parking,transportation"and how the First National Bank
project was "winnowed" onto the list of funded projects. Chip Steiner, Executive Director of the
Downtown Development Authority, cited the objectives and purposes in the DDA Plan of
Development: to maintain the District as a regional center for commercial, financial,governmental,
social, recreational, cultural activities; to encourage private restoration, rehabilitation and
development within the District through public improvements and assistance;to improve usefulness
and accessibility of sites and streets, thereby promoting the growth of the District and retarding
economic, physical and social decline in the District; and promotion of, participation in and
236
November 4, 2003
assistance to private and public developments consistent with the priorities of the DDA,by all means
permitted by federal, state and local laws. He stated the Downtown Plan policies supported the
retention and expansion of existing businesses while attracting and encouraging new businesses and
enhancement of the downtown's dominance in finance,government,professional services,cultural
services and entertainment. He stated those were the criteria on which the DDA based its decision.
Councilmember Roy expressed a concern that First National Bank had nearly$13 billion in managed
assets and over 7,000 employees and that the Bank was growing fast and profitably in national and
international markets. He asked if this sort of taxpayer assistance to a firm that was worth $13
billion would have been considered to be appropriate in the beginning of the DDA. Steiner stated
the local branch of the bank was not worth $13 billion and that the local bank had been one of the
strongest supporters of the central business district. He stated the bank anchored downtown as the
financial center of the community. He stated the renovation of the building ensured a better
presentation to the street and the role of the DDA was to assist in that kind of public improvement.
He stated in 1985 the DDA considered participating in a 12-story bank building so this was not the
first time the idea had been considered.
Councilmember Roy asked about giving taxpayer money to Project Bluestream after it sought a
variance to encroach on an area that was ostensibly one of the key reasons for the existence of the
DDA i.e. the protection of the Poudre River Corridor. Steiner stated the Plan of Development
provided for the promotion of and assistance to private and public developments consistent with the
priorities of the DDA by all means permitted by federal, state and local laws and regulations. He
stated this included light manufacturing. He also cited policies in the Downtown Plan relating to
destination retail uses, light manufacturing, research and scientific laboratories and similar uses at
locations within the Poudre River Corridor District that were compatible with the scenic, natural,
recreational and historical values of the river.
Councilmember Roy expressed a concern with giving taxpayer dollars to a project that would "go
against" one of the goals of the DDA i.e. the future vision for the Poudre River Corridor. Kim
Jordan,Downtown Development Authority Chair,stated an encroachment in the buffer area was not
necessarily the equivalent of environmental degradation. She stated there were possibilities for
mitigation, including planting of wetland area. She stated the DDA had a fairly high degree of
confidence that the project's efforts with regard to the encroachment could be seen as complementary
to the buffer area.
Councilmember Roy stated he had reservations regarding whether the project took the City's
regulations seriously when it sought a 250 foot view and a reduced buffer on the river. He expressed
concern that the company would receive taxpayer dollars from an organization which had among its
goals the protection of the river corridor. Ms. Jordan stated the DDA also looked at the impact on
property values and whether the DDA would be able to recoup the funding through tax increment
increases.
237
November 4, 2003
Councilmember Kastein stated the formal position of the Council was that the encroachment was
allowable.
Councilmember Roy asked how other Councilmembers felt about giving taxpayer dollars to a firm
that was worth $13 billion.
Councilmember Kastein stated all businesses within the DDA paid into the DDA and that at some
point that benefit returned to those who paid for the improvements. He stated the bank
improvements fell within the DDA guidelines and that it was a worthwhile project for the downtown.
Councilmember Hamrick stated he did not see criteria regarding providing financial incentives to
relocate companies from other towns to the downtown. He asked how financial incentives to
relocate the company from Laramie came about. Ms. Jordan stated the DDA relied primarily on
Policy 15A relating to fostering and developing new jobs in the downtown. She stated this is tax
increment financing and that there would be a higher tax payment that would come into the City for
that property,which would constitute an offset. Steiner stated jobs were a critical component of the
success of the downtown because they provide employment and income to spend.
Councilmember Hamrick asked where the policy referenced by Ms. Jordan was located. Steiner
stated Policy 15A was in the Downtown Plan.
Councilmember Hamrick asked about references by Mr. Steiner and if those were in the Plan of
Development. Steiner replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Hamrick stated he did not have a copy of the Plan of Development. Steiner stated
it is a document required by the State and which was adopted by City Council in order to create a
Downtown Development Authority.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if the Plan of Development referenced financial incentives. Steiner
stated it is almost entirely about using tax increment financing and that it listed priorities, projects
and objectives and the methods that could be used by the DDA to achieve the goals and objectives.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if the DDA worked through any kind of economic impact model in
reviewing projects. Steiner stated the DDA worked through the impact of property taxes.
Councilmember Hamrick expressed concern that the DDA is narrowly focused on some criteria and
did not do a full financial analysis of all of the impacts. Ms. Jordan stated the money was spent for
public improvements (facade, sidewalk, public infrastructure, etc.).
Councilmember Hamrick stated the Council had adopted an economic development policy and asked
how the DDA's actions corresponded with overall City policy. He stated the City's policy stated
238
November 4, 2003
financial incentives will be considered on a case-by-case basis after thorough staff analysis and
Council discussion of the merits of each individual proposal. He noted that this DDA agenda item
was presented to the City Council on the Consent Calendar and questioned whether the Council had
been monitoring such expenditures carefully. He asked how the City's economic policy would
correspond with DDA policy. Steiner stated the policies followed by the DDA had been cited i.e.
foster and develop new jobs;permit destination retail uses, light manufacturing in the Poudre River
Corridor; and promote and support private developments that were consistent with the plans and
objectives of the DDA (including light manufacturing).
Councilmember Hamrick stated once the DDA made its decision, it should be brought back to the
Council for thorough analysis and discussion of the merits of the proposal. He stated he did not
believe that happened in this process.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the discussion related to an analysis of the DDA and how it
functioned and what is on the table for discussion is a list of projects for approval and bonding. She
objected to discussing the DDA's operations at this meeting.
Mayor Martinez stated the discussion was outside of the arena of the motion.
Councilmember Hamrick disagreed and stated the focus of the discussion is spending taxpayer
money to relocate a project from Laramie to Fort Collins and that it is up to Council to make sure
that the money is spent appropriately.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the funding is not for the purpose of relocating the company.
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat,to terminate the
discussion because of the time needed to discuss the budget. The vote on the motion was as follows:
Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Kastein, Martinez and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember
Hamrick, Roy and Tharp.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Bertschy, to adopt
Ordinance No.142, 2003 on Second Reading.
Councilmember Hamrick asked the motion maker to consider a friendly amendment striking the First
National Bank facade improvements project and the Project Bluestream improvements project.
Councilmember Weitkunat did not accept the amendment as a friendly amendment.
239
November 4, 2003
Councilmember Bertschy stated he voted for both projects that had been questioned as a DDA board
member after due consideration,lengthy discussion and a great deal of analysis. He stated the DDA
meetings were open to the public. He stated the City owns the facades so that in perpetuity, the
facade for the structure will remain appropriate to the downtown. He stated much more is involved
than looking at the bank's assets. He stated the second project is for public improvements that will
remain and will increase the value of the property significantly. He stated the investment in
improvements will be paid back in taxes. He stated it may be possible to disagree on the projects
but that the process should not be in question. He stated he would support the Ordinance.
Councilmember Roy stated he supported a downtown that would remain vibrant and the heart of Fort
Collins and that he would work hard to protect the Poudre River Corridor through the downtown.
He stated there are competing issues with the projects that could not satisfy his two goals. He spoke
regarding the"humble"origins of the DDA and the simple projects that were approved. He stated
the ownership is a plus for the City. He stated he would not be able to support the motion because
of his concern regarding the Poudre River.
Councilmember Hamrick stated he would not support the motion because he did not believe that
there should be automatic approval simply because one Councilmember served on the DDA Board.
He stated it was irresponsible for Council to shirk its responsibility for taxpayer expenditures,
especially if there were questions about the process. He stated it is clear that the financial policies
provided for Council review of such projects.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would support the motion and that she believed that the work
of the DDA was well thought through. She stated she saw "enrichment and enhancement"rather
than "encroachment." She stated she did not see the negativity with the projects that had been
expressed by others. She reminded that all Councilmembers have the opportunity to attend DDA
meetings when decisions are made.
Councilmember Kastein stated he did not see anything out of the ordinary with this agenda item.
He stated there are Council representatives on many boards and that they are trusted with the work
of City Council. He asked that Councilmember Bertschy advise the Council if anything out of the
ordinary is presented from the DDA for Council consideration.
Mayor Martinez stated he would support the motion and that he was sorry to see the continuing
discussion about In-Situ. He stated this would be an investment of money.
The vote on the motion was as follows:Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy,Kastein,Martinez,Tharp
and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Hamrick and Roy.
THE MOTION CARRIED
240
November 4, 2003
Mayor Martinez stated the 2004-2005 Budget items would now be heard.
Mayor Martinez pulled item#22 First Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2003,Amending the Code of
the City of Fort Collins to Increase the Capital Improvement Expansion Fee, Street Oversizing Fee
and Neighborhood Parkland Fee to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services and item #24
Items Relating to Utility Rates and Charges for 2004 from the Budget Consent Calendar.
BUDGET CONSENT CALENDAR
ITEMS RELATING TO THE 2004 - 2005 BUDGET
BUDGET CONSENT ITEMS
Items Numbers 21 through 25 are being presented together in the Consent Calendar format. These
items have been reviewed and discussed at Budget Study Sessions and are being presented in this
manner to expedite their adoption. Any item may be withdrawn for discussion by any member of
the Council, staff or public and will be considered after the balance of the Budget Consent is
adopted.
21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 147, 2003, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Wastewater Fund for Prgpa=ent of Debt Service.
Each year, the Finance Department reviews all of the City's debt instruments to determine
if there are opportunities to lower interest payments. This year, staff evaluated an
opportunity to save interest by prepaying debt service from reserves held in the Wastewater
fund. In 1995, the City of Fort Collins issued $13,800,000 of refunding bonds to lower
annual costs of the Wastewater fund. The bonds mature in 2005. Under the conditions of
the bond ordinance,the City may prepay the bonds that mature in 2004 and 2005 without any
prepayment penalty. By prepaying the bonds, the City can avoid $147,500 of interest costs
on the bonds.
22. First Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2003, Amending the Code of the City of Fort Collins
to Increase the Capital Improvement Expansion Fee, Street Oversizing Fee and
Neighborhood Parkland Fee to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services.
Ordinance No. 148, 2003, increases the fee schedules for the Capital Improvement
Expansion Fees and Neighborhood Parkland Fee by the estimated change in the 2003
Denver-Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price Index. Costs in the Capital Improvement
Expansion Fees ("CIEF") Study and the fee schedule for the Neighborhood Parkland Fees
were calculated using costs from 1995. The City Code requires that increases keep up with
annual inflation. The fees were last adjusted in late 2002. This Ordinance increases the
CIEF and the neighborhood parkland fees by the projected increase in the CPI-U of 2.00%,
241
November 4, 2003
and the Street Oversizing fees by 1.7%,which reflects the projected increase reported in the
Engineering News Record.
23. Items Relating to the 2004 Downtown Development Authority Budd
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 2003, Appropriating Operating Funds and
Approving the Budget of the Downtown Development Authority for the Fiscal Year
Beginning January 1, 2004, and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Downtown
Development Authority for 2004.
The Downtown Development Authority(the"DDA")adopted the proposed DDA budget for
2003,totaling$2,307,470,and determined the mill levy necessary to provide for payment of
administrative costs incurred by the District, at its regular meeting of October 2, 2003.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 150,2003,Appropriating Revenue in the Downtown
Development Authority Debt Service Fund for Payment of Debt Service for the Year
2004.
This Ordinance appropriates funds for 2004 from the tax increment received by the City for
the DDA for debt service payments. Debt service and annual lease payments include: the
semi-annual payments of the 2001 DDA Refunding Revenue Bonds in the amount of
$1,382,038,the DDA share of the Parking Structure lease payment of$281,224,the amount
of$35,112 for the annual interest payment on the subordinate revenue bonds issued in 2000,
and $1,000,000 for various projects identified by the DDA board from tax increment
revenues.
24. Items Relating to Utility Rates and Charges for 2004.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 151,2003,Amending Chapter 26,Article XII,of the
Code of the City Relating to Utility Connection Fees and Miscellaneous Charges.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2003, Amending Chapter 26, Article III,
Division 4 of the Code of the City Relating to User Fees and Charges for Water.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 2003, Amending Chapter 26, Article IV,
Division 4 of the Code of the City Relating to Wastewater Fees.
D. First Readingof Ordinance No. 154 2003 Amending Chapter 26 Article VI
� g P
Division 4 of the Code of the City Relating to Electric Rates and Charges.
242
November 4, 2003
E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 155, 2003, Amending Chapter 26, Article V1I,
Division 2 of the Code of the City Relating to Stormwater Fees.
This item consists of five ordinances establishing the Utilities rates and various charges for
2004.
25. Resolution 2003-123 Adopting a Revenue Allocation Formula to Define the City of Fort
Collins' Contribution to the Poudre Fire Authority Budget for the Year 2004 for Operations
and Maintenance.
In December 1981, the Council entered into an agreement with the Poudre Valley Fire
Protection District, creating the Poudre Fire Authority.
According to the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Fort Collins and the
Poudre Valley Fire Protection District,the City will contribute funding for maintenance and
operating costs to the Authority based on a "Revenue Allocation Formula" ("RAF"). The
RAF is to be set annually based upon a percentage of sales and use tax revenues(excluding
dedicated sales and use tax revenues that must be spent on specific projects) and a portion
of the operating mill levy of the City's property tax. Article X, Section 20 of the State
Constitution("TABOR")limits the rate of growth to a combination of the Denver-Boulder-
Greeley Consumer Price Index and additions to the local property tax base primarily due to
construction and annexation. Although voters passed a ballot measure in November, 1997
allowing the City to retain excess revenues over the growth limits imposed by TABOR,the
RAF is still reviewed annually and proportionately reduced, if necessary, if City revenues
exceed the estimated annual percentage increase in revenues that the City would be permitted
to retain under TABOR.
***END BUDGET CONSENT***
26. Pulled Budget Consent Items.
ITEMS NEEDING INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION
27. First Reading of Ordinance No. 156, 2003, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance
Relating to the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 20K Adopting the Budget for the
Fiscal Years Be ig nnin Jg anuary 1,2004,and Ending December 31,2005;and Fixing the Mill
Levy for Fiscal Year 2004. (1 hour)
There have been four study sessions involving discussion of the 2004-2005 budget for the
City of Fort Collins.In addition,two public hearings were held.With City Council direction,
the City of Fort Collins 2004-2005 Biennial Budget was developed and is now presented to
243
November 4, 2003
City Council for consideration and adoption and to appropriate the necessary monies to fund
the budget for fiscal year 2004. The Second Reading of this ordinance is scheduled for
November 18, 2003.
***END BUDGET CONSENT***
Ordinances on First Reading relating to the budget were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 147, 2003, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Wastewater Fund for Prepayment of Debt Service.
22. First Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2003, Amending the Code of the City of Fort Collins
to Increase the Capital Improvement Expansion Fee, Street Oversizing Fee and
Neiehborhood Parkland Fee to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services.
23. Items Relating to the 2004 Downtown Development Authority Budget.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 2003, Appropriating Operating Funds and
Approving the Budget of the Downtown Development Authority for the Fiscal Year
Beginning January 1, 2004, and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Downtown
Development Authority for 2004.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 150,2003,Appropriating Revenue in the Downtown
Development Authority Debt Service Fund for Payment of Debt Service for the Year
2004.
24. Items Relating to Utility Rates and Charges for 2004.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 151,2003,Amending Chapter 26,Article XII,of the
Code of the City Relating to Utility Connection Fees and Miscellaneous Charges.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2003, Amending Chapter 26, Article III,
Division 4 of the Code of the City Relating to User Fees and Charges for Water.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 2003, Amending Chapter 26, Article IV,
Division 4 of the Code of the City Relating to Wastewater Fees.
D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 2003, Amending Chapter 26, Article VI,
Division 4 of the Code of the City Relating to Electric Rates and Charges.
244
November 4, 2003
E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 155, 2003, Amending Chapter 26, Article VII,
Division 2 of the Code of the City Relating to Stormwater Fees.
27. First Reading of Ordinance No. 156, 2003, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance
Relating to the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2004:Adopting the Budget for the
Fiscal Years BeginningJanuM1,2004,andEndingDecember31,2005:andFixingtheMill
Levy for Fiscal Year 2004.
Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy,to adopt and approve
all items not withdrawn from the Budget Consent Calendar. The vote on the motion was as follows:
Yeas Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance No. 148, 2003
Amending the Code of the City of Fort Collins to
Increase the Capital Improvement Expansion Fee,
Street Oversizing Fee and Neighborhood Parkland Fee to
Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services, Adopted on First Reading.
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"Financial Impact
In 2002 (the last full audited year), the City collected $3.8 million of Capital Improvement
Expansion fees, $2 million of Neighborhood Parkland fees, and$3.2 million of Street Oversizing
fees. For 2004, with the increases for inflation and construction costs, the City estimates that it will
collect$3.3 million of Capitallmprovement Expansion fees, $1.3 million of Neighborhood Parkland
fees, and$3.7 million of Street Oversizing fees. The fees are collected when building permits are
issued forprojects. The decreases are due to the expectation that buildingpermits, on which thefees
are based, will be lower in 2004 than they were in 2002 and the estimates for 2003. At year-end of
2003, staff estimates that the total available balance in the Capital Improvement Expansion Fund
will be approximately $18.2 million. The Neighborhood Parkland Fund will have about $1.8
million. The Street Oversizing Fund is estimated to have nearly$1.3 million at the end of the year.
Executive Summary
Ordinance No. 148, 2003, increases thefee schedulesfor the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees
and Neighborhood Parkland Fee by the estimated change in the 2003 Denver-Boulder-Greeley
Consumer Price Index. Costs in the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees ("CIEF)Study and the
245
November 4, 2003
fee schedule for the Neighborhood Parkland Fees were calculated using costs from 1995. The City
Code requires that increases keep up with annual inflation. Thefees were last adjusted in late 2002.
This Ordinance increases the CIEF and the neighborhood parkland fees by the projected increase
in the CPI-Uof 2.00%, and the Street Oversizingfees by 1.7%, which reflects the projected increase
reported in the Engineering News Record.
BACKGROUND
In May of 1996, Council adopted Ordinance No. 51, 1996, which established capital improvement
expansion fees for Library, Community Parkland, Police, Fire, and General Government services.
The purpose of the fees is to have new development pay a proportionate share of the capital
improvements and equipment that will be necessary to provide services to the development. The
Code provisions approved by the Ordinance provide for the annual adjustment of the fees to keep
up with inflation, using the Denver-Boulder(now Denver-Boulder-Greeley)Consumer Price Index.
The City has imposed a Parkland Fee for neighborhood parks since 1968. In August of 1996,
Council adopted Ordinance No. 105, 1996, which conformed the Neighborhood Parkland Fee to the
housingsize differentials in the Capital Improvement Expansion Fee ordinance, and updated thefee
schedule to reflect pre-1996 inflation. The Neighborhood Parkland fees were adjusted for inflation
in 1997-2002, along with the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees. Based on the Denver-Boulder-
Greeley Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers, the inflation level since the last annual
adjustment is an increase of 2.00%. This Ordinance adjusts the fee schedules in Chapter 7.5 and
Chapter 23 of the Code to account for inflation. In the Ordinance, all amounts for the capital
improvement expansion fees have been rounded to the nearest dollar. "
Mayor Martinez stated he disapproved of all of the fee increases and stated he would prefer to look
at ways to trim the budget.
Councilmember Tharp expressed a concern with fee increases and stated she had been assured that
fees were being raised to cover actual costs and inflation. She stated she would like to see the budget
tightened up even more.
City Manager Fischbach stated these fees were raised because of the Code requirement enacted by
Council in 1996 to make annual adjustments to reflect the Denver-Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price
Index.
Mayor Martinez asked if the fees were being increased because there is more expense and what the
additional expense was. City Manager Fischbach replied in the affirmative and stated the fee
increase reflects an increase in the cost of living.
246
November 4, 2003
Mayor Martinez asked if more personnel and labor contributed to increased costs. City Manager
Fischbach stated these are fees that do not cover labor and personnel. Alan Krcmarik, Finance
Director, stated these fees cover the increased cost of construction. He stated the Denver-Boulder-
Greeley Consumer Price Index was utilized because it is in the State Constitution and because the
cost of providing governmental services (parkland, library,police, etc.) is increasing as the cost of
n improvements go up. He stated there was a policy debate in 1996 and that Council supported
keeping up with the costs. He stated it is not known if the fee increases will keep up with costs until
the next projects are built.
Mayor Martinez asked if the fee increases are intended to keep up with new construction. Krcmarik
stated these fees were instituted in 1996 knowing that it might be a number of years before a project
such as the police building,would be built. He stated the cost of construction of the police building
will likely outstrip the inflation that has been experienced. He stated the intent is to try to keep up
with the cost. He stated the idea is that the people who pay for the facility will pay in"fair dollars"
and that an inflationary adjustment is necessary to keep the fee relatively equitable.
Mayor Martinez asked if this had anything to do with adding staff or personnel. Kremarik replied
in the negative. City Manager Fischbach cited the Code requirement relating to annual adjustment
of the fee in accordance with the Consumer Price Index.
Councilmember Kastein stated he did not have an issue with making an adjustment in accordance
with standards that had been set by the Council. He stated the question is whether the standards are
correct and whether the standards should be changed.
Mayor Martinez stated he would like to see a discussion on the standards at some point.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated this adjustment is required by the Code and that Council adopted
the Code provision. She asked when the Code provision and any amendments were adopted.
Krcmarik spoke regarding the addition of specific fees to the Code section.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt
Ordinance No. 148, 2003 on First Reading.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein,
Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
247
November 4, 2003
Ordinances Relating to Utility Rates and Charges for 2004,
Adopted on First Reading.
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"Financial Impact
These ordinances are projected to increase annual Light and Power Fund Revenues by 5.3%,
Wastewater Fund operating revenues by 5%, and Storm Drainage Fund operating revenues are
projected to increase 10%. There are no changes to operating revenues in the Water Fund.
Executive Summary
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2003, Amending Chapter 26, Article XII, of the Code
of the City Relating to Utility Connection Fees and Miscellaneous Charges.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 15Z 2003,Amending Chapter 26,Article III, Division 4 of
the Code of the City Relating to User Fees and Charges for Water.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 2003,Amending Chapter 26, Article IV, Division 4 of
the Code of the City Relating to Wastewater Fees.
D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 2003, Amending Chapter 26, Article VI, Division 4 of
the Code of the City Relating to Electric Rates and Charges.
E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 155, 2003,Amending Chapter 26,Article VII,Division 2 of
the Code of the City Relating to Stormwater Fees.
This item consists offve ordinances establishing the Utilities rates and various charges for 2004.
Overall, rates for utility services are proposed to increase as follows:
Water No changes at this time.
Wastewater 5.0%
Electric 5.3%
Stormwater 10.0%
In total, a "typical"residential customer's utility bill will increase $5.38 per month.
Both the Electric Board and Water Board reviewed the average rate increases in conjunction with
their consideration and recommendations to approve the Utilities'2004-2005 Budget.
248
November 4, 2003
The proposed ordinance relating to utility connection fees and miscellaneous charges creates
uniform charges for all services related to establishing and servicing customer accounts. The
connection and service fees replace miscellaneous utility fees scattered throughout Chapter 26 of
the Code and codify others that had previously been set administratively.
Other than minor housekeeping changes, no significant changes in the rates for water service are
proposed at this time. Alternative water rate options will be addressed by City Council at the
December 9, 2003 study session. If water rate changes are supported, those changes would be
implemented by Ordinance before the spring of 2004.
A 5% increase is proposed for wastewater and a 10% increase is proposed for stormwater.
These increases will be "across the board"and do not vary by customer class.
The electric rates increases will vary by customer class(residential, commercial, industrial)and for
individual customers within the class. Based on the cost of service, residential customers will
experience larger increases than the commercial and industrial customers. Included in the overall
5.3% increase is a 2% increase for the initial implementation of City's Energy Supply Policy for
renewables and demand side management and energy conservation. 2.8%of the increase is a pass
through ofhigher costs from•om the City's wholesale energy supplier,Platte River Power Authority and
the remaining 0.5% is to recover increase costs of the distribution system including a the costs
related to a reduced load factor due mainly to summer air conditioning loads.
The proposed ordinance also establishes a new section of the Code related to development charges
for new construction and customers who increase electric loads. These charges recover electric
system costs related to new development including development review. The fees have been in
existence since 1968 and are updated annually by the electric utility staff under the authorization
of the "Electric Service Rules and Regulations" and the "Construction Policies Practices and
Procedures"but the fee schedules have not been specifically included in the City Code in the past.
The proposed ordinances will be effective January 1, 2004 orforbillings issued with meterreadings
made after January 1, 2004.
BACKGROUND
Connection Fees and Miscellaneous Charges
The Utilities Customer Service Division incurs the costs for initiating accounts, delinquencies,
returned checks, and other miscellaneous customer services. In the past some of these fees have
been included in the water and electric sections of the Code while others were set administratively.
A new section of Code is proposed to consolidate the connection and miscellaneous utility billing
charges in one place. The established fees in other Code sections are being deleted. The proposed
249
November 4, 2003
fees are based on the cost to provide service and are billed to the specific customers who have
received the service. The fees will be billed and collected on the monthly utility bills by the
Customer Service Division, a part of the Utilities Customer Service and Administration Internal
Service Fund. The fees collected will offset the four utilities payments for the Division's services.
The most frequently billed fee is the one-time service connection fee which applies to all new
accounts. For those new accounts with at least one metered utility service (electric and/or water
plus any unmetered services), the proposed charge is $19.65. Without a metered service the cost is
$10.00. This compares to the current charge of$15.65 for the initiation of a metered electric
account. The new charge, which now includes all utilities, is based on an analysis of the field and
office expenses incurred to establish a new account.
The proposed fee schedule follows:
Proposed Utilities Connection Fees and Misc. Service Charges
Service connection fee for account with one or more metered services
(including all non-metered services for the same account). $19.65
Customer initiated rate change(after 90 days of new service). $19.65
Service connection fee for account with only non-metered services
(stormwater,wastewater,wind,flat commercial electric,sprinkler clocks,
cable towers,and floodlights). $10.00
Service fee to reinstate an account to the owner/property manager between
tenants. $10.00
Turn-off notice fee. $7.00
Reconnect fee per service for water or electric following disconnection for
delinquency. $20.00
After hours reconnect—Water (after 5:00 pm,weekends,and holidays) $46.00
After hours reconnect—Electric (after 5:00 pm,weekends,and holidays) $55.45
Return item fee(check,electronic fund transfer,credit card,etc.) $ 15.00
Owner requested repair disconnect or reconnect fee,per trip. $20.00
Research/document fee per hour. $20.00
Other miscellaneous charges will be based on direct costs plus 15%for
indirect costs.
250
November 4, 2003
Water
The proposed Ordinance does not change the tiered and seasonal rates that were approved by City
Council in November 2002. The Council will address options for the water rates at the December
9, 2003 Study Session. The ordinance does make a few housekeeping changes that are needed,
including the elimination of the residential flat rates since all water customers are now metered.
It also makes reference to the connection and services charges proposed for the Billing Procedure
Section of the Code.
Wastewater
The Ordinance increases the City's wastewater rates by 5%. The increase is applied "across the
board"for all customers. With the proposed rates, atypical single family residential customer's
monthly bill will increase from $16.61 to $17.44 or 83 cents per month. This is based on a system
average 5,456 gallons per month winter quarter water use. The wastewater rate ordinance also
establishes a minimum winter quarter usageforsinglefamily residential customers of3,000 gallons
(4,000forduplexes). The vast majority ofthe customers affected by the new minimum are snowbirds
and other winter vacancies.
The wastewater rate increase is needed to fund the operations and maintenance of the City's
wastewater system and to meet debt service coverage requirements. Wastewater revenues have
lagged projections since the Wastewater rates are based on metered water consumption. For
residential customers and some commercial customers, the water use billed during December,
January and February determines their wastewater billings for the next year. The remaining
commercial customers are billed for their metered water use each month. Since the community has
strongly supported both the water restrictions and voluntary water conservation throughout thepast
year, the Utilities'wastewater revenues inadvertently declined as well. In addition, the Wastewater
Fund experienced a reduction in per customer revenue as flat rate customers were converted to
water meters.
Electric
Electric rates are proposed to increase an average of 5.3%. The rate adjustments to the individual
rate classes and customers will vary from the 5.3%average based on cost ofservice. The increases
are due to three factors. Platte River Power Authority, the City's wholesale energy supplier, has
increased its rates 3.9% effective January 1, 2004. This wholesale increase equates to a 2.8%
increase to Fort Collins customers. The second factor in the 5.3%overall rate adjustment is a 2%
increase to begin to implement the Energy Supply Policy adopted by Council Resolution 2003-038.
Approximately I%is being targeted for renewables to achieve the goal of 2%of the City's power
supply delivered from renewable energy sources by the end of 2004. The additional I% will be
earmarked for the implementation of conservation and demand side management programs to
reduce per capita energy consumption and peak demand. The remaining 0.5% is to recover
increased costs of operations and maintenance and the reduction in systemwide load factor. The
251
November 4, 2003
reduction in load factor is likely related to increased use of air conditioning within the residential
sector.
The proposed rate increases by customer class areas follows. Individual customers within these
rate classes will vary from the class average. This is particularly true in the GS750(industrial/large
commercial) rate class. While the class average is 3%, the 15 customers in this class will have
increases of between 12.8%and 2.2%. This shift is a result of a rate design change to smooth the
rate transition between the GS50 and GS750 rate classes. With the proposed rates, atypical single
family residential customer's monthly bill will increase 7.5%from $43.34 to$46.58 or$3.24 cents
per month. This is based on a system average 700k"per month.
Proposed Electric Increases by Customer Rate Class
Residential Energy Service 7.5%
Residential Demand Service 10.0%
General Service (Small Commercial) 4.2%
General Service 50 (Medium Commercial) 3.3%
General Service 750 3.0%
(Large Commercial &Industrial)
Floodlighting 10.0%
Traffic Signals 1.0%
The Ordinance also removes the services charges detailed in each electric rate schedule. These
charges are being replaced by the connection and services charges proposed for the Utility Bill and
Account Charges Authorized; Procedures -Section 26-712. The rate schedules reference the fees
in the new Code section.
Further, this Ordinance adopts new sections of Code dealing with the electric development charges
for new construction and existing customers who increase electric loads. The fees recover the costs
of both on-site and off-site facilities required to provide electric service to the new development.
These fees have been collected since 1968 under the authorization of the Utilities' "Electric Service
Rules and Regulations"and "Construction Policies Practices and Procedures", which was most
recently revised by Council Ordinance 083, 2002. The charges will continue to be updated annually
based on current labor and materials costs.
Development fees and/or charges apply to all construction, new development, redevelopment or
remodeling ofstructures served by the City electric system. Development fees include development
review, actual on-site costs incurred by the Utility to provide electric services and an allocated
portion of the cost of the electric distribution system that has been or will be added to serve new
loads. Fees are based on capacity requirements as determined by the Utility, and lot size and lineal
feet of dedicated roadway as determined by an approved plat.
252
November 4, 2003
Fifty percent (50%) of calculated fees are payable prior to scheduling installation of electric
facilities, and the remainingfees are payable prior to energizing the electric system. Building site
charges related to the installation ofsecondary electric servicesfrom theproperty line to theservice
panel are collected on residential development at the time a building permit is issued.
The fees are proposed as follows:
Residential Electric Development Fees
Residential Development Fees = Electric Capacity Fee (ECF) +
Building Site Charges (BSC)
A. Residential Electric Capacity Fee (ECF):
The ECF recovers the allocated cost of the electric distribution system from the lot corner
of the development to the electric substation. The cost of street lighting is also included.
ECF = Site Footage Fees+ Dwelling Unit Fees +
System Modifications
1) Site Footage (Single/Multifamily)
$0.03395 per square foot of developed area
$7.24 per foot of dedicated roadway
2) Single Family Panel Size
• 150 amp service (non-electric heat) $891 per dwelling unit
• 200 amp service(non-electric heat or electric heat) $1,572 per dwelling unit
Multifamily Panel Size
• 150 amp service (non-electric heat) $625 per dwelling unit
• 200 amp service(non-electric heat or electric heat) $1,049 per dwelling unit
3) System Modifications:
Additional capacity charges or credits will result from any required system
modification differing from that of the base electrical system model. Estimated
charges will be provided prior to construction.
The total electric ca aci ee or a "typical"sin le amil dwelling unit is$2,216 or a 150
P h'.f f t1'P S f Y g f
amp service and$3,040for a 200 amp service. The total electric capacityfeefor a "typical"
multifamily unit is $1,004 for 150 amps and$1,441 for 200 amps.
253
November 4, 2003
B. Residential Building Site Charges (BSC):
Building site charges provide for electric service from the property line to the service panel.
Unit costs for all building site charges including labor, equipment and materials are
1 basis Additional charges a l or conditions such as frozen recalculated on an annual g pp yf fozen or
rocky soil, concrete cutting, asphalt replacement, and other site conditions that increase the
cost of installation.
Included aspart ofthe building site charges is the secondary electric service charge which recovers
the cost of the electric service between the customers meter and the Utilities' transformer.
Secondary service charges are as follows:
Single-Family and Multi-Family Residential Secondary Service Charges
Secondary Service Size Charge (up to 65 feet) Charge (over 65 feet)
1/0 service $413.00 $3.44/Foot
410 service $556.00 $4.02/Foot
350 kCM Service $606.00 $4.08/Foot
1/0 Mobile Home $310.00 N/A
Service
4/0 Mobile Home $435.00 N4A
Service
Commercial/Industrial Electric Development Fees
A. Commercial/Industrial Electric Capacity Fee (ECF):
The ECF recovers the allocated cost of the electric distribution system from the lot corner of the
development to the electric substation. The cost ofstreet lighting is also included.
ECF=Site Footage Fee +Service Entrance Capacity Fee +
g P h' System
Modifications
1) Site Footage:
g
$0.03395 per square foot of developed area
$26.27 per foot of dedicated roadway
254
November 4, 2003
2) Service Entrance Capacity:
a) Single-Phase
$624.90 per 100 amps @ 208 volts
$721.04 per 100 amps @ 240 volts
b) Three-Phase
$1,082.33 per 100 amps @ 208 volts
$1,248.84 per 100 amps @ 240 volts
$2,497.69 per 100 amps @ 480 volts
3) System Modifications:
Additional capacity charges or credits will result from any required system modification
differing from that of the base electrical system model. Estimated charges will be provided
prior to construction.
B. Commercial/Industrial Building Site Charges (BSC):
Building site charges provide for electric service from the corner of the property to the
transformer. Secondary service is provided by the customer.
Single-phase
$6.32 perfoot ofprimary circuit
$1,049.62 per transformer
Three phase
$10.91 per foot of primary circuit
$1,789.32 per transformer
Additional charges may apply for conditions such as frozen or rocky soil, concrete cutting, asphalt
replacement, and other site conditions that increase the cost of installation. These development
charges do not apply to individual services above 5,000 kilowatts for which the fees shall be
determined on a case-by-case basis to recover direct and indirect costs.
255
November 4, 2003
Stormwater
If adopted by City Council, the City's stormwater rates will increase 10% "across the board"for
all customers. The 10%increase is consistent with the 2001 Stormwater Financing Plan adopted
by City Council Resolution 2001-93. The increase is necessary to fund the operations and
maintenance of the City's stormwater system, to pay debt service and to continue the accelerationof
256
November 4, 2003
the citywide capital improvements program. A typical singlefamily residential customer's monthly
bill will increase from $12.96 to $14.26 or$1.30 per month. The typical bill is based on an 8600
square foot lot with light run off. The proposed increase is to be effective on billings issued on or
after January 1, 2004.
Impact on Typical Residential Customer
The following table summarizes the impact of the proposed electric, wastewater and stormwater rate
adjustments on a typical single family residential customer's monthly utility bill. In total, this
"typical"customer's utility bill will increase$5.38per month. Any changes to the 2004 water rates
will be determined at a later date.
257
November 4, 2003
Typical Residential Customer- Monthly Utility Bill
Current Proposed $
2003 2004 Increase Increase
Electric 43.34 46.58 $ 3.24 7.5%
700 kWh per month
Wastewater $ 16.61 1 $ 17.45 $ 0.84 5.0%
5,456 gallons/month
winter quarter use
Stormwater $ 12.96 $ 14.26 $ 1.30 10.0%
8,600 sq ft lot, light
runoff
Water
January 5,000 No changes at this
gallons $ 21.62 $ 21.62 time.
July 21,000 No changes at this
gallons $ 63.77 $ 63.77 time.
Total Monthly Utility
Bill
Jan Water Use $ 94.53 $ 99.91 $ 5.38 5.7%
July Water Use 136.68 142.06 5.38 3.9%
Total Annual Utility
Bill* $ 1,274.40 $1,338.96 1 $ 64.56 5.19L
*Annual water use 50th percentile or 117,131 gallons
Front Range Rate Comparison — Typical Residential Customer
The following graphs show rate comparisons for several front range cities. The data is based on
rates in effect September 1, 2003 for the following residential use.
Electric 700 kWh/month
Wastewater 5,600 gallons winter quarter water use
258
November 4, 2003
Stormwater 8,600 square foot lot, light run off
Water—January 5,000gallons
Water—July 21,000 gallons
"
Mayor Martinez stated he was concerned about the fee increases and asked if there is a legal
requirement for the Council to raise these fees as there was on the previous agenda item. City
Attorney Roy stated the Charter provides that the Council is to fix the rate fees and charges at a level
that will defray the operating costs of the Utilities. He stated staff believes these adjustments better
reflect the costs.
Mayor Martinez asked if these fees are being increased because of staff increases or if there are
additional hard costs being incurred. Wendy Williams, Utilities Deputy General Manager, stated
the 5.3% electric rate increase is due to a pass-through increase from Platte River Power
Authority, the energy supply policy recently adopted by Council, demand side management
programs, renewables, and increased distribution costs related to load factor.
Mayor Martinez asked why the full increase was needed. Williams stated the energy supply
policy requires a rate increase to meet the objectives.
Mayor Martinez asked why the increase could not be absorbed in the existing budget. Williams
stated there is no current funding to accomplish the goals of the energy supply policy. She stated
staff pointed out the need for a rate increase when the energy supply policy was presented to the
Council.
Mayor Martinez asked if more staff will be added. Williams stated there is a pass-through to
Platte River Power Authority on the renewables, that there will be programs provided, and that
an additional engineer will be hired to work on overseeing the programs.
Mayor Martinez asked how many staff people will be added. Williams stated one additional
engineer is being added.
Mayor Martinez asked about the payment to Platte River Power Authority for renewable energy.
Williams stated 1% will pay for additional wind power provided by PRPA.
Mayor Martinez asked if the customer demand for wind energy is increasing. City Manager
Fischbach stated the City paid what was asked for by PRPA. Williams stated the energy supply
policy requires the City to increase its mix of renewables, and a 1% rate increase will be required
to do that. She stated additional rate increases will be required to accomplish the goals of the
energy supply policy.
259
November 4, 2003
Mayor Martinez asked what the new engineer would do. Williams stated the engineer will be
involved in organizing, planning and implementing demand side management programs that are
part of the energy supply policy. She stated those programs will help customers conserve energy
and reduce demand.
Councilmember Tharp stated she shared some of the Mayor's concerns. She asked what the
inducement is to contain costs if the rates can always be raised to cover expenses. She asked if
the Council could be assured that this is the most economical approach. She noted that wind
energy is being bought by some providers because it is cheaper and that PRPA is raising the
City's rates. She stated she would like to be convinced that the Utilities contain costs at every
possible level so that these constant rate increases are not necessary.
Councilmember Tharp stated she had concerns about the increase in wastewater rates. She stated
with water conservation there should be less water added to the system and that costs should be
less. She stated the agenda materials indicated that wastewater had lagged and that this meant
paying more. She stated staff had also indicated that most wastewater utility costs are fixed and
do not vary with the flow processed. She asked why people will be charged more when less
wastewater was being processed. Williams stated over 90% of the costs are fixed for water and
wastewater. She stated the metering program was accelerated and that flat rate customers paid a
flat rate for wastewater service while meter customers paid based on winter quarter consumption.
She stated conservation efforts resulted in less use during winter months and that the impact of
the reduced use is that there would be an individual wastewater rate that is fixed for a year based
on winter month consumption. She stated the result was a lag in wastewater revenues although
costs did not go down and debt service must still be met. She stated the Utilities work to contain
costs and that a number of capital programs have been delayed as a result of the lag in revenue.
Mayor Martinez asked if the Charter requires the Council to vote for these rate increases. City
Attorney Roy stated this is not an automatic increase as was the case with the capital
improvement expansion fees. He stated the Charter requires the Council to fix rates sufficient to
cover expenses.
Mayor Martinez asked how costs would be cut if the Council voted down these rate increases.
Williams stated reserves would have to be used to pay for the pass-through costs to PRPA and
that the energy supply policy would not be implemented.
Mayor Martinez asked how many rate increases there are for utilities. City Manager Fischbach
stated there was an annual rate adjustment.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated stormwater rate increases are due to a direct Council policy to
fast track improvements.
260
November 4, 2003
Mayor Martinez asked how much the Utilities would have to dip into reserves if the rate
increases did not pass and how much is available in reserves. Ellen Switzer, Utilities Financial
and Budget Manager, stated approximately $3.5 million in reserves would have to be used and
that there is approximately $20 million in reserves. City Manager Fischbach stated all of these
rate increases are consistent with Council policy. He stated Council had recently approved the
energy supply policy.
Mayor Martinez stated he did not vote for the energy supply policy. He asked if a certain level
must be maintained in reserves. Switzer stated the financial policies approved by Council set the
Light and Power Fund capital reserve, the operating reserve, the purchase power reserve and the
art in public places reserve.
Mayor Martinez asked how much total reserves are required. Switzer stated approximately $14
million is P
required to be kept in reserves.
Mayor Martinez asked if $3 million could be used for one year while retaining the minimum
required in reserves. Switzer stated the Utilities would then have negative net income. City
Manager Fischbach suggested that staff be given time to prepare a specific response to Council
questions.
Mayor Martinez stated he would like to see a staff follow-up on Second Reading.
Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Ordinance
No. 151, 2003, Ordinance No. 152, 2003, Ordinance No. 153, 2003, Ordinance No. 154, 2003
and Ordinance No. 155, 2003 on First Reading.
Councilmember Kastein commented that the water rates are not being increased and that there
would be a discussion in December regarding tiered water rates. He stated if the Council was
worried about fees, they should "zero in"on that issue.
Mayor Martinez stated he would support the motion and that he would like to have his questions
satisfied on Second Reading.
Councilmember Roy stated it was important to remember during the discussion on water rates
that the citizens of the City saved over $3 million on their water bills with the water rate
structure.
Councilmember Kastein stated he disagreed and that would be an issue for discussion at the time
water rates are discussed.
261
November 4, 2003
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein,
Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance No. 156, 2003
Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance Relating to
the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2004
and Adopting the Budget for the Fiscal Years Beginning
January 1. 2004 and Ending December 31, 2005, and Fixing
the Mill Levy for Fiscal Year 2004,Adopted on First Reading.
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"Financiallmpact
This Ordinance represents the annual appropriation for fiscal year 2004, and adopts the total
City budget for fiscal year 2004 at $438,069,004 and for fiscal year 2005 at $450,174,400. This
Ordinance also sets the City mill levy at 9.797 mills, unchanged since 1991,for fiscal year 2004.
Executive Summary
Preparing our financial and service plan for 2004 and 2005 has been very challenging. Our
sales and use tax revenues, a primary source of funding for general City services, have been
below projections and previous year levels for the first time in Fort Collins'history.
To adjust to declining revenues, in spite of a growing population and increasing demands for
services, the City's General Fund budget has been cut--$526,067 in 2002; $2,550,000 in 2003
and a proposed reduction of$3,339,000 in 2004. The 2002 and 2003 reductions are ongoing
budget reductions, meaning that the reductions are in effect for 2004, 2005 and future years.
Other funds, such as Recreation, Transportation, Golf and some of the Utility Funds, have also
experienced sluggish revenues.
There have been four study sessions involving discussion of the 2004-2005 budget for the City of
Fort Collins. In addition, two public hearings were held. With City Council direction, the City of
Fort Collins 2004-2005 Biennial Budget was developed and is now presented to City Council for
consideration and adoption and to appropriate the necessary monies to fund the budget for fiscal
year 2004. The Second Reading of this ordinance is scheduled for November 18, 2003.
262
November 4, 2003
BACKGROUND
The budget goals for 2004 and 2005 are focused on maintaining as many of our services as
possible in these challenging economic times:
• Maintain to the degree possible existing services, i.e., minimize service reductions
• As services are provided by employees, avoid or minimize layoffs to the degree possible
• Maintain and, ifpossible, expand Police services
• Maintain to the degree possible current levels of Primary services
The reductions over the past year and many of those proposed in 2004 have focused on delaying
repairs and renovations, delaying equipment replacements, reducing training and staff
development, cutting supplies and materials and operational services. We have whittled away
all that we can of materials, equipment and some significant secondary and support services. In
preparation for the 2005 budget "exception" process and anticipating Council approval of a
Budget Advisory Committee, staff will work with the committee to reassess what our core
services are and how they can be delivered in a more effective and cost-efficient manner within
the resources actually available.
The Net City Budget, which excludes internal transfers between funds is $343,709,418 for 2004
and $356,613,804 for 2005. The following table compares the 2003 budget with the 2004 and
2005 recommended budgets, including the net operating budgets, capital improvement budgets
and debt service (in millions):
In Millions
2003 2004 % Change 2005 % Change
Net Operating $292.7 $308.5 5.4% $320.3 3.8%
Debt $ 4.6 $ 4.4 -5.6% $ 4.4 1.2%
Capital $ 38.2 $ 30.8 -19.2% $ 31.9 3.2%
Total Net City $335.5 $343.7 2.4% $356.6 3.8%
Internal Transfers $104.9 $ 94.4 -10.1% $ 93.6 -0.8%
Total City Budget $440.4 $438.1 -0.5% $450.2 2.8%
The total City budget for 2004 is $438.1 million and for 2005 is $450.2 million. The Net
Operating Budget (the money necessary for operating day-to-day services, excluding transfers
between funds, debt service and capital projects)for 2004 totals $308.5 million and for 2005
totals $320.3 million. A substantial portion ($13.2 million) of the increase in 2004 over 2003 is
263
November 4, 2003
due to the recommendation of our outside auditor that natural areas (BCC) and Pavement
Management (BCC) be moved from Capital Improvements to the Operating budget.
The Capital Improvement expenditures for 2004 total $30.8 million and for 2005 total $31.9
million
Debt Service will be $4.4 million in 2004 and 2005. The debt service for both years is within the
Council's policy debt target of 15% of the combined general debt service and Special District
Funds'revenue. It is also the lowest since 1981.
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE 2004-2005 BIENNIAL BUDGET
GENERAL FUND
The General Fund supports (either totally or partially) most of our general government services,
such as police, libraries, museum, park maintenance, facilities maintenance, neighborhood
programs, natural resources, development review, building, zoning, affordable housing,
recreation, performing arts and our support services such as finance, budget, legal, information
technology and general administration.
In addition to prior year reductions, the 2004 General Fund ongoing operations will be reduced
by a total of$3,339,000. The 2004 ongoing reductions include:
• Cultural, Library, Recreation........................$ 741,837
• Planning and Environmental........................ $ 368,591
• Administrative services.............................. $ 239,945
• Transportation services.............................. $ 683,500
• Executive, legislative,judicial...................... $ 231,085
• Poudre Fire Authority................................ $ 348,700
• Communication and Technology................... $ 205,344
• Police services......................................... $ 520.000
Total Reductions.............................. $3,339,002
Our revenues have dropped and these reductions were necessary in order to balance projected
revenues and projected expenses.
We go into 2005 on this reduced base of ongoing service and expense reductions. However,
projections indicate revenues will be stronger in 2005. As a result, we anticipate reinstating and
expanding a few services in 2005 and these include:
264
November 4, 2003
a. Expand Police staffing .............................................. $ 799,763 ongoing
$ 261,998 one-time
b. Resume Police Building set aside ................................. $ 320,000 ongoing
c. Resume Labor Market Adjustments .............................. $1,900,000ongoing'
d. Resume Street Maintenance expanded funding ................. $ 200,000 ongoing
e. Resume full amount ofPFA allocation .......................... $ 594,000 ongoing
TABOR
Funds that exceeded the growth limit imposed by Article X, Section 20 (TABOR) in 2001 and
2002 are to be used for transportation capital and street maintenance in 2004 and 2005. In
2004, approximately $2.3 million will be allocated for street maintenance and in 2005, $1.0
million will be reserved for transportation capital projects as they become identified. This $1.0
million will be added to $1.0 million reserved in 2003.
FINAL BUDGETADJUSTMENTs
In the course of the Council's review and discussions of the next biennial budget, there are
several items for which interest was expressed to find a way to retain or fund in the budget.
Here is an update on the status ofseveral items.
Funded Services
2 with 2003 carryover one-time
1. Rivendel! Recycling Center ($18,000) -funded to 004 ry (one-time)
dollars. We project that an additional $18,000 will be needed to sustain the recycling
operations at the Center in 2004. As we near the end of this fiscal year (2003) we will
have some funds from CPES to carry over into 2004 to cover the recycling operations.
Also, we are beginning to receive some additional income from haulers that will help to
cover the operational costs. We will monitor this closely for 2005.
2. Environmental Business Outreach/Climatewise ($20,000) —funded in 2004 through a
grant award and 2003 carryover (one-time) dollars. The purpose is to work with local
businesses to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We have been using one-time
monies (from the General Fund andf rom Utilities) to support this effort. To covert he
anticipated 2004 shortfall, the City received notification of a grant award late this
summer that will be sufficient to cover program costs through 2004. We will monitor
closely for 2005.
This is a very preliminary estimate for the General Fund. Staff is working on a performance review system
that considers all compensation adjustments—labor market,merit and skill.
265
November 4, 2003
3. Environmental Planner ($20,000) —funded in 2004 and beyond through reallocation of
personnel resources (ongoing). Approximately .25 FIE of an Environmental Planner's
time has to be picked up by the General Fund. Early in the budget planning process,
there was no source of funding. With some staffing changes over the last few weeks, we
are able to cover this for 2004 and beyond.
Sustain Reductions as Recommended
During the Budget Study Session discussions and review of the proposed service reductions,
several Council members expressed a desire to reconsider some select items. Listed below are
the ones most frequently mentioned by City Council. While none of these are "added-back" or
included in the recommended budget for the first reading of the budget adoption and
appropriation ordinances, Council may decide to add-back one or more of these services. If so,
the item(s) will be included in the second reading of the ordinances on November 18. I would
request that Council seriously consider adding back one-time monies for the Boys and Girls
Club ($40,000for 2004) and the Summer Bilingual Program ($18,500 for 2004).
4. Advertising (Museum $5,000 and Lincoln Center Room Rental $6,000) — The Museum
advertising budget was increased in 2003 through some internal reallocation. The
reduction for 2004 (from $10,000 to $5,000) leaves the Museum at the same level at the
beginning for the 2003 fiscal year. For the Lincoln Center, this portion of the advertising
budget relates to advertising for room rentals. During 2003 funds internal to the Lincoln
Center budget were reallocated and the advertising budget was increased by $6,000. The
reduction (for 2004) actually cuts back the advertising to the original level in their 2003
budget ($15,000). As an added note, the Lincoln Center advertising budget for
performances is $190,000 for 2004.
5. Traffic Calming ($50,000 allowance for speed humps) — Transportation Services
reported (1012112003) that the City has no lasting success reducing speeds or volumes of
traffic in neighborhoods using current methods and resources. Traffic speed studies in
Fort Collins, Colorado Springs, and Golden indicate that average speeds are not lowered
by speed humps. To reach the greatest number of drivers, the remaining budget for 2004
($50,000) is to be used for education programs (yard signs, traffic tamers, radio ads,
trash can stickers, back to school efforts, and the speed trailer).
6. Affordable Housing ($158,000 reduction) -- The total allocation for the Affordable
Housing Trust Fund (this is for the production of affordable housing units and excludes
Land Bank resources) since inception (1993-2003) is $4,370,875. The City expended
$3,179,090 in this time period ($410,000 of this expenditure was transferred to the Land
Bank program), leaving a projected balance at the end of 2003 of $1,191,785. The
266
November 4, 2003
annual, ongoing General Fund allocation for affordable housing units is $893,962-- with
the reduction of$158,000 this will drop to an annual allocation of$735,898 in 2004.
Given the history of expenditures, if the annual allocation remains at $735,898 and the
expenditures ratios remain fairly constant, the projected balance at the end of 2010 for
the Affordable Housing Trust Fund is $1,217,696.
In support of the long-range goals for increasing the number of affordable housing units
in Fort Collins, the plan has been to increase the General Fund appropriation for the
Affordable Housing Trust Fund each year through 2008. The target was an annual
appropriation of approximately $2.4 million per year. With the combination of not
increasing the appropriation and an actual reduction in 2004 of$158,000 as proposed, it
is estimated that the potential production of actual affordable homes will be reduced by
126 units or approximately 28%of our total production goal (456 units)for 2004.
Projects recommended for funding from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund in 2003 are
as follows:
1. Home Buyer Assistance $ 200,000
2. Habitat for Humanity $ 445,500 (multi family ownership project)
3. Habitatfor Humanity $ 32,424 (lot acquisition)
4. Land Bank $ 410,000
Total $1,087,924
In addition, CDBG and HOME funding for affordable housing projects in 2003 is
expected to be approximately $2,898,208. The grand total the City is expected to invest
in affordable housing in 2003 is $3,986,132.
7. Boys and Girls Club ($40,000 for 2004) — the City has supported the programs at the
Boys' and Girls' Club for several years. Because many of the services and activities
overlap with the City's recreation services for youth, Council agreed to gradually reduce
the funding so that by 2008 the City would no longer allocate funds to the Boys' and
Girls' Club. With the current financial picture and the reductions in Cultural, Library
and Recreation Services ($488,068 was cut in 2003; $740,000 was the proposed cut in
2004), the allocation to the Boys' and Girls' Club was eliminated beginning in 2004. If
Council wishes to sustain some level of allocation in 2004, an allocation from the
General Fund available reserves (one-time funds of $2,000,000 are available) would
need to be included in the 2004 appropriation.
8. Summer Bilingual Program ($18,500) — this is a summer program implemented through
eight part-time youths and two part-time adults. The program introduces young people
267
November 4, 2003
to the library and employs them for outreach programs in the Hispanic community. If the
Council wishes to sustain some level of allocation in 2004, an allocation from the
General Fund available reserves (one-time funds of $2,000,000 are available) would
need to be included in the 2004 appropriation.
9. Weekend Swimming Pool Hours ($8,000) — this was a reduction in the weekend hours at
the Mulberry Pool (open for 3-hour Saturday sessions during the school year; closed
Sundays for drop-in swimming) and Senior Center Pool. If the Council wishes to sustain
some level of allocation in 2004, an allocation from the General Fund Undesignated
Reserves (one-time funds of$2,000,000 are available) would need to be included in the
2004 appropriation.
10. Human Rights' Coordinator ($67,500) — this was a contractual position, originally
supported by a private donation in 2000 and 2001. For 2002-2003, the contractual
position was funded with one-time monies. Base budgets (ongoing, operating budgets)
do not include one-time dollars. The Human Rights' Coordinator provided support to a
wide-variety of educational programs including the Youth Multicultural Retreat, Martin
Luther King events, Public Dialogue series, Multicultural Community retreat, PSD
Leadership conferences, etc. Without the Coordinator, much of the work will have to be
picked up by volunteers, if available. If the Council wishes to sustain some level of
allocation in 2004, an allocation from the General Fund available reserves (one-time
funds of$2,000,000 are available) would need to be included in the 2004 appropriation.
11. Street Oversizing ($110,000) -- the General Fund contribution to Street Oversizing was
cut by approximately $23,000 in 2003,from $550,000 to $523,050. The impact of that
has been negligible. The proposed 2004-2005 budget further reduces the General Fund
contribution by $110,000 to $413,050, for each of these two budget years. It also
projects this same level of General Fund contribution thru 2008. The cumulative effect of
this reduction may begin to have an adverse impact over time unless the recommended
level of General Fund contribution is reinstated in an upcoming budget cycle.
During each budget cycle we have a number of projects scheduled related to the Street
Oversizing Fund. For example, in 2004 we anticipate Street Oversizing project costs in
the amount of$3.3 million. Revenues, even with the anticipated reduction of the General
Fund allocation, are projected at $4.1 million. The difference goes into the Street
Oversizing fund reserve. The $110,000 cut for 2004 represents about 2.6% of the total
revenue expected.
The estimated project costs are very rough estimates--projects are often scaled back or
savings are realized based on the actual design and engineering. That said, we project a
reserve balance of$1.3 million at the end of 2004, So, while we are planning to reduce
268
November 4, 2003
the General Fund allocation for Street Oversizing in 2004 , between our management
approaches and our reserves, the Street Oversizing program should remain financially
sound. Preliminary projections of the Street Oversizing revenues and expenses for 2006
through 2008 indicate an adequate reserve balance.
However, the fund will have to be closely monitored. The General Fund is still
responsible for a portion of the Street Oversizing program. As revenues begin to come
back, the General Fund allocation to Street Oversizing is one that should be considered
for reinstatement ahead of adding any new or expanding existing services.
If Council wishes to reinstate some or all of these service items in 2004 with dollars from
General Fund available reserves, here is a summary of the impact to the one-time reserves:
Estimated One-time Dollars Available for 2004 $ 2,004,878
Potential Uses:
a. LC and Museum advertising ($ 9,000)
b. Traffic Calming ($ 50,000)
c. Affordable Housing ($ 158,000)
d. Boys & Girls Club ($ 40,000)
e. Summer Bilingual Program ($ 18,500)
f. Weekend Swimming Hours ($ 8,000)
g. Human Rights' Coordinator ($ 67,500)
h. Street Oversizing ($ 110,000)
Total potential uses - $ 461.000
Net available afterpotential uses $ 1,543,878
I continue to advise caution concerning the use of any one-time reserves to fund these items.
There remains a good deal of uncertainty about the economy. The budget plan reflects the best
financial planning information and data available. To fund ongoing, operating services with the
scarce one-time dollars in 2004 is in my estimation not financially prudent.
PERSONNEL IMPACTS
Given current economic conditions, the projected gap between expenses and revenues and the
goal of minimizing service reductions (and therefore minimizing staff reductions), the budget
excludes any employee salary adjustments for 2004 and 2005. This means no Labor Market
Adjustments for three years (2003, 2004, 2005). For 66% of the City's workforce, this means
269
November 4, 2003
potentially no pay increase for three years because they are at the top of their range and are not
eligible for merit or skill adjustments. In addition to the suspension of Labor Market
Adjustments, there will be no merit and or skill adjustments for employees not at the top of their
pay range for two years (2004, 2005)—the one exception is for Police personnel who will be
eligible for skill ladder increases in 2004 and 2005.
In addition to no salary adjustments, we are increasing the amount employees must pay for their
medical benefits. In keeping with our targets for employees paying a larger share of the
premium costs, on average, employees will be going from paying 5% of their premium costs in
2003 to 10% in 2004 and 15% in 2005.
The structure and design of the benefits that are offered and the cost is also being changed. For
most employees, this will mean greater out-of-pocket costs. In other words, they will be paying
more for the medications and services they use.
Based on Council's direction at the October 14 budget study session, more work is to be done in
conjunction with the Personnel Board to prepare a recommendation for the scheduled changes
to the benefits'premium costs. The recommendation(s) will be considered during the "exception
process"for the 2005 budget.
CONCLUSION:
Our fiscal plan is sound for continuing to provide quality services to our community. While our
service levels have been reduced and our future challenges are many, employees remain
optimistic and ready to serve our citizens in the best way possible. I appreciate the persistence
and dedication of Council to adopt a balanced and sound financial plan for municipal services. "
City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item. He stated the total recommended City
budget is $438,069,004 for 2004 and $450,174,400 for 2005, compared with a budget of
$440,400,000 for 2003. He stated the mill levy for property taxes remains at 9.797 and that has
not changed since 1991. He stated the 2.25% sales and use tax rate has remained unchanged
(except for the Building Community Choices sales and use tax) since 1982. He stated revenues
over the last two years have declined, yet demands were expanded and services were added for a
growing population. He stated cuts and delays were necessary to balance the budget. He stated
the 2004-2005 recommended budget reflected numerous cuts and reduced resources for every
general governmental operation, frozen salaries for all employees, no labor market adjustments
or merit increases, and no skill ladder increases except for eligible police officer staff. He stated
the General Fund had suffered significant reductions over the last few years and that the total
base declined each year. He stated the City had cut over $6.3 million from the General Fund, not
including salary adjustments. He stated labor market adjustments for 2003 were suspended for
additional savings of approximately $1.85 million. He stated City-wide all operating funds
270
November 4, 2003
experienced savings of roughly$3.7 million. He stated a number of positions had been frozen in
2003 to save an additional $909,000 to cover lagging revenues in 2003. He stated there were
significant reductions to municipal services. He stated with the 2004-2005 budget plan the focus
was on the following principles established by the City Council: (1) to maintain to the degree
possible existing services, (2) to maintain employees because they deliver services to citizens, (3)
to maintain and if possible expand Police Services, and (4) to maintain to the degree possible
current levels of primary services. He stated despite flat sales and use tax projections for 2004
and a slightly more optimistic project for 2005 the proposed budget adhered closely to the
Council budget targets. He stated at the final budget work session on October 24 the Council
gave direction to proceed and prepare the budget including the following: (1) sustaining the
recommendation to not expand Police Services for 2004 and expanding staffing for Police
Services in 2005; (2) sustaining the recommendation based on the model that projects sales and
use tax revenues in 2005 at 4.7%; (3) and sustaining the recommendation that employees pay
10% of the benefits premium cost for 2004 and 15% of the benefits premium cost for 2005 with
the understanding that this would be reviewed and possibly changed during the 2005 budget
exception process, and as of January 1, 2004 require any new employees hired to pay 15% of the
benefits premium cost. He stated Council expressed an interest in finding a way to fund or retain
several items. He stated three Natural Resources items were funded due to carry-over dollars,
unanticipated grant funding and reallocation of resources. He stated the budget included $18,000
for the Rivendell recycling center, $20,000 for the environmental business outreach climate-wise
program, and $20,000 for an environmental planner. He stated the one-year costs for eight other
items and the amount of available one-time funds ($2,004,878) have been provided. He stated
the Council should direct that none, some or all of the items could be added to the 2004 budget.
Kelly Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, stated it is important to be fair to the City employees and
to the taxpayers and that the employees should be asked to pay a bigger share of the benefits
premium costs. He stated the way the City sets salaries and benefits is not reflective of the true
market. He urged a true market analysis for the next round of salary setting rather than a
continuation of comparisons with 11 other cities. He stated other cities are asking employees to
pay 18% of the benefits premium costs. He stated the agenda material indicated that the City
plans to resume labor market adjustments with the 2005 budget. He urged a more realistic
approach with deductibles. He stated the City must be fair to the employees and taxpayers and
that the current system is not fair. He stated this budget would be a "disaster" if funds were not
being taken out of a benefit reserve fund. He noted that the funds now being allocated for
Natural Resources are not new or permanent funding. He opposed a human resources position
for $67,000.
J. J. Johnston, Northern Colorado Economic Development Corporation, requested funding in the
amount of$30,000 and reported on the activities of the Corporation to help grow the economy
and get unemployed and underemployed people back to work.
271
November 4, 2003
Councilmember Tharp asked if the request from the Northern Colorado Economic Development
Corporation was included in the budget. City Manager Fischbach replied in the negative and
stated the staff is working on an information package for Council that looks at economic
opportunities and funding possibilities. He stated proposals such as the one from the Northern
Colorado Economic Development Corporation will be included.
Councilmember Tharp asked if there would be another opportunity to look at that item and other
economic items. City Manager Fischbach replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Hamrick asked about the funding for the three Natural Resources items and what
services are being cut to fund those items. City Manager Fischbach stated the reallocation is not
affecting the department. Deputy City Manager Jones stated there are carry-over dollars and
revenues from the haulers used for the Rivendell Recycling Center for 2004. She stated the
business outreach climate-wise position is funded in part from the General Fund and Utilities
Fund and that some of those monies could be carried over because of the late start of the program
and will be coupled with an unanticipated grant. She stated the environmental planner will be
staffed through a voluntary reallocation of existing staff time.
Councilmember Hamrick stated these were important items for environmental support and that it
appears that funding is being accomplished piecemeal. He stated this seemed to be a haphazard
approach. He asked if consideration was given to making these items fully funded on an ongoing
basis. City Manager Fischbach stated this was considered and rejected because of the guidelines
given by Council for the preparation of the budget. He stated these are not primary services and
that the piecemeal approach will continue until there are adequate revenues to make them
ongoing or until Council gives direction to find a way to make these ongoing.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the adjustments for the Natural Resources items are
independent of the recommended budget. City Manager Fischbach stated those items are being
taken care of in the recommended budget.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked for confirmation that the other items listed are not in the
budget unless Council comes up with a recommendation through discussion. She asked if the
budget is as discussed without the addition of the other items. City Manager Fischbach replied in
the affirmative.
Councilmember Weitkunat recommended that the Council proceed with the budget as
recommend and then deal with any items that Councilmembers want to add.
("Secretary's Note: Council took a brief recess at this point.)
272
November 4, 2003
Mayor Martinez asked Councilmembers to make a motion on the budget and then offer any
amendments for consideration.
Councilmember Tharp made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Bertschy, to adopt
Ordinance No. 156, 2003 on First Reading.
Councilmember Tharp made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to amend the
Ordinance to include $50,000 for traffic calming.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked that the source of funding be indicated.
Councilmember Tharp stated there was an estimated $2,004,878 in one-time money available
and that she suggested that this item come from that source.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she did not see this as an essential addition to the budget at this
time and that there are other ways to look at traffic calming that will not require dollars.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the traffic calming fund would be depleted if this money was
not included in the budget. City Manager Fischbach stated the fund would be lowered by
$50,000 and that the fund would remain at $50,000.
Councilmember Tharp noted that the total of$100,000 had been used each year. She stated it is
a significant priority among citizens that the City deal with traffic issues.
Mayor Martinez asked if the traffic calming money could be put toward police staffing or
overtime work for problem areas. City Manager Fischbach stated staff would look at that issue.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated other alternatives to traffic calming needs to be explored.
The vote on the motion to amend to include $50,000 for traffic calming was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Roy and Tharp. Nays: Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez
and Weitkunat.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to include $18,500
for the summer bilingual program from reserves.
Councilmember Kastein stated there has been some indication from CSU that it might be
interested in finding volunteers to help with the program.
273
November 4, 2003
Councilmember Bertschy stated this program will provide employment and experience for some
youths.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated "some things have to go" in a budget crunch. She stated she
would support foregoing the program for one year.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Martinez,
Roy and Tharp. Nays: Councilmembers Kastein and Weitkunat.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to add $20,000 for
the Boys and Girls Club from reserves. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Mayor Martinez made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to add $110,000 for street
oversizing as a primary service and $158,000 for affordable housing as a primary service.
Councilmember Tharp stated she would like to discuss the two items separately.
Councilmember Tharp made a motion to amend the motion made by Mayor Martinez, seconded
by Councilmember Hamrick, to divide the two questions. The vote on the motion to divide the
two questions was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Roy, Tharp
and Weitkunat. Nays: Mayor Martinez.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Mayor Martinez asked if there was a motion for$110,000 for street oversizing.
Mayor Martinez made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to include$110,000 for street
oversizing.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Martinez, Roy and Weitkunat.
Nays: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein and Tharp.
THE MOTION FAILED
274
November 4, 2003
Councilmember Tharp made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Bertschy, to include
$158,000 for affordable housing. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Bertschy, Hamrick, Martinez, Roy and Tharp. Nays: Councilmembers Kastein and Weitkunat.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to increase the
employees' benefit costs from 10% to 15% for 2004 and to 20% for 2005. The vote on the
motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Hamrick and Roy. Nays: Councilmembers
Bertschy, Kastein, Martinez, Tharp and Weitkunat.
THE MOTION FAILED
Councilmember Tharp made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to include
$67,500 for a contract Human Rights Coordinator position.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she had difficulty with adding a $67,500 job back into the
budget when positions are frozen and there were no increases in salaries.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Roy and
Tharp. Nays: Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez and Weitkunat.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Councilmember Hamrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to revise projected
sales and use tax revenues to 2% for 2005.
Councilmember Kastein asked where the resulting cuts would come from. City Manager
Fischbach stated it would mean about $1.5 million to change the projection from 4.7%to 2%.
Councilmember Kastein stated he would like to hear suggestions regarding where the $1.5
million in cuts would be made for ongoing money.
Councilmember Hamrick stated there was a list of items for possible increases in 2005 and that
the funding for those items would simply not happen. City Manager Fischbach stated the labor
market adjustments are not included and that the list of possible additions includes additional
police officers and the police building.
Councilmember Tharp asked for clarification that the $1.5 million would come from the list of
add-backs proposed by the City Manager.
275
November 4, 2003
Councilmember Kastein asked if those add-backs would total $1.5 million. City Manager
Fischbach stated they totaled $1.9 million.
Councilmember Kastein asked which specific items would not be included.
Councilmember Hamrick stated he would recommend that the City Manager come back to the
Council during the exception process and present new information for 2005.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, and Roy.
Nays: Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez, Tharp and Weitkunat.
THE MOTION FAILED
Councilmember Tharp made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to add $8,000 for
weekend swimming hours from available one-time money. The vote on the motion was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Roy and Tharp. Nays: Councilmembers
Kastein, Martinez and Weitkunat.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to unfreeze the
adult bilingual library coordinator position immediately.
City Manager Fischbach stated the positions had been frozen administratively and that staff will
be looking at the funding for those frozen positions in February and March. He noted that money
is budgeted for that frozen position.
Mayor Martinez asked what the effective date would be for unfreezing the position.
Councilmember Roy stated it would be upon the effective date of adoption of the Ordinance.
Councilmember Tharp stated if this was not part of the budget that is being adopted, it could be
discussed under Other Business. He stated the issue will not impact the 2004-2005 budget. City
Attorney Roy stated the matter could be postponed to Other Business on the grounds that the
motion was not germane to the main motion, which is the adoption of the budget. He stated the
motion maker could withdraw the motion and bring the matter back under Other Business or that
there could be a motion to that effect.
Councilmember Roy stated he would not withdraw the motion because it was a constituent
concern.
276
November 4, 2003
Councilmember Tharp made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to postpone
consideration of Councilmember Roy's motion until Other Business on the grounds that it was
not germane to the main motion.
Councilmember Kastein offered a friendly amendment to postpone indefinitely because there
will not be time for discussion under Other Business.
Councilmember Tharp did not accept this as a friendly amendment to her motion to postpone.
The vote on Councilmember Tharp's motion to postpone was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Bertschy, Martinez, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Hamrick, Kastein and Roy.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to amend the
2004 budget by adding in a minimum growth package for Police Services ($799,763 for ongoing
services and $261,998 in one-time funding) with the one-time resources to come from building-
set-aside funds for Police Services buildings not expended in 2003 and with ongoing money
sources to be researched by the City Manager prior to Second Reading.
Councilmember Tharp asked if the proposal was different than the proposal for 2005.
Councilmember Kastein asked for clarification regarding whether the 2005 proposal was for half
of the officers needed. City Manager Fischbach stated the 2005 proposal was for the full package
of officers. He stated he understood the motion to move that up to 2004.
Councilmember Kastein stated the agenda material referenced the minimum growth package and
asked why the minimum growth package would represent the full level of police staffing that had
been discussed. City Manager Fischbach stated this would represent five officers and 2-3
civilians.
Councilmember Kastein stated he is not recommending the full level of service for 2004 and that
his motion should read one-half of the growth package that was recommended for 2005.
The vote on the motion (as clarified by Councilmember Kastein above) was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick,
Roy and Tharp.
THE MOTION FAILED
277
November 4, 2003
Councilmember Kastein asked for a summary of what had been added back into the budget by
motion to amend the budget. Jones stated the following items had been added back into the
budget: $50,000 for traffic calming, $18,500 for the summer bilingual program, $20,000 for the
Boys and Girls Club, $158,000 for affordable housing, $67,500 for a Human Rights Coordinator,
and $8,000 for weekend swimming. City Manager Fischbach stated this would total $322,000.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the $322,000 would come from reserves. City Manager
Fischbach stated was the direction given in the adopted motions.
The vote on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 156, 2003 on First Reading as amended was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy and Tharp. Nays: Councilmembers Hamrick, Kastein,
Martinez, Roy and Weitkunat.
THE MOTION FAILED
Mayor Martinez stated police and fire are the most important primary and basic services and that
this should be the focus rather than "fluff' services. He stated too many services are included in
primary services.
Councilmember Tharp stated 72% of the budget went to primary services and that there are
reserves that could be used for one-time money for the $322,000. She stated if one-time moneyis
devoted to police services, there will be no money to carry it forward. She stated simple one-
time money was being put back in. She stated the budget has been cut significantly and that the
budget should be passed at this point.
Mayor Martinez stated adding services such as the Rivendell Recycling Center or the
environmental planner are examples of what he had said. He stated Council should be in the
"cutting mode" instead of the "expanding mode." He stated Council needs to first take care of
basic primary services.
Councilmember Hamrick stated he could not vote for the Ordinance because Council is not
including an increase in benefits' premiums by employees. He stated if a greater contribution is
required that other items could be funded. He stated future budgets will face more dramatic
increases and impacts on employees because the City failed to act now.
Councilmember Roy stated he agreed with Councilmember Hamrick regarding the need to
increase the employees benefits premiums. He stated the City needs to recover a more realistic
share of health care costs and that it was a fact of life that people are having to pay more for
health insurance.
Mayor Martinez stated City employees were"real people."
278
November 4, 2003
Councilmember Kastein asked if it was Councilmember Tharp's intent to fund the one-time
items in 2004 and to not include those items in the 2005 budget.
Councilmember Tharp stated was her intent. She stated the items could be reviewed in the
budget exception process if there are substantial increases in revenue.
Councilmember Kastein asked if that is how staff will view the intent. City Manager Fischbach
replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Bertschy suggested that the add-ins be deleted at this point, that the budget be
approved on First Reading and that the Council negotiate.
Councilmember Weitkunat agreed and stated it was important to find out where the differences
are. She noted that the health insurance had been an issue throughout the discussions. She stated
the money for some of the items that were added in could have gone to more police officers. She
stated the Council identified certain things as important and that the funds were not directed to
those important items. She stated she believed that the employees would pay a fair proportion of
their health insurance premiums with the 10%. She stated she believed that percentage to be fair,
proportionate and in the direction that Council wanted to take. She expressed a concern that
Council was not adhering to its goals and was tapping a "savings account" for programs that
could be delayed for a year.
Mayor Martinez stated he agreed with Councilmember Weitkunat.
Councilmember Tharp stated the small items that were put back into the budget do not involve
ongoing money and that adding the police funding will mean ongoing money. She stated the
Police Chief indicated that the police funding was not required. She favored looking at health
care costs and making gradual increases to get to a realistic and fair point.
Mayor Martinez stated police services are diminishing and are a primary service and that the
money was there for ongoing funding for additional police services. He stated there are
continuing demands for more police services.
Councilmember Kastein stated police services has been ranked as the number one priority by
Council. He suggested approval of the budget without adding in other items and directing staff
to look one more time at where ongoing money for police officers will come from.
Mayor Martinez stated he would agree with that. He stated there was a need to look "deep and
wide" and not at `het projects"that Council is not willing to give up.
Councilmember Tharp asked how additional police officers could be hired with one-time money.
279
November 4, 2003
Councilmember Kastein stated ongoing money would need to be committed.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt
Ordinance No. 156, 2003 on First Reading as written and to direct staff by Second Reading to
look at police services (the addition of four police officers) at a cost of $375,000 in ongoing
funding and $120,000 in one-time funding.
Councilmember Hamrick stated he would not support the motion. He stated he had seen no
analysis that led him to believe that there is a crime crisis in Fort Collins. He stated he had seen
no analysis to justify the need for new officers.
Mayor Martinez stated the motion directs the City Manager to determine how this would work in
the budget. He spoke in favor of additional police funding.
Councilmember Weitkunat noted that the Council has asked for additional police enforcement
and that is a rationale for more personnel.
Councilmember Bertschy stated he would support the motion because he would like to see the
information on the additional police funding. He stated any additional funding might have to
come from the police building funds.
Councilmember Tharp stated the City Manager had presented alternatives regarding where the
money could come from and that none of the alternatives had been acceptable to the Council.
Mayor Martinez stated he was not interested in making internal cuts to hire new officers and that
he was interested in how the Police Chief could realign personnel to put more officers on the
street.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked that Councilmembers indicate where they were not willing to
"bend"on the budget.
Councilmember Roy stated he had concerns that the revenue projections were "too rosy" and that
the health care costs for employees were not in line with reality.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated five Councilmembers would not support that change. She
stated in reality it will probably not be possible to get five Councilmembers to support the police
services changes. She stated a compromise might be possible if an amended budget is adopted
without those two changes.
Councilmember Roy stated he was willing to continue to discuss the issue.
280
November 4, 2003
Councilmember Kastein called for the question.
Councilmember Tharp requested clarification regarding the motion on the floor.
Councilmember Kastein stated the motion was to approve the budget as written and to direct the
City Manager to give Council feedback on how to account for $375,000 in ongoing money in the
2004 budget for four police officers.
Councilmember Tharp asked if this meant that the items put back into the budget are now being
taken out.
Councilmember Kastein stated the intent was to return to the originally stated budget without any
of the add-ins.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Kastein, Martinez and
Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Hamrick, Roy and Tharp.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Other Business
Mayor Martinez asked if the items scheduled on the GID and Water Utility Enterprise Board
meetings were time sensitive. City Manager Fischbach replied in the affirmative. City Attorney
Roy spoke regarding the time constraints regarding the items scheduled at the two Board
meetings. Alan Krcmarik, Finance Director, spoke regarding the time constraints on the Halligan
bonding.
Mayor Martinez stated he would like a legal opinion on how to handle this type of situation in
the future and the impact of not conducting a Board meeting. City Attorney Roy stated the
consequences will vary depending on the nature of the agenda items that will not be acted upon.
Mayor Martinez stated he would like the legal opinion to look at the agenda items on the two
Board meetings as examples so that there would be guidance for the future.
Councilmember Hamrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember to suspend the rules to
allow the Council to proceed with the two Board meetings. The vote on the motion was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and
Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
281
November 4, 2003
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
282
November 18, 2003
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, November 18,
2003, 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:Bertschy,Hamrick,Kastein,Martinez,Roy,Tharp and
Weitkunat.
Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Harris, Roy.
Citizen Participation
David May,Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce, spoke regarding the restructuring of the Fort
Collins economy and presented a letter to the Council. He stated the community needed an
economic plan, and economic forum or conference, and a mechanism for an ongoing dialogue on
the economy.
Ken Gordon, Chair of the Human Relations Commission, read a letter from the Commission
requesting passage of a human rights protection ordinance in response to the Clear Act of 2003. He
stated the proposed ordinance would protect all residents regardless of race,ethnicity or immigration
status from inquiries about their immigration status by City employees. He spoke regarding the
impact of the Patriot Act adopted after September 11,2001. He stated the proposed ordinance would
promote positive interaction and decreasing the likelihood of racial profiling. He stated adoption
of the human rights protection ordinance would support the City of Character Designation and
reinforce diversity.
Bobbie Hisam, Crossroads Safehouse, spoke regarding the impact of the Clear Act on battered
immigrant women. She stated a human rights protection ordinance would ensure such women that
they can have police protection and live free from violence.
David Autenrieth,bilingual elementary school teacher, asked the Council to adopt a human rights
protection ordinance in response to the Clear Act to give residents the dignity to be able to walk
through the streets without being interrogated about legal documentation or immigration status.
Soccoro (last name unstated), assisted by a certified court interpreter, stated many immigrants live
in fear of the Police working with immigration. She stated the Police had no business asking about
immigration status and that immigrants were afraid of the Police. She stated many were afraid to
be at this meeting.
283
November 18, 2003
Parker Preble, Human Relations Commission member, spoke in support of adoption of a human
rights protection ordinance. He stated the Commission supported the ordinance.
Martha (last name unstated), assisted by a certified court interpreter, spoke regarding justice for
immigrants seeking to provide their children with a better life.
Christinea Ajala, Women of the Earth (a Lakota organization), spoke in support of a human rights
protection ordinance and social justice for indigenous people.
Angelica(last name unstated),assisted by a certified court interpreter,stated she was a legal resident
of this country and spoke regarding her experience in being pulled over by a police officer for no
reason.
Glen Colton, 625 Hinsdale Drive, spoke regarding the economic health of Fort Collins. He stated
the population continues to grow faster than 3% each year, that sales and use tax are near record
levels, that building permits continue at a high rate, that unemployment is below the national
average, that jobs continue to be added in the community, that the community continues to attract
retirees, and that there are many people involved in economic development. He recommended
sticking to the existing economic development policy and asked that taxpayer time and money not
be spent to attract new primary employers to the area.
An unidentified female speaker thanked the Council for listening to the speakers and considering a
proposal relating to a human rights protection ordinance. She spoke regarding the courage of those
who came to speak.
Jimena(last name unstated)asked those who supported a human rights protection ordinance to stand
or raise their hands. She spoke regarding the impact of the Clear Act on immigrants.
Kelly Ohlson,2040 Bennington Circle,commented regarding the economic health of the community.
He stated serious policy and political mistakes could be made by overacting to the panic expressed
by some. He stated sales and use tax revenues are the second or third highest in history,that housing
starts are strong and that population growth is three times the national average. He stated the
population is doubling every 20 years. He stated it was healthy that the"gold rush"had slowed. He
stated the economy slowed because of normal cycles and a pre-September 11 recession. He asked
that positive rather than negative statements be made about the economy. He stated the economic
story of Fort Collins is actually very impressive. He asked that the focus be on growing new and
existing businesses and retaining existing businesses without compromising good planning, the
taxpayers or environmental protection. He asked for a focus on economic health rather than artificial
stimulation of population growth rates or subsidizing large private corporations with taxpayer
dollars. He asked that work be done in a deliberate and timely manner rather than a panic-reactive
284
November 18, 2003
way. He stated Fort Collins' approach should be based on non-incentive plans and providing quality
infrastructure and quality of life.
Joe Rolland, Funding Partners, stated the hallmark of Fort Collins is its visionary approach to
community planning. He stated it is important to discuss what the future should be. He stated there
should not be a"knee jerk"reaction to current events. He stated business interests are emphasizing
the need to plan for the future.
(First name unintelligible) Callahan, social work student at CSU, spoke regarding bicycle and
pedestrian safety on Laurel Street. She asked for a lighted crosswalk and signal at the intersection
of Laurel and Mason Street near the train tracks.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Mayor Martinez thanked those who spoke under Citizen Participation.
Councilmember Tharp stated it was unknown whether the Clear Act would be passed by Congress.
She stated the National League of Cities had taken a position against the Clear Act because of
concerns that the act would give local police additional responsibilities without additional resources.
She suggested letting the Congressional know individual feelings about the Clear Act. She stated
the law should be followed with regard to illegal immigrants and expressed a concern that those who
were here legally might be treated as if they were illegal immigrants because of their appearance.
She expressed a concern that all citizens be protected within the law and stated she would like the
City to look into the recommendations of the Human Relations Commission.
Councilmember Roy thanked those who spoke under Citizen Participation. He stated it was
unfortunate that so many people had so much fear and expressed a concern that every citizen should
have the dignity deserved by all human beings. He encouraged the City Attorney to continue looking
at legislation to give honor and dignity to every citizen.
Councilmember Weitkunat thanked those who spoke about the Clear Act. She stated she did not see
that there was atmosphere of"gloom and doom" about the economy or that the Council were
alarmists or overreacting. She stated the warning signs were on the horizon about job losses and loss
of retail and health care facilities and that this was a"sign to the community to pay attention." She
stated many on Council were saying that it was time to find out where we are with the economy. She
stated she did not see this as a knee jerk reaction and that this was a "slow and painful process"
rather than a quick process. She stated she would like to engage the community in a discussion
about the economy.
Councilmember Bertschy stated a memo had been received from the City Attorney regarding
protections against racial profiling and requested an expanded description of actions taken by police
285
November 18, 2003
officers when someone who does not speak English is stopped. He asked what the internal
safeguards are with regard to providing equal rights to anyone stopped by the Police. He stated he
would also like follow-up information on the comment about the lighted crosswalk at Mason and
Laurel.
Mayor Martinez stated he would like to see the Traffic Engineer look at the Laurel Street crosswalk.
He stated he had received a letter stating that the Police would be required to enforce immigration
laws under the Clear Act and that this was not true. He stated the Clear Act would give police this
authority but would not mandate it. He stated it was not the policy of this Police Department to act
on immigration laws in that way. He stated individuals are protected under the Civil Rights laws and
that racial profiling is prohibited as stated in a legal opinion from the City Attorney that had been
made public. He stated it is difficult to get people to report incidents of racial profiling and
harassment. He stated there are processes within the Police agency and the Citizen Review Board
to review such cases. He asked staff about the likelihood of the Clear Act being adopted. Mark
Radke, Legislative Affairs, stated the Clear Act had not passed the first step in the Immigration
Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. He stated there had been no action on the bill to
this point.
Mayor Martinez stated the letter he received indicated that the Police Chief supported the ordinance
and that this was not true. He encouraged people to provide information to help the Council decide
how to reach people if such an ordinance were passed. He stated it was not good public policy to
adopt an ordinance simply to make a political statement. He stated the Clear Act would pass an
unfunded mandate to law enforcement agencies and that there are concerns about the federal
government telling the City how to run the Police Department. He stated it was unlikely that the
Clear Act would pass.
Councilmember Hamrick thanked those who spoke on the Clear Act. He stated the City had some
solid economic policies and that new programs should not be started until the whole situation was
understood.
Mayor Martinez stated he appreciated the specific suggestions presented in David May's letter. He
stated the Council did not have a knee jerk reaction to the economy.
Agenda Review
City Manager Fischbach stated the agenda would stand as printed.
286
November 18, 2003
CONSENT CALENDAR
7. Items Relating to Various Code Changes.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 2003,Amending Sections 20-2 and 20-3 of
the City Code Pertaining to the Abatement of Unsanitary or Dangerous Premises.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 2003, Amending Section 9-2 of the City
Code Pertaining to the Uniform Fire Code.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 146,2003, Amending Section 2-671 of the City
Code Pertaining to the Powers and Duties of the Director of the Office of Emergency
Management.
Following the blizzard of March, 2003, City and Poudre Fire Authority staff reviewed the
need for any City Code amendments that would be helpful in effectively dealing with future
emergency situations. These three Ordinances, which were unanimously adopted on First
Reading on November 4, 2003, clarify the authority of the City and PFA to take emergency
actions,provide for the publication of emergency rules and regulations adopted by the City
Manager, and provide a penalty for a knowing violation of such emergency rules and
regulations.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 147, 2003, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Wastewater Fund for Prepavment of Debt Service.
Each year, the Finance Department reviews all of the City's debt instruments to determine
if there are opportunities to lower interest payments. This year, staff evaluated an
opportunity to save interest by prepaying debt service from reserves held in the Wastewater
fund. In 1995, the City of Fort Collins issued $13,800,000 of refunding bonds to lower
annual costs of the Wastewater fund. The bonds mature in 2005. Under the conditions of
the bond ordinance,the City may prepay the bonds that mature in 2004 and 2005 without any
prepayment penalty. By prepaying the bonds,the City can avoid $147,500 of interest costs
on the bonds. Ordinance No. 147, 2003, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on
November 4, 2003.
9. Items Relating to the Appropriation of Miscellaneous Revenues for Police Services.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 157, 2003, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant
Revenue in the General Fund for the Police Services Safety Belt Program.
287
November 18, 2003
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 158, 2003, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant
Revenue in the General Fund for Police Services and Authorizing the Transfer of
Matching Funds Previously Appropriated in the Police Services Operating Budget
to the Grant Project.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 159, 2003, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant
Revenue in the General Fund for the Youth Community/Family Conferencing and
Restore Programs and Authorizing the Transfer of Matching Funds Previously
Appropriated in the Municipal Court Operating Budget to the Grant Project.
The City has received the following grants for Police Services:
• A $3,000 grant from the Colorado Department of Transportation for the Colorado
Click It or Ticket"November Mobilization"2003 campaign for the enforcement of
seat belt laws.
• A grant in the amount of$62,259 from the U.S. Department of Justice, Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant(LLEBG)program for the procurement of equipment and
technology related to basic law enforcement functions. This grant requires a cash
match of$6,918 which will be met by the existing Police Service budget.
• A grant in the amount of$47,195 from the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice,
for the continuation and of the Restorative Justice Program. A cash match of$5,244
is required and will be met by the Municipal Court budget.
10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 160, 2003, Appronriating_Unanticipated Grant Revenue in
the General Fund for the Radon Program and Authorizing the Transfer of MatchingFunds
unds
Previously pproLnated in the Natural Resources Operating Budget to the Grant Project.
This Ordinance appropriates the $15,000 CDPHE grant funds in the General Fund for the
Radon Program. It also authorizes the transfer of $15,000 from the Natural Resources
operating budget to the Grant Fund. The funds will be used to continue the radon education
and testing programs.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 161, 2003,Appropriating Storm Drainage Fund Prior Year
Reserves into the Fossil Creek Basin Capital Project for the Construction of Storm Water
Improvements Associated with the Timberline Road Waterline Improvement Project.
The Fossil Creek Drainage Basin Master Plan identifies the need to improve the storm
drainage culverts under Timberline Road at Fossil Creek, between Trilby and Carpenter
Roads. The new culverts are a prerequisite for a future project that will remove
approximately 105 homes from the Fossil Creek floodplain in the Paragon Point area. These
288
November 18, 2003
improvements are adjacent to the Fossil Creek Wetlands Natural area on the west and the
Fossil Creek Reservoir Natural area on the east.
12. Resolution 2003-124 Stating the City's Intent to Not Act as a Reviewing Entity in 2004 for
the Colorado Historic Preservation Income Tax Credit for Qualifying Historic Rehabilitation
Projects under Colorado House Bill 90-1033 (CRS 39-22-514, as Amended).
As a Certified Local Government,Fort Collins has the opportunity each year to choose to be
a reviewing entity for the Colorado Historic Preservation Income Tax Credit during the next
calendar year. The City Council must adopt a resolution stating whether or not it intends to
take on this responsibility in the next year.
Fort Collins became a Certified Local Government in 1991 when the Colorado Income Tax
Credit was instituted,but didn't take on the reviewing entity function for this program until
1995. For three years,the Landmark Preservation Commission was the reviewing entity and
performed design review on qualifying historic rehabilitation projects for the Colorado
Income Tax Credit. They have declined the review from 1998 through 2003.
13. Resolution 2003-125 Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into a Law Enforcement Assistance
Fund (L.E.A.F.) Contract, #L-24-04, with the Colorado Department of Transportation to
Provide Funds for the Fort Collins Police Services Drunk Driving Enforcement Program.
The Colorado Department ofTransportation has awarded Fort Collins Police Services a 2004
Law Enforcement Assistance Fund(L.E.A.F.)grant in the amount of$40,000 to help reduce
the number of drunk drivers in Fort Collins. This grant will provide overtime compensation
for Fort Collins Police Officers who are involved in operations,which focus on the detection
and arrest of drunk drivers.
14. Routine Easements.
A. Easement for construction and maintenance of public utilities from Michael and
Arlene Deitz,to underground electric services,located at 1612 Remington. Monetary
consideration: $300. Staff: Patti Teraoka.
B. Non-exclusive easement agreement from the Board of Governors of the Colorado
State University System for sanitary sewer lines, located at the Natural Resources
Research Center at the Colorado State University Main Campus South. Monetary
consideration: $0. Staff: Carrie Daggett.
***END CONSENT***
289
November 18, 2003
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Chief Deputy City Clerk Harris.
7. Items Relatinia to Various Code Chanties.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 144,2003, Amending Sections 20-2 and 20-3 of
the City Code Pertaining to the Abatement of Unsanitary or Dangerous Premises.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 2003, Amending Section 9-2 of the City
Code Pertaining to the Uniform Fire Code.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 146, 2003,Amending Section 2-671 of the City
Code Pertaining to the Powers and Duties of the Director of the Office of Emergency
Management.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 147, 2003, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Wastewater Fund for Prepayment of Debt Service.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Chief Deputy City Clerk Harris.
9. Items Relating to the Appropriation of Miscellaneous Revenues for Police Services.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 157, 2003, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant
Revenue in the General Fund for the Police Services Safety Belt Program.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 158, 2003, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant
Revenue in the General Fund for Police Services and Authorizing the Transfer of
Matching Funds Previously Appropriated in the Police Services Operating Budget
to the Grant Project.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 159, 2003, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant
Revenue in the General Fund for the Youth Community/Family Conferencing and
Restore Programs and Authorizing the Transfer of Matching Funds Previously
Appropriated in the Municipal Court Operating Budget to the Grant Project.
10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 160, 2003, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in
the General Fund for the Radon Program and Authorizing the Transfer of Matchin F� unds
Previously Approlriated in the Natural Resources Operating Budget to the Grant Project.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 161,2003,Appropriating Storm Drainage Fund Prior Year
Reserves into the Fossil Creek Basin Capital Project for the Construction of Storm Water
Improvements Associated with the Timberline Road Waterline Improvement Project.
290
November 18, 2003
19. Items Relating to the Competitive Process for Allocating City Financial Resources to
Affordable Housing Projects/Programs and Community Development Activities: the Fiscal
Year 2003-2004 Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program the Fiscal Year 2003-
2004 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, and the City's Affordable
Housin Fund.
E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 162,2003,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in
the Home Investment Partnerships Fund.
F. First Reading of Ordinance No. 163,2003,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in
the Community Development Block Grant Fund.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Roy,to adopt and approve
all items on the Consent Calendar. The vote on the motion was as follows:Yeas: Councilmembers
Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Staff Reports
City Manager Fischbach reported that the Youth Activities Center gym is closer to reality with a
$25,000 donation from the Boettcher Foundation. He stated the National Football Foundation and
College Hall of Fame had awarded a grant of$750 to Parks and Recreation for touch football. He
announced that the Shop Fort Collins First Campaign is up and running. He reported that the City
won third place for the population category in the 2003 Digital Cities competition sponsored by the
Center for Digital Government.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Tharp reported on the Legislative Review Committee discussions relating to the
2004 Legislative Policy Agenda, which will be presented to Council on December 2. She also
reported on the MPO discussions regarding passenger rail strategies.
Councilmember Bertschy reported that there would be a community forum hosted by ASCSU on
Thursday. He reported that he would be the only Councilmember attending the National League of
Cities conference and that he would gather any information that Councilmembers would like to have.
He stated he would be moderating a panel at the conference on community service partnerships
between universities and communities.
291
November 18, 2003
Councilmember Roy reported on an alley walk organized by a Eric O'Dell and thanked those who
participated in making it happen. He also reported on the Human Relations Commission meeting
and a report on boards and p commissions diversity that would be presented at a study session.
Councilmember Weitkunat reported on the Poudre School District/Larimer County/City liaison
group discussions regarding budget cuts, a new high school and the need for a School Resource
Officer (to be paid for by the School District), the Discovery Center location, West Nile virus
spraying, and bus service to schools and fees for students.
Mayor Martinez recommended that the Council consider an economic coordinator for the economic
health of the community. He asked if there is Council support to direct the City Manager to identify
funding for a full-time economic coordinator.
Councilmembers Tharp, Kastein and Weitkunat spoke in support of the idea.
Councilmember Roy stated he would like to fully discuss this with other economic issues at a study
session.
Councilmember Tharp suggested that economic issues be discussed on November 25.
Councilmember Hamrick asked for clarification regarding Mayor Martinez' proposal.
Mayor Martinez stated he would like Council to give direction to the City Manager to bring back
information to the Council and identify existing funding for an economic coordinator.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if the City Manager could look at reassigning an existing staff
member to cover these additional responsibilities. City Manager Fischbach stated staff could take
a look at that option.
Councilmember Hamrick asked that staff look at whether there are other ways to accomplish what
was needed.
Mayor Martinez stated there was direction from at least four Councilmembers to the City Manager
to take a look at an economic coordinator.
Councilmember Bertschy expressed concerns regarding the budget cuts and previous discussions that
new positions should not be added. He stated he would support having staff take a look at the matter
and that he had concerns about the cost. He stated he would like to see more discussion on the
matter.
Mayor Martinez suggested looking at vendor's fees as a funding source.
292
November 18, 2003
Councilmember Weitkunat requested clarification regarding what would be discussed at a November
25 study session.
Councilmember Kastein suggested that the information that had been exchanged via e-mail be
discussed.
Councilmember Hamrick supported discussing the issues in a public format.
The consensus was to discuss the issue of an economic coordinator at the November 25 meeting,to
hold the Study Session at 5:00 p.m. and to conduct the evaluations at 6:00 p.m.
Public Hearing and Resolution 2003-126
Making Adjustments to Transfort and Dial-A-Ride Fares, Adopted.
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The amount of new revenue will be determined by the impact of the fare change on ridership. The
fare study consultants projected ridership reductions with the proposed fare increase without
substantial increase in revenue. For Council's information,financial impacts are shown on the
fixed route and Dial-A-Ride systems with no change in ridership and the projected reduced
ridership.
RIDERSHIP FINANCIAL IMPACT
Fixed-Route
No Drop in Ridership 1,477,735 Additional$30,422
Reduced Ridership 1,435,848 Additional$ 3,830
Dial-A-Ride
No Drop in Ridership 75,033 Additional$12,840
Reduced Ridership 69,030 Additional$ 6,477
The fares for the FoxTrot transit service are not included in these proposed rate changes. The
FoxTrot service is part ofan Intergovernmental Agreement with Loveland and Larimer County, and
those discussions are pending.
293
November 18, 2003
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City Council requested the examination of the Dial-A-Ride eligibility criteria and the fees and
fares for Transfort/Dial-A-Ride. At the October 14, 2003 study session, Council direction was to
increase fares/fees for the fixed route and Dial-A-Ride transit services by 25%except for Youth fares
and Dial-A-Ride Special low-income./are. The Youth fare will remain the same, at no charge.
Other items discussed at the study session but not included for Council action:
• Weekdays free for youth with fares charged for weekends
• Increasing Youth Fare to 25 cents
• No fare increase for Dial-A-Ride transit services.
This proposed Resolution would establish the fares and fees for 2004 as follows:
CURRENT PROPOSED
TRANSFORT FARES
10 Ride $ 7.00 $ 9.00
Monthly Pass $ 19.00 $ 25.00
Senior Annual Pass $ 19.00 $ 25.00
Disabled Annual Pass $ 19.00 $ 25.00
Single Ride
Regular $ 1.00 $ 1.25
Senior, Disabled $ .50 $ .60
Youth FREE FREE
Transfers FREE FREE
CSU Student $ 12.19/semester Flat fee of approximately $540,000
Passfort Annual Pass $35.00 $ 35.00
DIAL-A-RIDE FARES
33 Ride Ticket $ 60.00 $ 75.00
Regular $ 2.00 $ 2.50
Lower Income A. $ 1.00 $ 1.25
B. $ .50 $ .50
294
November 18, 2003
BACKGROUND
In 2001, City Council asked staff to: (1) look into the eligibility requirements for Dial-A-Ride
service; and to (2) to determine if the fees and fares for Transfort/Dial-A-Ride are appropriate.
These items were discussed at the May 28, 2002 study session. At that session, Council agreed that
Dial-A-Ride eligibility should stay the same and fares and fees should increase by 25°%and should
include a Youth Fare of$.25. At the July 19, 2002 City Council meeting, Council deferred the fare
increase decision until staff completed the ASCSUICSU negotiations.
Staff' brought the item back to Council at the October 14, 2003 study session with the
recommendation that the Youth Fare not be implemented due to the projected drop in youth
ridership.
Staffsought input from the public and numerous boards and commissions. The general comments
were that they were not opposed to the proposed fare increases. The Senior Transportation
committee felt that youth should be charged a fare, and were not opposed to an increased
senior/disabled fare. "
City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item.
Marlys Sittner,Transfort,presented background information regarding the agenda item. She spoke
regarding the public outreach and previous Council discussions and direction regarding fares and
outlined proposed fare increases. She spoke regarding the revenue impacts of the proposed fare
changes. She stated this was a public hearing opportunity.
Angela Byrne asked why youths had been riding Transfort for free and stated they should be charged
at least a dollar. She stated fare increases could impact low income and fixed income individuals.
Yvonne Longacre expressed concerns that fares for the disabled and senior citizens will be increased
by 32%and that there was no route to the Poudre Valley Hospital Harmony campus. She suggested
charging youths at least 25¢per ride and limiting free rides to younger children. She also suggested
that the schools issue passes for youths riding to and from school and that youths pay a fare on
weekends. She suggested extending the hours until 10:00 p.m. to eliminate night routes.
Mayor Martinez asked about the loss of student ridership if a fare is charged and if the ridership
would eventually go up again. Tom Frazier, Multi-Modal Transportation Group Leader, stated
ridership would go back up at a slow rate.
295
November 18, 2003
Councilmember Kastein asked if the 2004-2005 budget included projections about revenue with
different fees. Frazier stated the budget is based on the current fees pending Council direction.
Councilmember Kastein asked for clarification regarding general ridership. Sittner stated this is the
regular ridership that pays a cash fare.
Councilmember Kastein asked for clarification regarding youth and fixed route riderships. Frazier
stated the general ridership includes cash fares and pass fares as well as free ride tickets.
Councilmember Kastein asked if revenue projections for reduced ridership are based on the general
ridership. Sittner stated the revenue projections are based on the ridership figures that would not be
increased or impacted.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated there had been a discussion relating to the youth fare with regard
to riders going to school and stated her understanding was that auxiliary buses are used for that
purpose. Sittner stated there is such heavy ridership on some of the buses that all of the riders cannot
be accommodated and that an extra bus is required to carry the overload of students.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked how many extra buses were required. Sittner stated one bus
followed the regular bus on one loop for Route 9 serving Lincoln Junior High School and that Routes
91 and 92 were created to service the school area and connect with the downtown transit center. She
stated one additional bus did one loop to Blevins Junior High School to assist with overload.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated it was her understanding that the City picked up the cost for the
extra buses and that discussion should occur regarding the obligation of the School District to
transport students living outside of a certain area. She stated the School District takes the position
that it is the responsibility of youths who do not want to walk to school to pay to ride the bus. She
stated the perspective of the School District is that they should not pay for a bus when students are
capable of walking within a certain radius of the school.
Mayor Martinez stated the School District also indicated that students could learn a lesson about life
if they were charged to ride the bus. He stated it was the School District's recommendation that
youths be charged to ride rather than riding for free.
Councilmember Tharp stated she had heard that the Grand Junction bus system contributed to the
bus fares for students and that appeared not to be the case. She stated that system took the same
position as Poudre School District in stating that students should walk if they were within walking
distance of the school. She stated she wholeheartedly supported charging youths to ride. She stated
the City serves low income people in the Dial-a-Ride program. She questioned whether the City is
dealing as well with low income people who needed to ride the bus to work. She stated she wanted
to make sure that some of the cost is not shifted to social service agencies that already have cut their
296
November 18, 2003
budgets and that there should be some provision for passes or vouchers for low income people who
would be hurt by fare increases. Sinner stated the City has some programs in place to assist low
income people, including a ride assistance program that gives passes to agencies serving the low
income population. Frazier stated the City worked with 32 different social service agencies last year
to distribute 8,400 transit passes.
Councilmember Tharp asked if the full fare was charged for those passes. Frazier stated those were
free trips.
Councilmember Roy asked when Dial-a-Ride would be privatized. Sittner stated a Request for
Proposals would be issued for privatizing the part of the Dial-a-Ride service related to ambulatory
passengers living outside of a 3/4 mile radius (16,000 trips out of 75,000 trips annually).
Councilmember Roy asked how much money is generated by the Dial-a-Ride program as it exists.
Sittner stated the passenger revenue from Dial-a-Ride last year was $67,800.
Councilmember Roy asked about the average age and income of a Dial-a-Ride customer. Sittner
stated information could be provided to Council. Frazier stated the last survey showed that the
average age was over 75.
Councilmember Kastein asked how many of the youth ridership trips are on a weekday versus
weekend. Frazier stated the majority are weekday trips. Sittner stated approximately 75% of the
youth ridership is on weekdays.
Councilmember Roy asked how much revenue the Dial-a-Ride contract obtained through a RFP
would generate. Frazier stated staff would look at the cost-per-ride differential and that it is
anticipated that the average ride will cost about $5.00 less through a contractor.
Councilmember Hamrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Bertschy, to adopt
Resolution 2003-126.
Councilmember Tharp made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to amend
Resolution 2003-126 to charge a youth fare of 250.
Councilmember Hamrick stated the youth fare could have a negative impact on youth ridership and
that he would not support the motion to amend.
City Manager Fischbach stated he was talking with the Bohemian Foundation about its offer to
donate money for the operation of the bus for youth.
297
November 18, 2003
Mayor Martinez stated in the short term, ridership would be affected and that it would go back up
over time.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the message to youth should be"life is a free ride"or if the City
should encourage youths to walk to school if they are within a walking radius. She stated a 25¢ fare
is not taxing and that it is not the responsibility of the City to have a second bus to accommodate
students who do not want to walk.
Councilmember Hamrick asked what percentage of youth ridership is causing the second bus.
Frazier stated information could be provided. He stated other buses were added because these were
regular transit routes serving the general public. He stated not adding buses would mean leaving
people of all ages standing at a bus stop. He stated under federal law the City could not require
students to leave the bus so that other people could get on the bus. He stated dropping the extra
buses (which cost $15,000-$16,000 per year)would leave general public at the bus stops.
Mayor Martinez stated the discussion was adding a fare rather than dropping the extra buses.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the youth fare will require young people to pay to ride the bus like
other people pay. She stated the intent is not to drop the extra buses.
Councilmember Kastein stated it is important to use "market forces"to balance the load and that
it was not fair for a large percentage of people to ride the bus for free. He stated he did not consider
a 250 fare to be a disincentive and that it would raise money to offset part of the subsidy from the
General Fund.
Councilmember Bertschy stated he was looking at the economics of the entire bus system and that
this would impact ridership. He stated he would not support the 250 fare.
Councilmember Hamrick stated this would move the City further away from its stated transit system
objectives.
Mayor Martinez stated he believed that this would move the City closer to its objectives.
The vote on the motion to amend was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez, Roy,
Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Bertschy and Hamrick.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Councilmember Roy stated he had concerns regarding Dial-a-Ride. He stated the real cost to the
City for the constituents who would be part of the privatization would be$330,000 per year and that
the RFP would generate about $88,500. He stated the older citizens of Fort Collins will not be
298
November 18, 2003
served by this. He stated many people depended on Dial-a-Ride and that he did not believe that a
contractor could deliver the kind of services that the citizens are receiving at this point.
Councilmember Tharp stated the$88,500 would be the amount that the City would save and that the
RFP contract amount was unknown. She stated it is estimated that about $5.00 per ride for
ambulatory people will be saved. She stated if adequate service could be provided at a lower cost
it should be done. She stated it is up to the City to monitor the service to ensure that it is adequate.
Councilmember Roy asked for clarification regarding the figures. Sittner stated $88,500 is the
projected savings and that it would cost the City$300,000 to provide the same service provided by
the contractor for about $222,000.
Councilmember Roy asked if the current cost per ride was about $20.00. Sittner replied in the
affirmative and stated it is anticipated that a contractor could provide a ride for about $15.00,
meaning a$5.00 per ride savings.
Councilmember Roy expressed a concern that the citizens would not come out ahead.
Councilmember Tharp stated the Dial-a-Ride service provided by the City places people on
specialized buses that have wheelchair access and that ambulatory people do not need that kind of
service. She stated a contractor could provide the same service to ambulatory people at a lower cost
because they would not have to provide wheelchair access.
The vote on the motion as amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Kastein,
Martinez, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Hamrick and Roy.
THE MOTION CARRIED
(**Secretary's Note: Council took a brief recess at this point.)
Items Relating to the Competitive
Process for Allocating City Financial Resources
to Affordable Housing Projects/Programs and
Community Development Activities: the Fiscal Year 2003-2004
Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program, the
Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)
Program, and the City's Affordable Housing Fund Adopted
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
299
November 18, 2003
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Public Hearing and Resolution 2003-127 Approving the FY 2003-2004 Home Investment
Partnerships Program for the City of Fort Collins.
B. Public Hearing and Resolution 2003-128AdoptingAdditionalPrograms/Projectsfor the FY
2003-2004 Community Development Block Grant Program for the City of Fort Collins.
C. Public Hearing and Resolution 2003-129 Allocating Funding from the City's Affordable
Housing Fund.
D. Public Hearing and Resolution 2003-130 Approving a Policy Change in the Manner Loans
are Made with CDBG, Home, and Affordable Housing Funds by Adding A 5%Fee to the
Principal Repayment Amount.
E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 162, 2003, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Home Investment Partnerships Fund.
F. First Reading of Ordinance No. 163, 2003, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Community Development Block Grant Fund.
The Home InvestmentPartnerships(HOME)Program and the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program provide funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to the
City of Fort Collins that can be allocated to community development and affordable housing related
programs and projects, thereby reducing the demand on the City's General Fund Budget to address
such issues. The City Council is being asked to consider the adoption offour resolutions and two
ordinances. The first resolution (Resolution 2003-127) establishes which programs and projects
will receive funding with HOME funds for the FY 2003-2004 Program year, which started on
October 1, 2003. The second resolution (Resolution 2003-128) establishes which additional
programs and projects will receive funding with CDBG funds for the FY 2003-2004 Program year,
which also started on October 1, 2003. The third resolution (Resolution 2003-129) establishes
which programs and projects will receive fundingfrom the City's Affordable Housing Fund. And,
the fourth resolution(Resolution 2003-130)approves a policy change in the manner loans are made
with CDBG, HOME, and Affordable Housing Funds by adding 5% to the Principal Repayment
Amount. The two ordinances(Ordinance No. 161, 2003, and Ordinance No. 163, 2003)appropriate
unanticipated program income revenue for the HOME and CDBG programs respectively.
300
November 18, 2003
BACKGROUND
The City Council will conduct a public hearing and consider the adoption ofa series of resolutions
establishing which programs and projects will receive fundingfrom the City's HOMEProgram for
the FY 2003 Program year, which programs and projects will receive funding from available
Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) Program funds, and which programs and projects
will receive funding from the City's Affordable Housing Fund.
The resolutions establishing which programs and projects will receive HOME, CDBG, and City
Affordable Housing Fund dollars represent the culmination of the fall cycle of the competitive
process approved in January 2000 by the Council for the allocation of the City's financial resources
to affordable housing programs/projects and community development activities. Additional
background material about the competitive process is included in Attachment A.
Since early January of this year, the CDBG Commission and members of the City staffs Affordable
Housing Team have conducted public hearings to assess community development and housing needs
in Fort Collins, conducted technical assistance training workshops for applicants, and solicited
applications for funding. The CDBG Commission reviewed written applications, personally
interviewed each applicant, analyzed the applications, and formulated a list of recommendations
to the City Council as to which programs and projects should receive funding.
The competitive process established refined criteria to determine priorities between proposals
received by the City. The ranking criteria are divided into five major categories. Each category is
given a total number ofpoints that has been weighed according to their importance with respect to
local and federal priorities. The five major categories are:
1. Impact/Benefit
2. Need/Priority
3. Feasibility
4. Leveraging Resources
S. Capacity and History
The Impact/Benefit criteria provide greater rewards to proposals that target lower income groups.
The Need/Priority criteria help assure that the proposal meets adopted City goals and priorities.
The Feasibility criteria reward projects for timelines and documented additional funding. The
Leveraging Resources criteria rewardproposals which will returnfunds to the City(via loans)and
for their ability to leverage other resources. And, the Capacity and History criteria help gage an
applicant's ability to do the project and reward applicants that have completed successful projects
301
November 18, 2003
in the past (have good track records). The ranking sheet used to assist the CDBG Commission is
presented in Attachment A.
The Commission also considered the funding guidelines contained in the Priority Affordable
Housing Needs and Strategies report adopted by the Council on February 2, 1999. These guidelines
include:
• HOMEfunds should generally be allocated asfollows: 90%for Housingprojects and 10%
for Program Administration. HUD HOME Program regulations also require the City to set
aside 1591ofor Community Housing Development Organization(CHDO)projects and allow
an allocation of 5%for CHDO operations;
• CDBG funds should generally be allocated as follows: 65%for Housing projects; 10%for
Program Administration; 10%for Public Facilities; and 15%for Public Services;
• funds allocated to housing should generally be divided as follows: 70%for rental projects
and 30%for homeownership opportunities; and
• the average subsidy should be $5,000 per unit, with relatively more funding to projects
producing housing for lower income families.
The CDBG and HOME Programs are ongoing grant administration programs funded by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The City of Fort Collins has received
CDBG Programfunds since 19 75 and HOME Programfunds since 1994. The City is an Entitlement
recipient of CDBG funds and a Participating Jurisdiction recipient of HOME funds, meaning the
City is guaranteed a certain level offunding each year. The level offunding is dependent on the
total amount offunds allocated to the programs by Congress and on a formula developed by HUD,
which includes data on total population, minorities as a percentage ofpopulation, income levels,
housing stock conditions, etc. Additional background information on the City's HOME and CDBG
Programs are presented in Attachments C and D respectively.
AVAILABLE FUNDS
The amount of the City's FY 2003 HOME Grant available for projects is $830,039. Added to the
HOME Grant will be $100,000 of estimated HOME Program Income to make a combined amount
of$930,039 available for projects. The HOME funds will be combined with $1,087,924 from the
City's Affordable Housing Fund and $762,081 of unallocated CDBG funds plus $100,000 of
estimated CDBG Program Income to create a potential pool of$2,880,044 offunds available for
programs from the fall cycle of the competitive process.
CDBGfunds are typically allocated in the spring and are, thus, not available for use in thefall cycle
of the competitive process. However, the City did not allocate all of its CDBG funds in the spring
cycle of 2003 carrying over an amount of$762,081 for allocation in the fall cycle.
302
November 18, 2003
The following summarizes the amount and sources of available funds:
AMOUNT SOURCE
$ 930,039 FY 2003 HOME Grant and Estimated Program Income
1,087,924 City's Affordable Housing Fund
862,081 Unallocated CDBG Funds and Estimated Program Income
$2,880,044 Total
SELECTION PROCESS
On January 9, 2003, the CDBG Commission held a public hearing to obtain citizen input on
community development and affordable housing needs. The HOME/CDBG Program office placed
legal advertisements in local and regional newspapers starting in July to solicit requests for HOME
and CDBG funded programs and projects and for proposals for the use offunding from the City's
Affordable Housing Fund. The application deadline was Thursday August 21. At the close of the
deadline the City received twelve(12)applications requesting a total ofapproximately$4.8 million.
Two (2) proposals were withdrawn by the applicants leaving ten (10) applications requesting
approximately $4.2 million in the review/selection process.
Copies ofall applications were forwarded through the City Manager's office to the City Council on
September 4, 2003 and placed in the Council Office for review. Also on September 4, 2003 copies
of the applications were distributed to the CDBG Commission and the Affordable Housing Board.
On September 18, 2003 the Affordable Housing Board conducted a special meeting to review the
affordable housing proposals and formulate a list ofpriority projects which was forwarded to the
CDBG Commission (see Attachment B). On September 25, 2003, the CDBG Commission met to
hear presentations and ask clarification questions from each applicant. The Commission then met
on October 2 for the purpose of preparing a recommendation to the City Council as to which
programs and projects should befunded within funds availablefrom thefall cycle ofthe competitive
process. At this meeting the Commission reviewed the written applications, the applicant's verbal
presentation, the information provided during the question and answer session, and reviewed the
performance of agencies who received HOME funds, CDBG,funds, or other funding in previous
years. The Commission then worked on the formulation of its list of recommendations.
CDBG COMMISSION'S LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS
HUD HOME regulations limit the amount of available funds that can be allocated to various
categories. FundsforAdministrativepurposes are limited to 10%ofthe HOME Grant which means
90%ofthe Grant must be usedfor housing projects. Within the 90%requiredforprojects, the City
303
November 18, 2003
is required to set aside 15%for Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO)projects
and allow an allocation of 5%for CHDO operations (if any applications are received). Similarly,
HUD CDBG regulations limit the amount of available funds that can be allocated to various
categories. FundsforAdministrativepurposes are limited to 20%ofthe CDBG Grant and estimated
Program Income and funds for Public Services are limited to 15%. The City allocated all eligible
funds for public services during the spring cycle of the competitive process and designated
approximately 11%for administrative purposes.
The Commission, thus, not only had to decide which applicants presented programs and projects
which bestfit into the City's HOME and CDBG Programs, but also had to insurefunding allocations
were kept within HUD regulations and follow the funding guidelines contained in the Priority
Affordable Housing Needs and Strategies report.
Listed below is a summary ofeach applicant's initial request.forfunding and the Commission's list
of recommendations.
1. Administration Proposal
City of Fort Collins— CDBG Program Administration
Request: $53,910 (CDBG Grant)
Recommendation: $53,910 (CDBG Grant)
This is a request to increase the amount of CDBG funds utilized for administration of the CDBG
Program. HUD regulations limit the amount of CDBG funds that can be used for administrative
purposes to no more than 20%of the Grant amount and estimated Program Income. In the spring,
the City allocated$158,392 for CDBG Program administration purposes (approximately 11%of
the maximum allowed). The additional allocation will raise the percentage used for administrative
purposes to approximately 15%.
2. Affordable Housing Projects
City of Fort Collins-Home Buyer Assistance
Request: $1,000,000 Loan ($500,OOO HOME, $500,OOOCDBG)
Recommendation: $1,000,000 Loan ($5 70,458 HOME, $429,542 CDBG)
This program is administered by the Advance Planning Department and provides zero percent
interest loans to eligible first-time homebuyers. The assistance covers down payment and closing
costs at a current loan rate of$9,000 for households at 51%to 80%ofArea Median Income(AMI)
304
November 18, 2003
and$18,000 for buyers at or below 50% of AMI. The funding would provide a minimum of Ill
loans at the current loan rate of$9,000 over the 2003 Fiscal Year.
3. City of Fort Collins-Home Buyer Assistance (Rental Properties)
Request: $200,OOOLoan ($200,000AHF)
Recommendation: $200,OOOLoan ($200,000AHF)
This program is administered by the Advance Planning Department and provides zero percent
interest loans to eligiblefirst-time homebuyers topurchaseformerrentalproperties. Theassistance
covers down payment and closing costs at a current loan rate of$9,000 for households at 51% to
80%of Area Median Income (AMI) and$18,000 for buyers at or below 50%ofAMI. The funding
would provide a minimum of 22 loans at the current loan rate of$9,000 over the 2003 Fiscal Year.
4. Fort Collins Housing Corporation —Rehabilitation and Refinancing of Apartments
Request: $222,565 ($103,565 HOME Grant and$119,000 HOME Loan)
Recommendation: $222,565 ($222,565 CDBGLoan)
The FCHC proposes to rehabilitate and refinance the Myrtle Street Single Room Occupancy(SRO)
building located at 811 East Myrtle Street. The project involves replacing the heating system, roof
and several other Housing Quality Standards items for the building, which is home to 15 at risk of
becoming homeless individuals.
In addition, the application includes refinancing the existing loan to ensure long-term affordability.
If HUD subsidy is lost, the project may not be able to support the current mortgage loan balance
($119,000).
5. Neighbor to Neighbor—Acquisition and Rehabilitation of Apartments
Request: $235,500 ($75,000 HOME Loan and$160,000 CDBG Loan)
Recommendation: $235,500 ($109,581 home CHDO Loan, $125,919 CDBGLoan)
Neighbor to Neighbor requestsfunds to purchase an 8 plex located at 1041 Ponderosa Street in Fort
Collins. The units in theproject will be converted to rents at 30%and 40%ofAMI. Some deferred
maintenance will be required to bring the property up to acceptable health and safety standards.
This property adjoins two other Neighbor to Neighbor properties on Clearview and Crabtree
Streets. The arrangement allows for an efficient economy of scale for property management and
maintenance purposes.
305
November 18, 2003
6. Paradigm Real Estate Partners LLC—Lakeside Village at Rigden Farm
Request: $600,000($200,000HOMELoan, $200,000 CDBGLoan and$200,000 AHF
Loan)
Recommendation: No,funding
Paradigm Real Estate Partners is requesting funds for the acquisition of land to build 44 single-
family homes targeted to the first-time homebuyers. The Rigden Farm Community is located south
of Drake Road and east of Timberline Road.
All of the units within this first phase will be assisted with public funds and sold to qualified
homebuyers earning no more than 80%ofAM1. Home values will be protected and maintained as
affordable as each new homeowner must commit to preserving the affordability ofthe neighborhood
by agreeing to limit price appreciation on their home to 4%accruedfyear or less.
7. Habitat for Humanity — Multi-Family Partnership for Land Acquisition and
Infrastructure
Request: $695,500 ($695,500 HOME Loan)
Recommendation: $695,500 ($250,OOO HOME Loan, $445,500 CDBG Loan)
Habitat for Humanity is requesting funds for the acquisition of land and infrastructure
improvements to develop the Richard Lake PUD. The City has approved this PUD for 54 units of
affordable housing. The project is located north of County Club Road and west of County Road H.
Habitat for Humanity plans to joint venture with the owner of the development, Scott Price,
Stonebridge Properties LLC. In discussions with thefor ,profitpartner, Habitat would receive 50%
of the units, or 27 units. Habitat would use $250,000 of this request for land acquisition and
$445,500 for infrastructure improvements. Habitat units would be affordable at or below 50%of
AMI and thefor prof tpartner units would be affordable at 80%and belowAML This would ensure
a 3-4 year supply of lots for Habitat.
8. Habitat for Humanity—Land Acquisition
Request: $240,000 ($240,000 CDBG Loan)
Recommendation: $ 62,569 ($30,145 CDBG Loan, $32,424 AHF Loan)
Habitat for Humanity is requesting CDBG funds to acquire four new lots ($60,000 per lot). The
organization is actively searching for properties that will meet their needs. Habitat provides
homeownership opportunities for families at or below 50%ofAM7.
306
November 18, 2003
9. City of Fort Collins Land Bank Program—Interstate Land Site
Request: $410,000 ($410,000 AHF Loan)
Recommendation: $410,000 ($410,000 AHF Loan)
This proposal requests the balance of funds needed to purchase a portion of the Interstate Land
Property neighborhood located on the northwest corner of Prospect Road and I-25 within the city
limits. In the spring, the City designated$400,000 from the Affordable Housing Fund for a portion
of the$810,000 needed for this project. The property is zoned LMN and is currently going through
the City's development review process.
The owners of the Interstate Land development project have approached the City about acquiring
8.3acres,foran affordable housing component in the development. The Interstate Land development
will be a 176-acre mixed-use neighborhood including commercial development, single-family
residential units, townhomes, condominiums and multiple small employment uses.
10. City of Fort Collins—Land Bank General Application
Request: $500,000 (AHFLoan)
Recommendation: No funding
This application is requestingfunds to purchase a sitefor the City's Land Bank Program. The exact
site has not been identified. The City implemented the Land Bank Program to preserve scarce land
resources for affordable housing projects. Currently, the City has purchased 30 acres (three
properties), which will yield approximately 300-320 future affordable housing units.
Total amount offunding requested = $4,157,475
Total amount offunding available = $2,880,044
Total amount offunding allocated = $2,880,044
The total amount offunding requests considered by the CDBG Commission was approximately$4.2
million, however, only about$2.9 million offunds are available. With the amount of total requests
far exceeding available funding, obviously not all applications could be funded.
The CDBG Commission has recommended full fundingfor seven (7)proposals,partial fundingfor
one (1)proposal, and no funding for two (2)projects.
The Commission's reasons for either full funding, or no funding,for all projects are presented in
Attachment E.
307
November 18, 2003
• The Commission has recommended allocating all (10001o) of the available $862,081 of
CDBG funds.
• The Commission has recommended allocating all(100%)of the$820,458 available HOME
funds.
• The Commission has recommended allocating all(100%)ofthe$109,581availablefromthe
HOME-CHDO set-aside.
• The Commission has recommended allocating all(10001o)of the$1,087,924 available from
the Affordable Housing Fund.
Proposed Policy Chafe for CDBG/HOME/AHF Loans
Presently, the City allocates fundingfrom the CDBG and HOMEFederal Grant Programs, as well
asfundsfrom the City's Affordable Housing Fund,for non-public serviceprogramsaszero-interest,
due on sale, deferred loans. This means recipients offunds make no payments on their loans, but
are required to repay the full loan principal amount if the property is sold at some point in the
future. For example, in the Home Buyer Assistance Program, a family can receive $9,000 in
downpayment assistance to help them purchase a home. The family makes no payments on the loan
and only pays back the loan if they sell their home at some point in the future (or, they refinance,
etc). When the family does sell, they pay the$9,000 back to the City, whether they sell their home
in I year or 10 years in the future.
At the CDBG Commission meeting conducted on October 2, 2003, the Commission voted to
recommend to the City Council a policy change in the manner in which the City allocates funding
from the CDBG/HOME Programs and the City's Affordable Housing Fund by adding a fee to the
City's loans in the amount of 5%of the loan principal, to be paid at the time that the loan is repaid.
The Commission's concerns and rationale were twofold:
(1) Unknown budget constraints could adversely affect the availability offunds from the
three sources in the future and generating program income now could help ensure
that these programs continue in the light offuture adverse financial situations.
(2) Families helped by these loans should have a participatory role in helping the next
family achieve their housing goals. Families receiving these loans certainly should
receive a financial benefit from taxpayer involvement;paying back the loans with a
fee to be used to help other families means the taxpayers' loans are reaping even
more benefits.
The Commission had a subcommittee review and discussed several other options; however, the
Commission believes it to be unrealistic to attempt to recoup "inflation representative"dollars, i.e.,
where the purchasing power of the repaid loans equals the purchasing power of new loans when
new loans are made. While this could be accomplished, and was an important topic of the
308
November 18, 2003
Commission subcommittee's discussions, it would essentially require the City to administer
extremely cumbersome adjustable rate mortgages with monthly amortization. The Commission
considered traditional inflation rates, Consumer Price Indices, etc., and determined that 5%ofthe
principal amount, as a fee due on repayment, was the most efficient avenue to pursue to answer
concerns listed in numbers 1 and 2 above. The end result of this proposal would be that an original
$9,000 loan,for example, would repay$9,450 whenever the property was resold or refinanced. Of
course, ifthe loan is repaid within thefirst year, thefee would make the loan fairly expensive. After
the first year, the fee becomes more reasonable when compared to market rate "interest. " The fee
becomes less burdensome for those who do not sell their homes early. "
City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item.
Ken Waido,Chief Planner,presented background information regarding the agenda item. He stated
the first three components of the agenda item were Resolutions that would allocate money to various
programs from three funding sources. He stated approximately $2.9 million is being allocated
primarily to affordable housing projects. He stated the fourth item was a Resolution that would
change the manner in which the City allocates money in the programs by adding a 5%fee to the loan
repayment amount. He stated the last two items were appropriation ordinances.
Joe Rolland, Funding Partners, commended the Advance Planning staff for their work on project
review. He suggested encouraging first time home buyers to repay funds as quickly as possible so
that other families could take advantage of the same program. He stated there is an acute need for
heavily subsidized housing projects and that there needs to be a greater focus in allocating these
dollars to those types of projects. He stated adding a 5%fee recognizes the administrative costs of
running a program but does not build any incentive to repay the money. He asked Council to look
at the issue to see if there would be alternatives to adding the burden of a 5% fee.
Councilmember Bertschy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Tharp,to adopt Resolutions
2003-127,2003-128,2003-129,and 2003-130 and to adopt Ordinance No. 162,2003 and Ordinance
No. 163, 2003 on First Reading.
Councilmember Bertschy thanked the CDBG Commission for its hard work on making these
recommendations. He supported looking at ways to encourage home buyers to repay funds quickly.
Councilmember Tharp stated the CDBG Commission gave the Council well thought out
recommendations. She stated the Housing Authority was also focusing on those in the lowest
income brackets because that is where the need was greatest.
Mayor Martinez expressed appreciation for the work of the CDBG Commission.
309
November 18, 2003
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein,
Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Mayor Martinez stated the budget agenda would now be considered.
BUDGET CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Kastein withdrew item#23 Items Relating to Utility Rates and Charges for 2004
from the Budget Consent Calendar.
21. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 148,2003,Amending the Code of the City of Fort Collins
to Increase the Capital Improvement Expansion Fee, Street Oversizing Fee and
Neighborhood Parkland Fee to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services.
Ordinance No. 148,2003,which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November
4, 2003, increases the fee schedules for the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees and
Neighborhood Parkland Fee by the estimated change in the 2003 Denver-Boulder-Greeley
Consumer Price Index. The City Code requires that increases keep up with annual inflation.
The fees were last adjusted in late 2002.
22. Items Relating to the 2004 Downtown Development Authority Budget.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 2003, Appropriating Operating Funds and
Approving the Budget of the Downtown Development Authority for the Fiscal Year
Beginning January 1, 2004, and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Downtown
Development Authority for 2004.
Ordinance No. 149,2003,which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November
4, 2003, sets the Downtown Development Authority annual mill levy at 4.05 mills and
appropriates $2,307,470 in the Operations and Maintenance Fund.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 150, 2003, Appropriating Revenue in the
Downtown Development Authority Debt Service Fund for Payment of Debt Service
for the Year 2004.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 4, 2003,
appropriates funds for 2004 from the tax increment received by the City for the DDA for debt
service payments.
310
November 18, 2003
23. Items Relating to Utility Rates and Charges for 2004.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 151,2003,Amending Chapter 26,Article XII,of
the Code of the City Relating to Utility Connection Fees and Miscellaneous Charges.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2003, Amending Chapter 26, Article III,
Division 4 of the Code of the City Relating to User Fees and Charges for Water.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 2003, Amending Chapter 26, Article IV,
Division 4 of the Code of the City Relating to Wastewater Fees.
D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 2003, Amending Chapter 26, Article VI,
Division 4 of the Code of the City Relating to Electric Rates and Charges.
E. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 155, 2003, Amending Chapter 26, Article VII,
Division 2 of the Code of the City Relating to Stormwater Fees.
These ordinances,which were unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 4,2003,
increase the annual Light and Power Fund Revenues by 5.3%, Wastewater Fund operating
revenues by 5%,and Storm Drainage Fund operating revenues are projected to increase 10%.
There are no changes to operating revenues in the Water Fund.
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Chief Deputy City Clerk Harris.
21. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 148,2003,Amending the Code of the City of Fort Collins
to Increase the Capital Improvement Expansion Fee, Street Oversizing Fee and
Neighborhood Parkland Fee to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services.
22. Items Relating to the 2004 Downtown Development Authorityget.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 2003, Appropriating Operating Funds and
Approving the Budget of the Downtown Development Authority for the Fiscal Year
Beginning January 1, 2004, and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Downtown
Development Authority for 2004.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 150, 2003, Appropriating Revenue in the
Downtown Development Authority Debt Service Fund for Payment of Debt Service
for the Year 2004.
311
November 18, 2003
23. Items Relating to Utility Rates and Charges for 2004.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 151,2003, Amending Chapter 26,Article XII,of
the Code of the City Relating to Utility Connection Fees and Miscellaneous Charges.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2003, Amending Chapter 26, Article III,
Division 4 of the Code of the CityRelating to User Fees and Charges for Water.
g g
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 2003, Amending Chapter 26, Article IV,
Division 4 of the Code of the City Relating to Wastewater Fees.
D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 2003, Amending Chapter 26, Article VI,
Division 4 of the Code of the City Relating to Electric Rates and Charges.
E. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 155, 2003, Amending Chapter 26, Article VII,
Division 2 of the Code of the City Relating to Stormwater Fees.
24. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 156, 2003, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance
Relating to the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2004,Adoptingthe Budget for the
Fiscal Years Begi�in Jg anuuary 1,2004,and Ending December 31,2005,and Fixing the Mill
Levy for Fiscal Year 2004.
***End Budget Consent***
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to adopt and
approve all items not withdrawn from the Budget Consent Calendar. The vote on the motion was
as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and
Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Items Relating to
Utility Rates and Charges for 2004,Adopted on Second Reading,
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. SecondReadingofOrdinanceNo. 151, 2003,Amending Chapter 26,ArticleXII, oftheCode
of the City Relating to Utility Connection Fees and Miscellaneous Charges.
312
November 18, 2003
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2003, Amending Chapter 26, Article III, Division 4
of the Code of the City Relating to User Fees and Charges for Water.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 2003, Amending Chapter 26, Article IV, Division 4
of the Code of the City Relating to Wastewater Fees.
D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 2003, Amending Chapter 26,Article VI, Division 4
of the Code of the City Relating to Electric Rates and Charges.
E. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 155, 2003, Amending Chapter 26, Article VII, Division
2 of the Code of the City Relating to Stormwater Fees.
These ordinances, which were unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 4, 2003,
increase the annual Light and PowerFund Revenues by5.3%, Wastewater Fund operating revenues
by 5%, and Storm Drainage Fund operating revenues are projected to increase 10%. There are no
changes to operating revenues in the Water Fund. "
City Manager Fischbach stated staff would be available to answer questions.
Councilmember Kastein asked about the effect on the wastewater rate of last year's reduced water
consumption. Mike Smith, Utilities General Manager, stated wastewater rates for residential
customers are based on winter quarter water consumption,that people are conserving water,and that
the metering program compounded the problem.
Councilmember Kastein asked why the wastewater rate was based on winter quarter water
consumption. Smith stated the winter quarter water consumption reflected indoor water use.
Councilmember Kastein commented that this is a relatively nominal increase but that many rates are
being increased at the same time. He asked about the use of reserves to offset that amount and how
much money was in utility reserves. Smith stated there is approximately $14-15 million in
wastewater reserves and that money could only be taken out of that fund.
Councilmember Kastein stated he would like to see the Council explore the option of using reserves
and that the City Manager had indicated that approximately $600,000 will be needed for that
purpose. He stated the City Manager had also indicated that if reserves are used this year, a 5%
increase will be needed next year. He stated this is a fairness issue because wastewater fees are
going up because people conserved water as they were asked. He noted that a large reserve is
available and that he would favor using reserves this year to offset the 5% increase. Smith stated
another reason for the wastewater rate increase was a change in accounting procedures that shifted
minor capital to O&M expenses on an ongoing basis.
313
November 18, 2003
Councilmember Kastein stated he would like additional information on the accounting change.
Smith stated minor capital was generally used for replacements and that the decision was made to
place minor capital under operating costs instead. He stated a number of capital projects had been
delayed because of the impact that borrowing money would have on rates. He stated reserves would
be needed to help pay for future capital projects.
Councilmember Kastein asked for staffs opinion on using$600,0004700,000 from reserves at this
time given future capital needs. Smith stated customers surveyed have preferred smaller rate
increases over time rather than have several large increases. He stated efforts were being made to
increase reserves for capital projects and that the rate increase would be delayed and would be higher
next year.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the money was taken from reserves this year,if there would be
a 10%rate increase next year. Smith replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked for clarification about the adjustment for accounting changes.
Smith stated minor capital had been shifted to operations permanently.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if all rates will go up again next year. Smith stated the projected
rate increases for 2005 were 3.5%for light and power,no increase for water, 5%for wastewater and
7%for stormwater. He stated if the wastewater rates are not increased by 5%this year,the increase
for wastewater in 2005 would be 10%.
Councilmember Tharp requested clarification about the impact of using reserves this year. Smith
stated the reserves would pay the rate increase with one-time money and that the rate increase would
be double next year because it is ongoing money.
Councilmember Tharp stated she was concerned about the rates going up and about the impact of
water conservation on wastewater rates. She stated it appeared that using reserves this year did not
help the problem.
Councilmember Kastein stated the average ratepayer would save what would be paid as an increase
for this year and that the new rate for next year would be 10%.
Councilmember Hamrick stated the money taken out of capital reserves have to be paid back at some
point. He asked how the capital reserve would be replenished if it was drawn down. Smith stated
more money would have to be borrowed for upcoming capital projects.
Councilmember Hamrick asked who would be responsible for repaying the money. Smith stated it
would be the ratepayers.
314
November 18, 2003
Mayor Martinez asked why money could not be taken from reserves rather than borrowing. Smith
stated the reserves will be needed in the future and would be short for those future needs.
Councilmember Roy expressed a concern that the costs to the taxpayers would be increased because
of a need to pay back reserves for capital projects. He stated it appeared that a rate increase for two
years in a row would be prudent and conservative.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked why the wastewater rate would increase 5% every year and why
it would not stabilize at some point. Smith stated the rate increases are needed to catch up with
revenue loss.
Councilmember W eitkunat asked how long the City would be playing catchup. Smith stated the rate
increase for 2004 should take care of most of that and the 2005 increase is needed to get the fund in
shape to borrow money for capital projects and O&M expenses.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the money would have to be paid back to the reserves. City
Manager Fischbach stated it would have to be paid back so that there would be money for future
needs and that the money would be paid back through increased rates.
Councilmember Tharp asked for suggestions on how costs for utilities could be contained so that
constant rate increases will not be needed. Smith stated for the last few years the Utilities had
conducted a peer review through the American Waterworks Association. He stated the Utilities rated
high for efficiency, the quality of the water produced, and wastewater treatment. He stated the
wastewater treatment plants are an efficient electricity customer and that electrical costs are going
UP.
Councilmember Tharp requested an update on the peer reviews.
Mayor Martinez asked if the utility bill will contain a check-off box for those who wanted to donate
to those who can not afford to pay their utility bills. Wendy Williams, Utilities Assistant General
Manager,stated a companyhas been identified to provide the service and that a proposal is expected.
She stated the expectation is that the check-off box will appear on utility bills as of the first of the
year.
Mayor Martinez asked about the Platte River Power Authority's rate increase. Smith stated the City
Y Y Y
will be paying an additional 2.8% and that the projection for next year is about 3.5% for the City.
Mayor Martinez asked why the City's rates are continually increased while Platte River Power
Authority had not had an increase in many years. Smith stated the current electric rates are at the
same level as they were in 1983.
315
November 18, 2003
Mayor Martinez asked how the City's electric rates compared with other cities in Colorado. Smith
stated the City compared favorably with cities in the State. He stated the City was the fifth lowest
of 55 utilities in the State.
Councilmember Roy asked if the ratepayers were enjoying"subsidies"because the real costs were
not being recovered. He asked if enough had been charged in the past for the utilities. Smith stated
rates had been based on costs of service and that the ratepayers were the source of money for the
utilities.
Councilmember Kastein made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Hamrick,to adopt Ordinance
No. 151,2003, Ordinance No. 152, 2003, Ordinance No. 153,2003, Ordinance No. 154,2003,and
Ordinance No. 155, 2003 on Second Reading.
Councilmember Kastein stated he was concerned with the overall rate increases. He stated he could
accept the argument that reserves were needed for future capital costs. He stated it would be helpful
to see the reserve fund identified as a capital reserve fund.
Mayor Martinez stated there were some related Charter requirements.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein,
Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance No. 156, 2003
Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance Relating to
the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2004 and
Adopting the Budget for the Fiscal Years Beginning
January 1, 2004 and Ending December 31, 2005, and
Fixing the Mill Levy for Fiscal Year 2004, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
This Ordinance represents the annual appropriation forfiscal year 2004, and adopts the total City
budget for fiscal year 2004 at $438,069,004 and for fiscal year 2005 at $450,174,400. This
Ordinance also sets the City mill levy at 9.797 mills, unchanged since 1991,for fiscal year 2004.
316
November 18, 2003
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ordinance No. 156, 2003, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 4, 2003.
Council adopted the 2004-2005 City budget and the corresponding appropriation of monies for
fiscal year 2004 expenditures on condition that on the Second Reading, the City Manager present
options to fund additional Police officers in 2004. These options are described below.
BACKGROUND
The budgetgoalsfor 2004 and 2005 are focused on maintaining as many ofour services as possible
in these challenging economic times:
a. Maintain to the degree possible existing services, i.e., minimize service reductions
b. As services are provided by employees, avoid or minimize layoffs to the degree possible
c. Maintain and, if possible, expand Police services
d. Maintain to the degree possible current levels of Primary services
The reductions over the past year and many of those proposed in 2004 have focused on delaying
repairs and renovations, delaying equipment replacements,reducing training and staffdevelopment,
cutting supplies and materials and operational services. We have whittled away all that we can of
materials, equipment and some significant secondary and support services. In preparation for the
2005 budget "exception" process and anticipating Council approval of a Budget Advisory
Committee, staff will work with the committee to reassess what our core services are and how they
can be delivered in a more effective and cost-efficient manner within the resources actually
available.
FINAL BUDGETADJUSTMENTs
In the course of the Council's review and discussions of the next biennial budget, there are several
items for which interest was expressed to find a way to retain or fund in the budget. Here is an
update on the status of several items.
Options to Fund Additional Police Staff
Option A: Increase the Annual Staffing Package and Split the Hiring Between 2004 and 2005
This option would boost ourstandard, annual stafiingpackage of5 Police Officers/1.5 civilian staff
to 6 Police Officers1l.5 civilian staffand split the hiring between the two upcomingfiscalyears. The
cost would be as follows:
317
November 18, 2003
2004: Three (3)Police Officers: $335,858 ongoing
$109,996 one-time
One (1) Civilian staff: $49,008 ongoing
24 316 one-time
Total $519,178
2005: Three (3)Police Officers: $352,651 ongoing
$125,885 one-time
.5 FTE Civilian staff: $ 21,350 ongoing
1801 one-time
Total $501,687
Total Package $1,020,865
We do not have any additional ongoing monies to cover the ongoing costs (which total$384,866)
,for 2004. My recommendation is to cover all of the 2004 projected costs with one-time dollars. The
estimated one-time dollars (General Fund reserves)available for 2004 are$2,004,878. For 2005,
the continuing operational costs (for compensation, supplies, training,fuel, etc.)are to be covered
by ongoing monies.
Option B: Reassign existing Police Officers To Add to Our Patrol/Street Strength
This option reassigns and redeploys existing Police Officers from current duties to more direct
Patrol Division assignments. This analysis is ongoing, but the reassignments probably would be
from the Training Unit, Investigations, and Crime Prevention. However, this will impact our
operations in a number ofways. Regarding training,we have extensive mandatory ongoing training
in such areas as pursuit driving,firearms and defensive tactics. Patrol Officers and Detectives will
still be pulled off assignments to provide this training and some added overtime costs will be
required. In investigative services, work on computer crimes (such as internet pornography and
Internet fraud) and violent crimes will be impacted. In the area of crime prevention, work that
administers our false alarm program (which frees thousands of hours of patrol officers time to
provide direct service rather than respond to false alarms)and provides security and preventative
information to the community and neighborhoods(such asfraud preventionforseniors and security
and safety information for religious centers) will be scaled back.
The 2004-2005 City Budget,as outlined in Ordinance No. 156, 2003,does not include either ofthese
two options. It includes the original recommendation of no added staffing for Police Services in
2004 and expanded Police staffing in 2005. Any changes to the budget will have to be done prior
to a vote on the Second Reading of the Ordinance.
318
November 18, 2003
Funded Services
1. Rivendell Recycling Center ($18,000) —funded in 2004 with 2003 carryover (one-time)
dollars. We project that an additional $18,000 will be needed to sustain the recycling
operations at the Center in 2004. As we near the end of this fiscal year(2003)we will have
some funds from CPES to carry over into 2004 to cover the recycling operations. Also, we
are beginning to receive some additional income from haulers that will help to cover the
operational costs. We will monitor this closelyfor 2005.
2. Environmental Business Outreach/Climatewise($20,000)—funded in 2004 through a grant
award and 2003 carryover(one-time)dollars. The purpose is to work with local businesses
to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We have been using one-time monies (from the
General Fund and from Utilities) to support this effort. To cover the anticipated 2004
shortfall, the City received notification of a grant award late this summer that will be
sufficient to cover program costs through 2004. We will monitor closely for 2005.
3. Environmental Planner ($20,000) —funded in 2004 and beyond through reallocation of
personnel resources(ongoing). Approximately.25 FTE ofan Environmental Planner's time
has to be picked up by the General Fund. Early in the budget planning process, there was
no source of funding. With some staffing changes over the last few weeks, we are able to
cover this for 2004 and beyond.
Sustain Reductions as Recommended
In addition to the above items, during the Budget Study Session discussions and review of the
proposed service reductions,several Council members expressed a desire to reconsider some select
items. However, based on Council's direction at the November 4 meeting,none ofthese are "added-
back"or included in the budget or appropriation ordinance for the second reading.
We go into 2005 on this reduced base of ongoing service and expense reductions. However,
projections indicate revenues will be stronger in 2005. As a result, we anticipate reinstating and
expanding a few services in 2005 and these include:
a. Expand Police staffing .............................................. $ 799,763 ongoing
$ 261,998one-time
b. Resume Police Building set aside ................................. $ 320,000 ongoing
319
November 18, 2003
c. Resume Labor Market Adjustments .............................. $1,900,000 ongoing '
d. Resume Street Maintenance expanded funding ................. $ 200,000 ongoing
e. Resume full amount ofPFA allocation .......................... $ 594,000 ongoing
All of the above except the Labor Market Adjustment are included in the budget for 2005. During
the exception processfor 2005,we will review these additions, including Labor MarketAdjustments,
and others in relation to revenue results in 2004 and projections for 2005. At that time, changes
could be made as necessary.
Benefits Costs for 2004 and 2005
The approach for increasing the employees'share ofpremium costs has been the subject of extensive
discussion. At this juncture, the proposed budget increases employees'share ofpremium costs to
10% in 2004 and 15% in 2005.
However, more work and discussion needs to be done on the issue of employees'share ofpremium
costs. The following course of action will be pursued as we prepare to again address this issue in
conjunction with the "budget exception process"for 2005:
a. The City Manager is to work with the Personnel Board, its ad hoc Benefits' Advisory
Committee, and a consultant to re-examine the issues raised by City Council and provide
a recommendation as to the appropriate share of premium costs between the City and
employees and over what period of time the share ratio be implemented.
b. As of January I the share ofpremium costs of all new employees in 2004 be set at 15%.
c. Examine and, if necessary, refine the market to which we compare and against which the
share ofpremium costs is established. "
City Manager Fischbach presented background information regarding the agenda item. He stated
this is the annual appropriation for fiscal year 2004 and adoption of a City budget for 2004-2005.
He stated the ordinance also set the mill levy,which has been unchanged since 1991. He stated the
ordinance was drafted in response to Council direction. He outlined the budget goals for 2004-2005
as set by the Council: (1)to maintain to the degree possible existing services and minimize service
reductions;(2)avoid or minimize layoffs to the degree possible;(3)maintain and if possible expand
Police Services;and(4)maintain to the degree possible current levels of primary services. He stated
the General Fund for ongoing operations will be reduced by a total of$3.339 million throughout the
service areas. He stated the reductions were necessary due to reduced revenues in order to balance
This is a very preliminary estimate for the General Fund. Staff is working on a performance review system
that considers all compensation adjustments—labor market,merit and skill.
320
November 18, 2003
projected revenues and expenses. He stated projections were for stronger revenues in 2005 and that
it was anticipated that a few services (expanded police staffing, police building set-aside, street
maintenance expanded funding, and the full Poudre Fire Authority allocation)would be reinstated
or expanded in 2005. He stated these services would be considered by the City Council during the
2005 exception process. He stated the projected gap between revenues and expenses necessitated
the exclusion of any employee salary adjustments for 2004 and 2005. He stated this would mean
potentially no salary increase for 3 years for 66%of the City's workforce, and that there would be
no merit or skill adjustments for employees not at the top of the pay range for 2 years, except that
police personnel would be eligible for skill ladder increases in 2004 and 2005. He stated employees
would be required to pay more for benefit premiums(10%in 2004 and 15%in 2005). He stated all
new employees would pay 15% as of January 1, 2004. He stated employees would also pay more
for medications and services used. He stated more work would be done in conjunction with the
Personnel Board to prepare a recommendation for scheduled changes to benefits premium costs for
consideration during the 2005 exceptions process. He stated the City's fiscal plan was sound and
that quality services to the community would continue. He recommended adoption of the Ordinance
on Second Reading with direction to the City Manager to incorporate new employees after January
1, 2004 at 15%of benefits, to immediately proceed with a reexamination of the employee benefits
issues utilizing the services of a consultant, to immediately reexamine employee benefits issues in
relation to the City's appropriate market and peer cities, and to provide City Council with a report
of the findings of the findings in advance of the 2005 budget exception process,with adequate time
for Council and staff to thoroughly discuss the findings and set a direction for 2005. He thanked
Deputy City Manager Diane Jones and Budget Officer Doug Smith and the Budget Office staff for
their hard work during this difficult budget year.
Kelly Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, stated the City needed to have a system dealing with
compensation that would be fair to the employees and the taxpayers. He supported looking at the
true labor market in setting salaries and benefits. He stated it would be important to have an
objective consultant reporting directly to the Council. He stated the City was late in moving to a
requirement that the employees pay 10-15%of their health care coverage costs. He stated employees
would be hurt by skyrocketing costs if their share of health care premiums was not increased.
Councilmember Bertschy stated there were a number of study sessions and public hearings on the
budget and that it was time to move forward.
Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp,to adopt Ordinance
No. 156,2003 on Second Reading with direction to the City Manager to immediately proceed with
retaining the services of an outside consultant to examine the employee salary and benefits issues,
including relation to and the composition of the City's appropriate markets and/or peer cities, and
said consultant to provide Council with a report of the findings in advance of the 2005 budget
exception process, with adequate time for Council and staff to thoroughly discuss the findings and
set a direction for 2005.
321
November 18, 2003
Councilmember Kastein spoke regarding an option for additional police staffing and asked for
additional information. City Manager Fischbach stated an option had been discussed to take one-
time monies out of the 2004 budget with the understanding that the three officers coming on line in
2005 with the increased revenues could be paid for with ongoing monies.
Councilmember Kastein spoke in favor of that option and stated he would like to see the addition
of another officer and civilian staff person through the use of about $100,000 from the police
building set-aside money,approximately$75,000 from the newly enacted Transfort youth fares and
$50,000 from reserves. He stated he firmly believed that the City did not have adequate police
coverage and that the City had not met the goal of having 1.5 officers per 1,000 residents. He stated
Fort Collins was the third lowest in the number of police officers per 1,000 residents in a national
peer study. He stated the issue was how many officers were on patrol at any given time, what
response times were, and the number of cases solved. He stated the City had only three traffic
officers and one sergeant for a City of 120,000. He stated the City was third lowest in the peer study
in closing cases. He stated he would like to give the Police Department more resources and that it
would be a mistake to fail to fund any new police officers this year. City Manager Fischbach stated
the$75,000 figure for youth fares was questionable because the ridership was projected to decline
initially after the fare increase. Doug Smith, Budget Officer, stated approximately $112,000-
$120,000 ongoing would be needed for a police officer,that about$49,000 ongoing would be needed
for a civilian employee, and that about$60,000 in one-time monies would be needed for the officer
and civilian employee. City Manager Fischbach stated this would mean approximately$220,000 for
both positions and that monies would also be needed to train the officer.
Councilmember Kastein made a motion to amend Ordinance No. 156, 2003 to adopt the City
Manager's Option A to fund three police officers and one civilian in 2004 and three police officers
and half a civilian staff member in 2005, and in addition to add one additional officer and one
additional civilian employee in 2004 using police building set-aside money($100,000),youth fares
($75,000) and reserves ($50,000).
THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
Councilmember Tharp stated the City Manager's recommended budget does not include the
positions that were included in the motion.
Mayor Martinez stated he did not understand why there is no interest in keeping up with needed
staffing for police.
Councilmember W eitkunat stated it was her understanding that an attempt will be made in 2005 to
reinstate the funding for police officers. She stated cuts need to be made across the board and that
the Police Chief had indicated that the lack of funding for new officers would not be that detrimental.
322
November 18, 2003
She stated she did not believe that the budget could support the funding that was proposed by
Councilmember Kastein.
Mayor Martinez stated the Council complained about the Police Department not providing the
desired level of service and that the Police Chief had stated in one study session that police services
were diminishing. He suggested not placing more burden on the Police Department to do more
regarding minor issues when major crime has increased.
Councilmember Hamrick stated he would support the main motion. He asked about administrative
charges for the quarter cent community enhancements. Smith stated all capital projects were charged
an administrative charge to cover the cost of administrative support services. He stated this was part
of the financial management policies adopted by the Council.
Mayor Martinez asked if the budget included the Rivendell recycling center. City Manager
Fischbach replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Martinez asked if the budget included the $20,000 for the Climatewise program. City
Manager Fischbach stated money was incorporated into the 2003 budget and encumbered for
expenditure in 2004.
Mayor Martinez commented that a way was found to hire an environmental planner despite the
hiring freeze and budget cuts and that this became a priority over hiring of police officers and
opening of a new fire station. He asked about the addition of three staff positions for energy
services. City Manager Fischbach stated three staff people would be assigned to energy services and
that their budget would be $991,000. He stated this encompassed wind power and the energy
services plan approved by the City Council in September.
Mayor Martinez asked Council to think about the allocation of money to those types of programs
when money could not be found for primary emergency services.
Councilmember Kastein made a motion to amend the main motion to include Option Ain the budget
as proposed by the City Manager.
THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
Councilmember Roy stated he would support the main motion. He stated he wanted the employees
to understand how much the Council appreciated their efforts and excellent service.
Councilmember Bertschy stated he would support the main motion. He stated this was a tough
budget year and that it was difficult for everyone.
323
November 18, 2003
Councilmember Tharp stated she would support the main motion. She stated many services had
been cut across the board. She expressed concerns about next year's budget projections and stated
she had been assured that the 2005 budget could be adjusted if needed.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would be supporting the main motion. She stated it was
important that it be a level playing field and that new staff not be added at this time. She stated the
budget must be balanced and follow the policies that had been established. She supported looking
at issues such as benefit premiums.
Councilmember Kastein thanked staff for their hard work on the budget. He stated he would not be
supporting the main motion. He stated he believed that progress had been made with regard to key
components of the budget. He stated he believed that the police should be adequately funded and
that this was an issue to the community.
Councilmember Hamrick stated he would support the main motion. He expressed a concern about
the overly"robust"projections for 2005 but that could be addressed in the exception process. He
supported looking at the salary and benefit markets. He spoke in support of funding for the Natural
Resources Department to ensure compliance with environmental laws and requirements. He stated
funding for that Department had been done piecemeal.
Mayor Martinez stated he was disappointed at the lack of support for additional emergency services
funding. He stated he would have liked to have the Police Chief available to answer questions. He
stated Fire Station 14 will be closed for 2004 and that police services would continue to diminish
although this had been identified as the number one priority by the Council.
The vote on the main motion was as follows:Yeas:Councilmembers Bertschy,Hamrick,Roy,Tharp
and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Kastein and Martinez.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Other Business
Councilmember Hamrick requested looking at formal adoption of Robert's Rules of Order or a
recommended subset.
Councilmember Tharp stated formal adoption would require a parliamentarian. She asked if
Councilmember Hamrick had a specific concern.
Councilmember Hamrick stated he had concerns about how debate was ended on an issue several
weeks ago. He stated he would like to see written procedures that would address the role of the
Mayor as facilitator in a discussion to ensure that everyone can get their point across.
324
November 18, 2003
Councilmember Weitkunat stated an abbreviated version of Robert's Rules of Order is available
through Colorado Municipal League. She stated adoption of the full Robert's Rules of Order would
require an elaborate parliamentary procedure.
Councilmember Bertschy stated it might be timely to review the abbreviated CML version.
Councilmember Bertschy stated he would like to see the Council move forward on the issue of alley
houses. He stated he wanted to address the neighborhoods included in the Eastside and Westside
Neighborhood Plans and not the neighborhoods in the downtown district. He stated the zoning
districts he wished to address were the N-C-B,N-C-M and N-C-L districts. He stated the goal would
be to change within those districts the guidelines for alley houses and to eliminate the designation
of more than two dwelling units as permitted uses in the N-C-M zone. He stated these changes will
not be geared to decreasing planned density within the zones and that alley houses would still be
permitted. He stated the issue is guidelines to retain the nature and character of historic
neighborhoods. He suggested that these changes occur during the next regularly scheduled Land Use
Code change period in the Spring of 2004.
Councilmember Bertschy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Roy,that prior to the Spring,
2004 adoption of the Land Use Code revisions, a moratorium be placed on any alley houses being
initiated for planning review in the N-C-L,N-C-M and N-C-B zones,and including the initiation of
any new dwellings for more than two-families in the N-C-M zone.
Councilmember Roy spoke in support of the motion and stated more is needed than the existing
simple guidelines.
City Attorney Roy requested clarification regarding whether the intent was to begin the moratorium
at this time or to have an Ordinance brought forward with regard to that aspect of the motion. He
stated a moratorium would need to be imposed by Ordinance rather than by motion.
Councilmember Bertschy stated he was looking for support on an Ordinance for a moratorium and
spoke regarding the intent of the moratorium. He stated he would withdraw the motion.
The consensus of a majority of the Council was to bring back an Ordinance to impose a moratorium
on alley houses.
Councilmember Tharp supported the creation of a Blue Ribbon Budget Committee to be part of the
deliberations on the 2005 budget exception and adjustment process and future budgets. She
proposed this as a special task force that would be selected by each Councilmember naming one
person to serve.
Councilmember Hamrick stated he would support the proposal.
325
November 18, 2003
Councilmember Roy asked about the possibility of soliciting applications from the community.
Councilmember Kastein stated he would support Councilmember Tharp's proposal.
Councilmember Tharp stated she would welcome expert advise from such a Committee.
Mayor Martinez stated the consensus appeared to be in favor of the proposal regarding the Blue
Ribbon Budget Committee.
Councilmember Tharp asked for information about the City's involvement in the cable franchise
negotiations. City Manager Fischbach stated information would be prepared for the Council.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if there had been any discussion about having a Councilmember on
the Programming Committee. City Manager Fischbach stated staff would prepare information.
Councilmember Hamrick requested the Downtown Development Authority minutes relating to
awarding of financial incentives to In-Situ and First National Bank.
Councilmember Hamrick stated he believed that the upcoming report of the Mayor and City Manager
to the community should be a Council report and that it should address Council policy goals and
objectives. City Manager Fischbach stated the Charter required the City Manager to make a report
to the community.
Mayor Martinez stated the Charter required that the report be for the past year rather than for
upcoming years.
Councilmember Roy stated he would also like to receive information about the cable franchise.
Councilmember Tharp asked what would be involved in unfreezing the bilingual and museum
positions. City Manager Fischbach stated he would take a look at end-of-year revenues before he
would recommend that the positions be unfrozen.
Councilmember Hamrick asked about the Saturday cemetery burial policy and whether there was
support for staff to flex hours to enable Saturday burials. He asked if this is a service that could be
outsourced. City Manager Fischbach stated staff will provide a detailed report that addressing why
this can not be done.
Councilmember Tharp stated Greeley accomplished Saturday burials by allowing staff flex hours.
She stated she was not convinced that it would be unfeasible to do the same in Fort Collins.
326
November 18, 2003
Councilmember Roy stated this was a sensitive issue for community members and that he would like
to see a solution to Saturday burials. City Manager Fischbach stated this had been City policy for
25 years and that this was seldom an issue. He stated staff would prepare a report to the Council.
Adjournment
Councilmember Bertscby made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Hamrick,to adjourn to 6:00
p.m. on November 25, 2003 or at the conclusion of the study session,whichever came first, for the
purpose of conducting the annual performance reviews of the City Attorney, City Manager and
Municipal Judge. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy,
Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
327