HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 09/06/2005 - CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL ITEM NUMBER: 6
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: September6, 2005
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Wanda Krajicek
SUBJECT
Consideration and approval of the regular Council meeting minutes of August 16, 2005.
August 16, 2005
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,August 16,2005,
at 6:00 p.m.in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered
by the following Councilmembers: Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Ohlson, Roy, and Weitkunat.
Councilmembers Absent: Manvel
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Mayor Hutchinson stated each participant would have two minutes to speak.
Al Baccili, 520 Galaxy Court, spoke regarding the police collective bargaining negotiations and
stated he did not see a need for lawyers to get involved in resolving"discrepancies" in the measure
already voted on by the City voters.
David McDanel,Disabled Resource Services,asked the Council to consider more funding for transit
in general and a transit route on East Harmony.
Brian Schumm, 5948 Colby Street, spoke about his disagreement with City staff on a variance and
annexation for 209 Skyway. He presented a handout containing documents outlining his issues
relating to the IGA with the County and the Structure Plan. He asked that the Council give direction
to staff on how the southwest enclave annexation and areas in the Structure Plan should be managed.
He stated staff should have accepted and processed a zoning request, even with a zoning violation
on the property, because the stated purpose of the zoning request was to "legalize an illegal use."
Page Lundberry, full-time landlord, stated the "three unrelated" ordinance"targeted students" and
that there were many good reasons for groups of unrelated people to live together. He stated the
arbitrary"three unrelated" ordinance was an "oversimplified approach" to the problem. He stated
the real issue was one of"behavior" of tenants and landlords.
Greg McMaster, Avery Park Neighborhood, urged Council to support and enforce the "three
unrelated" ordinance.
Melissa Anderson, Rolland Moore Neighborhood, spoke in support of effective enforcement of the
"three unrelated" ordinance and nuisance ordinances with no exceptions.
Vivian Armandez, disabled Fort Collins resident, spoke in support of using snow removal funds for
Dial-a-Ride and Transfort.
230
August 16, 2005
Bruce Hall, 924 Whalers Way, spoke in support of shifting funding to establish a bus route on
Timberline and Harmony Roads by elimination of bus routes 3 and 11.
Lloyd Walker, Rolland Moore Neighborhood, supported housing occupancy limits to preserve the
core neighborhoods.
Greg Austin, Front Range Antiques owner, opposed the southwest enclave annexation due to its
impact on the Kel-Mar strip businesses.
Troy Bauder, 1320 South Bryan Avenue, spoke in support of registration and regulation of housing
with more than "three unrelated" people to preserve single-family neighborhoods.
Mayor Hutchinson noted that the 30 minutes allotted for Citizen Participation had concluded and
asked if the Council would like to allow it to continue with a one minute limit per speaker. The
consensus was to allow Citizen Participation to continue with a two minute limit per speaker.
Pete Seel, 1837 Scarborough Drive,thanked the City for its support of the Neighborhood Night Out
and spoke regarding occupancy limits in college towns. He asked that Council consider an
occupancy limit of two and a permit or license and health and safety inspection process for three
occupants.
B.J. Ferrero, Foothills Flea Market owner, opposed the southwest enclave annexation.
Rick Price, 1925 Wallenberg Drive, supported additional funding for the City's bicycle/pedestrian
programs.
Courtney Healey, ASCSU President, stated CSU students continued to oppose enforcement of the
"three unrelated" ordinance.
Ellen Brinks, 217 East Oak Street, asked for funding for a bicycle/pedestrian coordinator position.
Courtney Przybylski, ASCSU Director of Community Affairs, spoke in support of an occupancy
limit of four.
Kathleen Reagan, northwest Fort Collins resident, supported funding for Dial-a-Ride and transit.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, opposed the creation of a bicycle/pedestrian program
coordinator position. He also commented on a Connecticut case in which a resident was being
forced out of her home to make way for a Pfizer Company office building and was being asked to
payback rent for the five years the issue was in the courts. He stated the City would have the power
to use that kind of eminent domain proceeding for North College redevelopment and asked that the
City avoid that kind of"monstrous" situation.
Lee Winfield, disabled northwest Fort Collins resident, urged support for transit funding.
231
August 16, 2005
Karen Buchanan, 6520 Kyle Avenue, spoke in opposition to the southwest enclave annexation.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Mayor Hutchinson thanked those who spoke during Citizen Participation. He clarified that the City
negotiated in voluntary good faith with the Fraternal Order of Police for 58 days and that the FOP
declared an impasse on April 5. He stated at that point a conflict came into play between the City
Charter and the collective bargaining ordinance approved by the voters. He stated the Charter called
for taxpayer money allocation to be decided by the City Council and the City Manager. He stated
in order to go into arbitration that authority would have to be given to the arbitrator. He stated this
issue would need to be decided by the courts.
Councilmember Roy asked if staff had spoken with Mr. Price about his idea to have community
volunteers serve in an adjunct position to a bike coordinator position. City Manager Atteberry stated
he had not spoken with Mr. Price and would be happy to do that and then report back to the Council.
Councilmember Roy stated the City Manager would be presenting a recommended budget in
September and that there would be many opportunities to participate in budget hearings before the
budget was finalized.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated there would be a Study Session on August 23 regarding the
occupancy limit ordinance. She also noted that the public would have ample opportunity to
participate in budget hearings to make their views known on issues such as transit funding and that
the southwest enclave annexation was on the Council's agenda later in the year.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated there were no changes to the published agenda.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and approval of the regular Council meeting minutes of July 5 and July 19
2005 and the special meeting minutes of July 28, 2005.
7. Second Reading.of Ordinance No. 078, 2005, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts Between Accounts and
Proiects for the Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Task Force.
Fort Collins Police Services applied to the Office of Drug Control and System Improvement
on behalf of the Task Force for federal grant monies to help fund the investigation of illegal
narcotics activities in Larimer County. The application was due to the recent change by the
Federal Government in their fiscal year which created a three month funding gap. The City
recently received notification of the grant award in the amount of$51,250,plus an additional
$1,250 in revenue from Colorado State University Police Department. The participating
232
August 16, 2005
agencies must provide matching funds in the amount of$108,125. Fort Collins' portion of
the match is $32,168. These funds will be used for rental and operational costs at the Task
Force off-site location, overtime funding to help offset the overtime costs of each
participating agency, and confidential funds to be used for the purchase of narcotics from
drug dealers by undercover police officers.
Ordinance No. 078, 2005, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 19, 2005.
8. Second Reading of an Ordinance No. 079, 2005, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant
Revenue in the General Fund for the Police Services Victim Services Team.
The Fort Collins Police Services Victim Services Team has been awarded an 18-month grant
in the amount of$35,000 for the period of July 1, 2005 through December 31, 2006, by the
V.A.L.E. Board to help fund services provided by this team. These funds will be used for
a part-time paid victim advocate who will provide crisis intervention services during
weekday hours and is housed in the Victim Services Office. These funds will also pay for
some of the operational expenses needed to provide 24-hour a day, 7-day a week services to
victims of crime in our community. Previous V.A.L.E.grant awards have been received each
year since 1998.
Ordinance No. 079, 2005, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 19, 2005.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2005, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Transportation Services Fund to Be Used to Conduct the Downtown River District
Improvement Project.
The DDA and the City's departments of Transportation Planning, Engineering, Advanced
Planning, Natural Resources, and Utilities have initiated this Project to address the lack of
sufficient public infrastructure to support infill development and redevelopment in the
Downtown River Corridor area. This Project will be co-managed by the City and the DDA.
The first phase of the Project includes detailed design/preliminary engineering and cost
estimating of needed transportation and utility improvements for the area including Jefferson,
Willow,Lincoln,and Linden Streets.The transportation and utility improvements suggested
by this Project will help the area achieve the visions and goals set forth by City Plan and the
Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program.
Ordinance No. 080, 2005, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 19, 2005.
233
August 16, 2005
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2005, Calling a Special Municipal Election to Be
Held in Conjunction with the November 1, 2005 Larimer County Coordinated Election.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 19, 2005, calls
a Special Municipal Election to be held in conjunction with the November 1, 2005 Larimer
County Coordinated Election, and preserves the opportunity for Council to place initiated or
referred issues on the November ballot.
11. Items Relating to the Crawford Annexation.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 082, 2005, Annexing Property Known as the
Crawford Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 083,2005,Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Crawford Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
This is a 100%voluntary annexation and zoning of a property approximately 29.56 acres in
size. The site is located approximately one-half mile west of North College Avenue on the
south side of West Willox Lane. Contiguity is gained along the eastern boundary which is
shared with Hickory Village Mobile Home Park. Contiguity is also gained along a portion
of the south property line which is shared with the City of Fort Collins Soft Gold
Neighborhood Park. The recommended zoning is U-E,Urban Estate. This zoning complies
with the Structure Plan Map.
Ordinance Nos.082 and 083,2005,were unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 19,
2005.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No.085,2005,Amending Various Provisions of the Fort Collins
Traffic Code.
This legislative session the Colorado General Assembly amended certain statutory provisions
relating to traffic regulations. At the time of the adoption of the Traffic Code, it was the
understanding of staff and Council that the Traffic Code would most likely be subject to
future amendments,not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors,but also
for the purpose of ensuring that the Traffic Code remains consistent with state traffic laws.
This Ordinance will make several such amendments.
13. Items Relating to the State Highway 14—East Frontage Road Annexation and Zoning
A. Public Hearing and Resolution 2005-086 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and
Determinations Regarding the State Highway 14—East Frontage Road Annexation.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 086, 2005, Annexing Property Known as the State
234
August 16, 2005
Highway 14—East Frontage Road Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 087,2005,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of
Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the State
Highway 14—East Frontage Road Annexation to the City of Fort Collins,Colorado.
This is a 100%voluntary annexation and zoning of a property approximately 35.86 acres in
size. The site is located on the east side of the 1-25 East Frontage Road approximately one-
quarter mile south of State Highway 14(East Mulberry Street). Contiguity with the existing
municipal boundary is gained along the entire southern boundary which is shared with the
north property line of the Galatia Annexation (230 acres). The annexation does not include
the westerly 11.3 acres located along the Frontage Road and mostly in the Boxelder Creek
floodplain. The recommended zoning is L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood
which is in conformance with the I-25 Sub Area Plan.
14. Items Relating to the Waterdale Annexation and Zoning_
A. Public Hearing and Resolution 2005-087 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and
Determinations Regarding the Waterdale Annexation.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 088, 2005, Annexing Property Known as the
Waterdale Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No.089,2005,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of
Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Waterdale Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
This is a City-initiated application, by virtue of a signed Annexation Agreement, to annex
and zone a 38.69 acre parcel. The site is also known as Sunflower Manufactured Home
Subdivision and located south of East Mulberry Street approximately one-half mile east of
Interstate 25. Contiguity with the existing municipal boundary is gained along the entire
south and a portion of the west boundaries which abut the State Highway 14—East Frontage
Road Annexation. The recommended zoning is L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood which is in conformance with the I-25 Sub Area Plan.
15. Resolution 2005-088 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings
for the East Ridge Second Annexation.
The East Ridge Second Annexation is approximately .48 acres in size. The site is located
on the south boundary of the East Ridge Annexation, approximately 935 feet east of
Timberline Road. Contiguity with the existing municipal boundary is gained along the entire
northern boundary which is shared with the south property line of the East Ridge Annexation
(152.81 acres).The recommended zoning is L-M-N,Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood.
235
August 16, 2005
The proposed Resolution states that it is the City's intent to annex this property and directs
that the published notice required by State law be given of the Council's hearing to consider
the needed annexation ordinance. The hearing will be held at the time of First Reading of
the annexation and zoning ordinances on September 20, 2005. Not less than 30 days prior,
published notice is required by State law.
16. Resolution 2005-089 Adopting a Revised Stormwater Financing Plan.
This Resolution adopts a financing plan for stormwater master plan improvements that will
keep monthly stormwater rates at current levels for the foreseeable future. The construction
period to complete the capital improvements is extended an additional 10 years with
construction build out estimated for 2036.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2005, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts Between Accounts and
Projects for the Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Task Force.
8. Second Reading of an Ordinance No. 079, 2005, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant
Revenue in the General Fund for the Police Services Victim Services Team.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2005, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Transportation Services Fund to Be Used to Conduct the Downtown River District
Improvement Project.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2005, Calling a Special Municipal Election to Be
Held in Conjunction with the November 1, 2005 Latimer County Coordinated Election.
11. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 082, 2005, Annexing Property Known as the
Crawford Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No.083,2005,Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Crawford Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
21. E. Second Reading of Ordinance No.084,2005,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue
in the Capital Projects Fund - Timberline Road Improvements Project and
Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Street Oversizing Fund for Transfer to the
Capital Projects Fund- Timberline Road Improvements Project to be used to
Construct Improvements on Timberline Road Between Drake and Prospect Roads.
236
August 16, 2005
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No.085,2005,Amending Various Provisions of the Fort Collins
Traffic Code.
13. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 086, 2005, Annexing Property Known as the State
Highway 14—East Frontage Road Annexation to the City of Fort Collins,Colorado.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No.087,2005,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of
Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the State
Highway 14—East Frontage Road Annexation to the City of Fort Collins,Colorado.
14. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 088, 2005, Annexing Property Known as the
Waterdale Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 089,2005,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of
Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Waterdale Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
21. A. First Reading of Ordinance No.090,2005,Relating to the Creation and Organization
of the Timberline and Prospect Special Improvement District No. 94 and Providing
for the Construction of Improvements Therein.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 095, 2005 Amending Section 22-111 of the City
Code Pertaining to the Issuance of Bonds for Special Improvement Districts.
D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 091, 2005, Authorizing Acquisition by Eminent
Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements
in Connection with the Timberline Road, Drake Road to Prospect Road Project.
23. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 093, 2005, Submitting to a Vote of the Registered
Electors of the City of Fort Collins a Proposed Amendment to Article II of the City
Charter, Pertaining to Publication of Ordinances.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 094, 2005, Submitting to a Vote of the Registered
Electors of the City of Fort Collins a Proposed Amendment to Article VIII of the City
Charter, Pertaining to the Board of Elections.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adopt and
approve all items on the Consent Calendar. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Ohlson, Roy, and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
237
August 16, 2005
Consent Calendar Follow-up
Councilmember Ohlson commented regarding item#16 Resolution 2005-089 Adopting a Revised
Stormwater Financing Plan and supported reducing the scope of the"ambitious"projects at some
time in the future.
Staff Reports
City Manager Atteberry reported that for the second time the City was named a Bicycle Friendly
Community by the League of American Bicyclists. He also reported that the ownership of Harmony
Road east of College Avenue to 1-25 was transferred from CDOT to the City on August 5 and that
CDOT had made a one-time payment of$13.7 million to the City to pay for ongoing maintenance
for the next 20 years. He also introduced Metropolitan Planning Organization representatives John
Daggett and Cliff Davidson and thanked the MPO for work done on behalf of the City.
John Daggett, North Front Range MPO, reported that the MPO had recently completed a project
selection and award process for federal congestion mitigation and air quality funding for 2006-2007.
He stated five project applications were received from the City and that funding was being awarded
for all five projects. Cliff Davidson, MPO Executive Director, presented Mayor Hutchinson with
a ceremonial check in the amount of$2,918,000 awarded to the five City projects.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Kastein reported on MPO approval of the fiscal year 2006-2007 budget and
discussions regarding federal funding and the Regional Transportation Authority.
Councilmember Weitkunat reported on Poudre Fire Authority Board of Directors discussions
relating to the PFA budget. She also reported on the quarterly City/County/Poudre School District
Liaison Committee meeting.
Resolution 2005-090
Expressing City Council Support for Referenda C and D,
"The Colorado Economic Recovery Plan," Adopted
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As a result of months of negotiations between the legislature and the governor, the Colorado
General Assembly hasforwarded two ballot issues to the electorate this November 1. The referenda
follow taxation provisions set forth under Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution, also
known as The Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR). Referenda C and Dare referred statutes that do
238
August 16, 2005
not change TABOR, since TABOR can only be changed through a constitutional amendment.
BACKGROUND
Referendum C
Referendum C allows the state to retain and spend all revenues collected during the next five years.
This is not a tax increase, but a measure consistent with TABOR that allows the state to retain all
revenue it receives from the current tax rates. In slang terms this has come to be known as "de-
Bructng."
Additional monies retained due to the passage of Referendum C can be spent only for the funding
ofhigher education,K-12 education,health care and repaymentofReferendumD bonds(see below).
Passage of Referendum C will eliminate for five years the resumption of the TABOR refunds that
appeared on tax returns during the late 1990s. This does not affect income tax refunds for
overpayment of withholding. Those refunds will continue as usual.
Referendum C mitigates the "ratchet effect"of TABOR--theprovision that allows the state general
fund spending limit to fall at the same rate as revenues decrease, but to increase only at the rate of
inflation plus population growth. Referendum C allows the state to retain a capped amount of
additionalfunds beyond 2010by "rebasing"the spending limit to theyear with the highest revenues
between 2005-2010; then it resumes increases at inflation plus population growth.
Referendum D
Referendum D is a bond issue that authorizes up to approximately$2 billion in bonds to be issued.
Proceeds will support transportation projects ($1.2 billion), the police and fire pension program
($175 million),K-12 capital construction($147million)and higher education building maintenance
($50 million).
Referendum D temporarily reduces the state income tax rate in 2010 from 4.63%to 4.5%ifadequate
revenue is available at that time.
Among the transportation projects to be./unded by the Referendum D is the widening of t-25 to six
lanes northward from the Dacono exit as.far as State Highway 119, the Longmont exit.
Higher education dollars in Referendum D will be applied to controlled maintenance on Colorado
campuses. These are major repair projects such as roof and mechanical system replacement.
Local Impacts
The City ofFort Collins is concerned with the state budget crisis because the local impact of state
cutbacks has been significant.
239
August 16, 2005
Colorado State University and Front Range Community College have,faced extensive cuts in state
funding. Passage of Referendum C will help to restore that lost funding. Colorado State has lost
29.8%of its state general fund support since 2001 —a loss of about$160 million. The Community
College system, which includes Front Range, has lost 35.3%of its state generalfund support since
2001.
If relief for the state budget is not approved, it is estimated that all of state funding for higher
education will be cut by 2010.
The state transportation departmenthas lost all ofits state generalfund support since 2001 and half
of its gasoline tax revenue is committed to repaying TRANS bonds.
Colorado Department of Revenue cuts have closed the Loveland and Estes Park driver's license
bureau offices, crowding the sole remaining Larimer County site in Fort Collins.
Youth diversion programs that serve Fort Collins under-age of have suffered severe cut-
backs. Reductions in health care support programs for children, expectant mothers and those
needing mental health care have impacted Fort Collins families.
To date, state budget writers have spared citizensfrom much of the TABOR "ratchet effect" impact
through the use of one-time dollars to prop up on-going operations. They have nearly exhausted
these sources. Withoutpassage of Referendum C the state budget will suffer severe additional cuts
in the coming three to four years. "
City Manager Atteberry introduced the agenda item and stated staff strongly recommended adoption
of the Resolution.
Mark Radtke,City Manager's Office,presented background information regarding the agenda item
and stated the Resolution was a follow-up to a Council policy statement adopted last year regarding
funding for higher education. He stated Referendum C would allow the State to retain and spend
the TABOR overage for the next five years. He stated State tax rates would remain the same and
that TABOR refunds would be eliminated for the next five years. He stated Referendum D was a
bonding proposal that would allow up to$2 billion in bonds to be issued primarily for transportation
and capital projects for colleges and universities. He stated if nothing was done there would belittle
remaining State funding support for higher education in Colorado.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, opposed adoption of the Resolution. He stated if
Referenda C and D did not pass that the State would have to cut only 1.7% of its budget and that
adoption would mean a "permanent" 8% tax increase. He stated TABOR had been good for
Colorado and should be protected.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked for clarification how this would impact the"ratcheting"effect of
TABOR. Radtke stated the"ratcheting" effect would be mitigated by use of"deBrucing" to allow
the State to move its base level (catch up)to where it was before the recession. He stated this would
240
August 16, 2005
allow the budget to "bounce back."
Councilmember Roy noted that Mr. Lockhart referenced 117 projects listed in Referendum D and
that the agenda material listed 56 projects for transportation. Radtke stated the Department of
Transportation had brought forward 55-56 projects.
Councilmember Roy asked about the percentage of budget that should be set aside for maintenance
of a transportation project. Ron Phillips,Transportation Services Director, stated this depended on
the type of roadway and that the CDOT maintenance budget was set by the Transportation
Commission. He stated maintenance costs would not increase much for improvements to existing
facilities and that there would be some increased maintenance costs for expanded facilities.
Councilmember Roy stated he did not see any funding for future maintenance included in the list of
56 projects. Radtke stated most of the projects were improvements to existing roadways and that
maintenance was already set forth in the State's budget. Phillips stated major maintenance was taken
care of during the improvement project itself for the next 15-20 years.
Councilmember Roy stated three projects were categorized as transit and asked if the proposal was
lacking in efforts to provide transit. Radtke stated two of the transit projects were Western Slope
and that the third was the Highway 36 Boulder Turnpike redevelopment project, which would
include a mix of highway and light rail.
Councilmember Roy asked about the schedule for the Highway 36 project. Phillips stated the
schedule would coincide with the Fast Tracks project over the next 12 years.
Councilmember Roy asked about the $175 million proposed for the Police and Fire Pension Fund
and why this funding was needed. Radtke stated the Police and Fire Pension fund problem existed
since the 1970s and that the State had been making a contribution every year to solve the unfunded
liability problems with the "old hire' programs that ended in 1978. He stated the State had to
suspend its annual payments during the recession and that this would allow the State to pay the entire
unfunded liability.
Councilmember Roy asked about the$50 million that would be generated over five years for higher
education and how many institutions would be eligible to receive that funding. Radtke stated all
institutions would be eligible to compete for those funds and that funds would be awarded on a
priority basis by the Capital Development Committee of the State Legislature. He stated those funds
would be used for major maintenance projects.
Councilmember Roy asked if the$29 million in cuts to CSU for the last four years were maintenance
cuts or cuts to other areas. Radtke stated there had been little maintenance money and no capital
money for the last few years in the State budget.
Councilmember Brown asked about the term of the General Obligation Bonds that would be
authorized by Referendum D. Radtke stated he did not have that information.
241
August 16, 2005
Councilmember Brown asked about the information that indicated that Referendum D would
temporarily reduce the State income tax. Radtke stated Referendum D would continue a $100
million payment until the bonds would be paid off from the State's General Fund. He stated if
sufficient revenues were available in 2010 after the five-year cycle was completed there would be
a temporary reduction in the State income tax rate from 4.63% to 4.5% to reduce the amount of
revenue to the State so that future refunds would not have to be so large.
Councilmember Kastein asked about the rationale about the K-12 education capital construction
allocation of$147 million. Radtke stated the$147 million would be for capital expenditures for K-
12 education. He stated the State faced the threat of lawsuits over inadequate facilities, especially
in the rural districts in Colorado and that the State Constitution charged the legislature with the
responsibility for equal education for all throughout the State. He stated $147 million would take
care of some of the worst facility problems for small school districts.
Councilmember Kastein asked for clarification about the current TABOR mechanism i.e. that
revenues were limited to an amount determined by inflation plus population growth and that if
revenues were decreasing the budget must shrink because there could be no deficit spending. Radtke
stated this was a correct statement about the current mechanism.
Councilmember Kastein asked ifthe base would therefore decrease from year to year with decreasing
State revenues and that this would allow for a higher rate calculated between 2005 and 2010 based
on the highest revenue year. Radtke replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Roy asked about if$50 million would make a difference for higher education in the
entire State. Radtke stated the$50 million figure dealt only with controlled maintenance projects.
He stated the reference to funding for higher education disappearing if nothing was done related to
the State's General Fund support for higher education operating budgets. He stated such funding had
been reduced by $160 million over the last four years.
City Manager Attebery stated he had spoken with CSU President Penley about Referenda C and D
and that Dr. Penley felt that this was very important to the University. He stated he had also spoken
with the Poudre Valley Health Systems Director Yvonne Stacey and that PVHS was strongly
supporting Referenda C and D.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt
Resolution 2005-090.
Mayor Hutchinson stated TABOR was a"great idea as long as revenues always increased"and that
when there were decreased revenues there were problems for higher education and for the State to
meet its obligations for Medicare and Medicaid support. He stated the City was moving toward
more and better partnerships with CSU that were mutually beneficial. He stated he supported this
expression of support for CSU.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated it was important to recognize the need for the Council to "wear
242
August 16, 2005
different kinds of hats." She stated the Council was wearing a"government hat"in considering this
Resolution. She stated the Resolution would show support for a State direction and that the
Colorado Municipal League was asking for a show of support for the Referenda. She stated it was
important to look at how this would work on a bigger scale than the City and that the voters would
ultimately make the decision.
Councilmember Roy stated Referenda C and D were heavily weighted toward transportation projects
and would be a "transportation bill' for the State. He stated $1.5 billion would be earmarked for
transportation,with few funds for transit. He stated he still had questions about the issue of"bailing
out a pension fund"and felt that this was an"average effort at best." He stated he would support the
motion although he felt that this had some "serious flaws" relating to maintenance funds, the lack
of a "change in thinking" and nothing that would "make a difference for the future." He stated he
would accept at "face value" the statement that $10 million per year for CSU would help the
university and that he would trust the citizens to make the best choice in November.
Councilmember Kastein stated he would support the motion. He stated Referenda C and D were
steps in the right direction but were not "perfect solutions." He stated the legislature had put
something together as a compromise that would work for both sides. He noted that community
leaders were championing Referenda C and D and that he trusted that those leaders had studied the
issue carefully.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Ohlson, Roy, and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Hutchinson stated Councilmember Manvel could not be present at this meeting and had asked
that his support for this Resolution be registered in the record of the meeting.
Items Relating to the Timberline Road, Drake to Prospect Project and the Creation of
Timberline and Prospect Special Improvement District (SID) No. 94, Adopted
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
Street improvements are proposed.for Timberline Road from Drake to Prospect. Most of the
planned improvements are adjacent to new development and will be constructed through the Street
Oversizing Program. In addition, the developers of two major parcels ofproperty in the area have
agreed to fund additional improvements needed in order to proceed with their developments in
accordance with the City's Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APF). These developers have
contributed S2,500,000 to the City for the engineering design and construction of the APF
improvements to the Timberline and Prospect Intersection. These funds would be reimbursed to the
developers through assessments levied in conjunction with the proposed Special Improvement
243
August 16, 2005
District No. 94. There are no City.funds required,for the SID improvements.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Public Hearing and First Reading ofOrdinance No. 090, 2005,Relating to the Creation and
Organization of the Timberline and Prospect Special Improvement District No. 94 and
Providingfor the Construction of Improvements Therein.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 095, 2005 Amending Section 22-111 of the City Code
Pertaining to the Issuance of Bonds for Special Improvement Districts.
C. Resolution 2005-091 Submitting a Ballot Issue to the Registered Electors of the Proposed
Timberline and Prospect Special Improvement District No. 94 as Part of the Special City
Election on November 1, 2005.
D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 091, 2005, Authorizing Acquisition by Eminent Domain
Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in Connection
with the Timberline Road, Drake Road to Prospect Road Project.
E. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 084, 2005, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund- Timberline Road Improvements Project and Appropriating Prior
Year Reserves in the Street Oversizing Fund for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund-
Timberline Road Improvements Project to be used to Construct Improvements on Timberline
Road Between Drake and Prospect Roads.
The Timberline Road, Drake to Prospect Project is the most heavily congested intersection in the
City. In the absence oj'any 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 the majority property owners and have proposed the
initiation ofa special improvement district to distribute a portion ofthe costs through assessments
to other undeveloped property in the area benefitted by the improvements.
Resolution 2003-122 accepting the petition of the initiatingproperty owner and Resolution 2005-083
accepting the engineering report and setting the method ofassessment have previously been adopted
by Council. The primary item being considered is the actual creation by ordinance ofthe Timberline
and Prospect Special Improvement District No.94.
In the creation of any SID, there is an opportunity for Council to hear and consider objections and
protests. Notification of this hearing has been published and all property owners included in the
proposed SID No. 94 have been notified by first class mail as required.
The proposed Timberline and Prospect SID No. 94 will meet all of the adopted Council Policies
regarding Special Improvement Districts. The creation of a Special Improvement District will
spread the cost of the APF improvements to all undeveloped property which benefits from the
244
August 16, 2005
construction.
Ordinance No. 084, 2005, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 19, 2005.
BACKGROUND
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 City Capital funding mechanism for
the necessary improvements have not been successful.
The City's Adequate Public Facilities(APF) Ordinance does not allow any additional development
to impact.failing intersections. A conceptual estimate indicates that $2.5 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 is constructing the Sidehill development project on the east side of Timberline and
north ofDrake and the St. Charles Investment Group owns 80 acres 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$2.5 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
indicated a strategy ofwaiting until the improvements are made in order to benefit, while avoiding
any costs.
The James Company and the St. Charles Investment Group proposed the.formation of a special
improvement district as a financing mechanism to allow for fair and equitable assessment of all
benefluing property owners. The terms of the District would generally be:
1. The amount financed will be$2.5 million, or the amount needed to make the
"APF" improvements to the Timberline/Prospect intersection.
245
August 16, 2005
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 receive
the assessments, but would not incur any.financial liability. Actual payment
of the$2.5 million by the James Company and St. Charles Investment Group
will not occur until construction bidding (February 2006) to avoid
capitalized interest. Security in the form of a performance bond for $2.5
million will be necessary in order for development to continue during the
formation of the Special Improvement District.
3. The assessment method will be based on the APF ordinance and the benefit
of the district components to undeveloped property. Several factors,
including trip generation, trip distribution, delay and proximity to the
intersection within a one-mile radius are used to calculate the impact and
benefit for each property. Because the properties most significantly
benefitted by the removal of the APF requirement are the undeveloped
properties, it is only those undeveloped properties that will be assessed.
Additionally, many of the developed properties within the one-mile radius
have already contributed to improvements to this same intersection through
the payment ofStreet Oversizing Fees and through construction requirements
at the time they were developed. Some underutilized properties within the
one-mile radius but not included within the SID will have a repayment
obligation if they redevelop, and the amount to be assessed against the
undevelopedproperties will be reduced(by Second Reading)by the estimated
amount of that repayment obligation once that calculation has been made.
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).
The first two steps in creating this SID have already been taken. The majority property owner
submitted a petition asking for the creation of the district. A Resolution accepting the petition was
approved on November 4, 2003, which directed the City Engineer to draw up plans and an estimate
of the improvements.
Staff completed the engineering report for the District and a resolution adopting the plans,
specifications, estimated cost, and the method ofassessment,for the SID was approved on July 19,
2005.
Item A - Creation Ordinance
The first item presented for Council's consideration is the Ordinance which would create the SID.
In considering this Ordinance, Council should hear all objections and protests concerning the
creation ofthe District and the construction ofimprovements andshould determine whether creation
ofthe District is in the best interests ofthe City. The City has adopted Special Improvement District
criteria and policies set forth in the "Special Improvement Districts Manual, Section 11, Policies
as listed below.
246
August 16, 2005
1. All public improvements as described in Chapter 16 of the City Code shall
be eligible.for inclusion in an Improvement District. However, the City may
exclude certain improvements when it deems such improvements are not in
the best interests of the City.
2. The City reserves the right to deny the creation of any District.
3. The proposed District should be consistent with the Master Street Plan and
other planning documents of City. The District should have an approved
Master Plan. An approved Preliminary Plan maybe required if local street
or utility improvements are to be included within the District. The City may
also require a Storm Drainage Plan to be submitted.
4. The total cost of the District should not exceed the appraised value of the
improvements and the land to be included in the District.
5. The amount of encumbrances on the land in the District including the
assessments of the District should not exceed 90% of the value of the land
including the improvements without being acknowledged by subordinate lien
holders, or the posting ofa surety.from a recognized company for 100% of
the principal and interest of the construction cost of the District.
6. The cost to be borne by the City in a District must be currently available or
minimized and/or deferred through credits or other mechanisms.
7. The City has the option to require property owners within the District to
manage construction of the improvements themselves or through
Professional Engineers where it is to the City's advantage to do so and the
proposed managers can demonstrate experience and competence.
8. The City has the option to require privately managed Districts to bid and
award contracts for construction of the public improvements when provided
for in the District's Master Agreement and performed in conformance with
the City Charter.
9. Construction activities of District improvements should not cause
extraordinary inconvenience to properties choosing not to be a party to the
District.
10. Should a default in the assessment payments of a District occur, the City
shall have the right to immediately proceed with all legal remedies including
a tax deed and sale of the of land.
IL The City Manager may establish administrative policies and procedures for
the Improvement District process and may recommend appropriate fees to
the City Council.
247
August 16, 2005
12. Proposed improvements should benefit the City within a reasonable time
frame.
If the creation Ordinance is adopted by the Council, then, upon completion of construction of the
District improvements in 2006, Council will hear an Ordinance assessing the cost of the
improvements to the properties in the District for collection.
Item B - Code Amendment
As noted above, the City plans to reimburse the developers the $2.5 million they advanced, using
revenues generated by the SID assessments. To meet the requirements ofArticle XX, Section 10 of
the Colorado Constitution ("TABOR'), a special election ofSID property owners should be held on
the November ballot. The ballot question would be whether the City can repay the developers over
time through a multiple year agreement_If the ballot measure fails, the assessment payment would
be due in full immediately, so that the developers could be repaid within one calendar year.
Thus, the second item to be considered by the Council is a proposed amendment to the Code
authorizing this kind ofelection. The provision to be added to the Code is similar to one contained
in the State statutes dealing with special improvement districts but it includes elections to approve
multiple yearfinancial obligations, such as the one proposed here, as well as elections to authorize
the issuance of bonds.
The new Code language would,similar to the State language, enable the City Council to submit such
questions to just the electors in the special improvement district if the source of repayment will
consist solely of special assessments. However, if the source of repayment of the bonds or other
multiple yearfinancial obligation will be supported by a pledge ofother City revenues, the question
would have to be submitted to the City-wide electorate.
At the election, each owner of a parcel of property in the district will be entitled to cast one vote
either directly or, in the case ofan owner that is not an actual person, through a designated natural
person who is a registered elector in the State.
Item C-Ballot Question
The third item is a Resolution placing this question on the November ballot.
Item D -Eminent Domain
With the fourth item, staff is requesting authorization of eminent domain for all property
acquisitions in the Project, in case such action is necessary. Property owners were notified of the
upcoming project and its impacts and over the last several months staff has met with the affected
property owners. Their input was considered during the engineering design and helped resolve
many issues, including access, storm water, utility service and irrigation water.
Staff began negotiations for the purchase of necessary property interests with the property owners
and is completing appraisals.for offers to each property owner. Staff is optimistic that all property
248
August 16, 2005
negotiations can be completed in good faith prior to the start of the project. However, given the
timing of such a large construction project and scheduling the work of outside parties, such as the
railroad for its railroad crossing and the gas company for gas line relocations, timely acquisition
of the property interests is necessary.
All of property owners were notified by certified mail of this request to Council for
authorization of eminent domain.
Item E-Appropriations
The remaining item is related to the construction of the roadway improvements. The Second
Reading ofan appropriation ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on July
19, 2005 transfers money received from the developers and the Street Oversizing Fund into the
project account.
Summary
City departments are working together to include utilities and roadways needed for the planned
Police Facility, and will include these improvements in the roadway contract in order to save time
and money for the Police Facility Project.
Staff is also working with property owners who requested to have their frontage improved with this
project. Fleischli Enterprises andIntegrated Equities decided toparticipate in this projectfor their,
as well as the City's benefit. Both property owners agreed to contribute their local street portion
and are completing the engineering design along their frontages to include in the construction of
Timberline Road.
Summary of costs:
APF Improvements $2,500,000.00
City ofFort Collins Police Facilities $1,272,291.00
Sidehill Development $829,512.00
St. Charles Investments $354,014.00
Fleischli Enterprises $115,447.00
Integrated Equities $119,830.00
Street Oversizing Program $3,489,361.00
Total Construction Cost: $8,680,455.00
Construction is planned to start this fall with the widening of the bridge over Spring Creek,
expansion of the Great Western Railroad crossings on both Timberline and Prospect, and utility
relocations. Construction of the roadway improvements will begin in the spring of 2006 and be
completed by the end of the year.
Transportation Board Recommendation
249
August 16, 2005
Attached is a letter from Brent Thordarson, Transportation Board Chair, addressing the Board's
recommendation to the City Council pertaining to the Timberline Road SID. The Transportation
Board has been included in the design process and fully supports this project and the SID No. 94
.funding, which allows interim improvements to be built at this time. Although the Transportation
Board regrets that there is presently no additional capital sales tax available for the ultimate
improvements, there will be significant benefits to the transportation network by proceeding with
the construction of the interim improvements."
City Manager Atteberry introduced the agenda item.
Ron Phillips, Transportation Services Director, stated staff would have a brief presentation.
Matt Baker, Transportation Services, stated this agenda item included a public hearing and the
creation ordinance for the Timberline and Prospect Special Improvement District No.94. He stated
the Prospect/Timberline intersection was currently the highest efficiency segment in the City street
network with failing levels of service in both a.m.and p.m.peak hours. He stated backups extended
a half mile and more in both morning and evening rush hours. He stated the City had an Adequate
Public Facilities(APF)ordinance that prohibited any additional development that would impact the
failing intersection. He stated the ordinance provided that any new development within a one-mile
radius that negatively impacted the intersection could not proceed. He stated the City estimated that
$2.5 million would be required to improve the intersection to minimum levels of standards,and that
area developers had approached the City offering to fund those improvements. He stated the
developers had given the City$2.5 million to fund the APF improvements and had also petitioned
for the formation of an involuntary Special Improvement District to allow for a fair and equitable
participation of all undeveloped properties that would benefit from the improvements. He presented
information regarding project funding relating to the $2.5 million in improvements to be included
in the Special Improvement District. He stated the amount financed would be the $2.5 million
needed to make the APF improvements and that there would be no municipally backed bonds issued.
He stated financing would be through the developers using cash or private placement bonds. He
stated the City would be the collection agent through the Special Improvement District and that the
City would not incur any financial liabilities. He stated these would be intersection improvements
and that the assessment method would be based on the requirements of the APF ordinance i.e. that
undeveloped property within a one-mile radius that would generate trips negatively impacting the
intersection by adding 2%ormore to the delaywould be unable to develop until these improvements
would be made. He stated an analysis had been completed of property within a one-mile radius,
including public property, vacant property, underdeveloped property and properties beginning
development. He stated trip generation figures into the Prospect/Timberline intersection were
developed for each parcel based on the Structure Plan and the zoning. He stated the delay added to
the intersection for each parcel was calculated and that if the delay was less than 2% the APF
ordinance would not apply to that parcel. He stated those properties generating more than a 2%
delay were included in the District based on the APF ordinance. He stated undeveloped parcels
currently restricted from developing would benefit from the construction of the improvements. He
stated an appraisal of the District had been completed to determine the market value of the property
today and upon development once the improvements would be made. He stated the range of benefit
would be $4.6 million to $6.8 million and that the SID cost would be $2.5 million. He stated the
Council had taken the first two steps in the SID process to accept the petition,prepare the plans and
250
August 16, 2005
approve the assessment method. He stated notification had been sent to all property owners being
assessed. He stated this agenda item included the public hearing and Council consideration of the
creation ordinance. He stated the assessment of property would be done after the construction of the
improvements once the final costs were tallied. He stated TABOR required a vote of property
owners to allow a multi-year financial obligation and that the agenda item included a housekeeping
item to clarify the City Code relating to Special Improvement District assessments as related to
TABOR and a Resolution placing the SID assessment question on the November 2005 ballot. He
stated the last two items were project related:blanket authorization for eminent domain proceedings
on the entire project and Second Reading of the appropriation ordinance funding the project. He
stated all property owners being assessed had been notified by certified mail of the public hearing.
He stated after the hearing the Council should determine whether the creation of the District was in
the City's best interest. He stated the Code set out some of the factors that the Council could
consider in making this determination. He stated the pertinent considerations set out in the Code
were the City-wide benefits of the improvements, the appraised value of the property in relation to
the value of the improvements,and the input received by the Council at the public hearing. He stated
there was an option for the City to exempt or reduce the amount of assessment on any property in
accordance with Section 22-62(e)of the Code. He stated the City Attorney had some minor changes
to the Resolution relating to the ballot issue. He stated the City had met with each property owner
regarding the project and that there had been positive negotiations with all property owners. He
stated those negotiations would continue and that the bridge and utility locations must be constructed
this winter in order for the road construction to proceed next spring. He stated the authorization for
eminent domain would give the City the opportunity to continue the acquisition and begin
construction with immediate possession while value negotiations continued in good faith. He
presented visual information relating to the proposed Prospect/Timberline intersection
improvements.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the public hearing regarding the Special Improvement District would
convene and that the Council would consider the individual items that made up this agenda item
separately.
Dan Winzinger,representing the three developers funding the$2.5 million for the project,thanked
the City for working toward an objective solution to the "disproportionate burden" faced by the
developers due to the APF ordinance. He stated the SID would equitably and objectively allocate
that burden to all parties affected by the APF ordinance now and in the future. He thanked City staff
for their efforts and asked the Council for its support in accomplishing the formation of this SID.
Brian Schumm, 5948 Colby Street, stated the Structure Plan had been referenced in presentations
about this SID. He stated he did not understand how the City used the Structure Plan in a "total
way." He stated the Structure Plan was used in this case to identify a future use of property not
consistent with the current zoning. He stated it was important and fair to property owners subject
to the Structure Plan that the staff not "willy nilly" change the Structure Plan. He stated the
Structure Plan should only be changed by taking it to the Council or through rezoning based on
unique circumstances. He stated he had been "banned" by the staff changing the Structure Plan
"willy nilly."
251
August 16, 2005
Councilmember Weitkunat requested clarification regarding the possibly"erroneous" information
presented by Mr. Schumm. She stated the Structure Map was not a "zoning map" and that it was a
"best guess future look"at the community. She stated it could not be changed"willy nilly"and must
be go through an amendment process. City Attorney Roy stated the Structure Plan was part of City
Plan and that it was a guide to future zoning decisions. He stated it could be changed only by a vote
of the Council. He stated staff took the position that the boundaries on the Structure Plan were not
like boundaries on a zoning map but were"softer"guides. He stated Mr. Schumm continued to raise
the issue relating to a property that is in the County that was to be considered for annexation under
the Intergovernmental Agreement with the County. He stated staff made a recommendation about
the zoning of the property in the County that was inconsistent with the Structure Plan. He stated
there were many circumstances relating to the matter,including an illegal use in the County,and that
this was not brought forward for consideration for annexation because the Code provided that
properties with illegal uses in voluntary annexations could not be annexed. He stated the Structure
Plan could only be amended by the Council and that Mr. Schumm had also raised a question about
the propriety of staff making recommendations to the County with regard to properties in the County
that might be inconsistent with the Structure Plan. Phillips stated the statement made by Baker in
relation to the appraisal process was that both the Structure Plan and the current zoning on the
parcels were used by the appraiser in developing the appraisal of the properties and in determining
the possible future benefit to the properties.
(Secretary's Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point.)
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy,to adopt Ordinance No.
090, 2005 on First Reading.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would like the record to reflect that the Council had considered
the City's interest in this matter and believed that it was in the best interest of the City to create the
Special Improvement District. She stated the improvements would have a City-wide benefit and that
the appraised value of the property was far greater than the value of the improvements. She stated
the Council had also determined that the petitioners could pay. She stated it was in the City's best
interest to create the District.
Councilmember Kastein stated the creation of the District was a"good thing"and that he appreciated
the collaboration between the developers, the property owners and the City. He stated this would
be a "win-win" for everyone.
Councilmember Roy thanked the staff for the quality of work done on this project.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the creation of the SID was appropriate and an"innovative'way to address
a community problem in a collaborative manner.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Ohlson, Roy, and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
252
August 16, 2005
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson,to adopt Ordinance No.
095,2005 on First Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows:Yeas:Councilmembers Brown,
Hutchinson, Kastein, Ohlson, Roy, and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein to adopt Resolution
2005-091 with corrections to the ballot language recommended by the City Attorney to eliminate the
word"proposed"in the title and in the body of the ballot language and to insert in front of the dollar
amounts in the first line "by up to" and in the second line"of up to." The vote on the motion was
as follows:Yeas:Councilmembers Brown,Hutchinson,Kastein,Ohlson,Roy,and Weitkunat. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Ordinance
No. 091, 2005 on First Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Ohlson, Roy, and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson,to adopt Ordinance No.
084, 2005 on Second Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Ohlson, Roy, and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Phillips recognized staff members who worked on this agenda item.
Resolution 2005-092
Submitting to the Registered Electors of the City an Ordinance Extending the Existing
Twenty-Five Hundredths Percent (0.25%) "Community Enhancement'
Capital Projects Sales and Use Tax on All Taxable Items Except Food for a
Period of Ten Years for the Purpose of Obtaining Revenue for Certain
"Building on Basics" Capital Projects and Related Operation and Maintenance. Adopted.
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
The extension of the one-quarter cent sales and use tax will result in $5.6 million of revenue
available per year for designated capital improvement projects. The taxis currently set to expire
on December 31, 2005. The term of the tax extension is January 1, 2006 through December 31,
2015 (10 years) and the total yield will be S56 million (2005 constant dollars)
253
August 16, 2005
The financial impact on taxpayers will be a continuation of the current one-quarter cent sales and
use tax on all taxable purchases except food. This will result in a continued tax of 25 cents on a
$100 taxable purchase.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council has worked with citizens, staff, and boards and commissions over the past months to
develop a list of projects for voters to consider funding through the extension of the current one-
quarter cent capital sales tax. City Council has considered the list of possible projects at several
recent work sessions and has developed a list of projects to place before the voters. This list
includes 13 projects, totaling$51.8 million in capital costs and$4.4 million in associated operations
and maintenance costs for the first 7 years of operational life of each project.
The Resolution places the question of whether to extend the sales and use tax before the voters on
the November 1, 2005 ballot. Voters will be asked to approve the list of projects and several
provisions within the Ordinance that will guide the construction of the projects.
BACKGROUND
In early 2005, staffpresented City Council with a list of34 high priority projeets.for consideration
as part of the Building on Basics sales tax program. The projects total over$189 million in funds
needed, and cross many different service needs, including roads/multi-modal projects, transit,
bike/pedestrian projects, libraries, cultural facilities,parks and recreation,police and natural areas.
Theproject list was based on adopted City masterplans, including the Transportation Master Plan,
Parks Master Plan, Cultural Facilities Plan,Library Master Plan, General Governmental Facilities
Master Plan and Natural Areas Policy Plan. During 2004, the City conducted extensive outreach
with citizens via Open Houses, Web Surveys, speaker's bureau, newsletters, newspaper articles and
columns, City Council meetings, and the City website. City Council has also received
recommendations from boards and commissions including the Transportation Board, Parks and
Recreation Board, Cultural Resources Board, Library Board, Natural Resources Advisory Board,
Senior Advisory Board and Air Quality Board.
During the past several months, City Council has met several times to review the proposed projects
and develop a list of projects to present to voters at the November 1, 2005 election. On August 9,
2005, City Council directed staff to prepare an Ordinance and ballot language that will include 13
projects with a total cost of$56.2 million. The final list includes the following projects:
• Intersection Improvements and Tra e Signals(including Harmony/College)
• Timberline Road-Drake Road to Prospect Road
• Harmony Road- Seneca Street to College Avenue
• Lincoln Center Renovation and Cultural Facilities Plan
• Park Upgrades and Enhancements
• Fort Collins Senior Center Improvements
• Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Joint Facility
• Fort Collins Bicycle Program Implementation
• Pedestrian Plan and Disability Access Improvements
• North College Avenue Improvements Phase 2 - Vine Drive to Conifer Street
254
August 16, 2005
• Transit Fleet Vehicle Replacement
• Library Technology
• Police Services CADIRMSIJMS Replacement Project
The list represents a package ofprojects that should appeal to a variety of voters while addressing
basic needs and critical deficiencies in several categories. The package is allocated 56% to
Transportation needs, 43%to Cultural,Library and Recreational projects and I%to Police Services
capital needs.
Highlights of the Ordinance/Ballot Language
Staff has developed a Resolution to place an Ordinance before the voters which will renew the
Building Community Choices sales and use tax currently set to expire December 31, 2005. The
Resolution refers the issue of renewal of the tax to the voters at the November 1, 2005 special City
election. The Ordinance, which will be adopted if the measure is approved by the voters, includes
several provisions which will be used in the implementation of the Building on Basics capital plan.
Provisions include:
• A tax term of 10 years (January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2015)
• At least 7 years of Operations and Maintenance costs for projects
• A provision that any excess revenues remaining after all projects are
completed and at least 7 years of operation and maintenance has been
provided will be directed to any capital project or additional operation and
maintenance ofBOB projects, as directed by City Council.
• Detailed information about the implementation of the tax such as permission
,for Council to decide on the project schedule, specific costs and scope within
general project description.
• A contingency that requires that City funds be expended on the
Museum/Discovery Science Center Joint Facility project upon successful
private_fundraisingforDSCportionoftheproject. The DSC will be required
to raise, have pledges or "in-kind" contributions valued at $3.6 million
before Building on Basics.funding will be available for the project.
The Resolution also includes the detailed ballot language that will appear on the November 1, 2005
special City election ballot. The ballot language presents a bulleted list ofl3 projects for the voters
to approve as a package. Thefull text ofthe Ordinance and Exhibit "A"(Project Descriptions)will
be included in the TABOR notice sent to each voter household prior to the election. "
City Manager Atteberry introduced the agenda item and stated this was the culmination of two years
of work by boards and commissions, City Council and staff. He stated staff strongly recommended
Council adoption of the Resolution.
255
August 16, 2005
Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager, stated Building Community Choices(BCC)began in 1998 and
was due to sunset in December of this year. She stated two of the quarter-cent packages that were
part of BCC had already been renewed. She stated a quarter-cent for natural areas was renewed by
voters until 2025,and that a quarter-cent package for street maintenance was approved by voters last
November. She stated this third package would address community enhancements. She stated the
last round of projects included the new horticulture center,Fossil Creek Community Park,the second
sheet of ice at EPIC, and transportation projects. She stated Council was being asked to consider a
quarter-cent package earmarked for additional community enhancements. She stated the key projects
being considered for submission to the voters were cultural facilities,libraries,parks and recreation
facilities,police services and transportation. She thanked the Council for its work in reviewing the
projects that had been considered through the process. She stated about 56% ($29.4 million)of the
proposed funding would be for transportation projects; that cultural, library and recreation services
would account for about 43% ($24.7 million); that police services equipment would be about 1%
of the package($2.1 million); and that the total package represented$56.2 million over the 10 years
of the package. She stated the transportation projects included Harmony Road from Seneca to
College Avenue, North College Avenue from Vine to Conifer, Timberline Road from Drake to
Prospect, intersection and traffic signal projects throughout the system, bus vehicle replacements,
and implementation of the master bicycle program and the natural plan for pedestrian facilities. She
stated Council was being asked to adopt a Resolution that would place the Ordinance on the ballot.
She stated the tax package would be for a ten-year term and would include seven years of operations
and maintenance for selected projects. She stated any excess revenue at the end of the ten-year term
would go to other capital or additional O&M for Building on Basics projects as determined by the
Council. She stated Council would set the schedule,the cost and the scope of the individual projects
once the package was approved by the voters. She stated the museum and the Discovery Science
Center would come up with $3.6 million of in-kind and cash pledges to match the museum project.
She stated TABOR notices would be mailed to voters on September 30, that the voter registration
deadline was October 3, and that election day would be on November 1.
Ann Tumquist,City Manager's Office,thanked Deputy City Manager Jones for her leadership in this
matter and recognized the rest of the staff team that worked on the package.
Mayor Hutchinson thanked the staff for their in-depth work on this package.
Seth Dilday, 1225 West Prospect Road,stated there should be a critical examination of the proposed
tax package to determine if it was "just, necessary, honest and responsible." He stated he had
questions and concerns about the proposal. He questioned why the tax was being"sold as a capital
improvements plan"when 56%was to be allocated to transportation projects that should be budgeted
out of the General Fund. He asked why a tax for capital improvements included a large library
technology component that included salaries. He asked why there would be$200,000 for a cultural
facilities plan to"figure out how to spend money." He asked why the plan did not fund operations
and maintenance throughout the life of the tax. He asked why operations and maintenance
projections did not take inflation into account. He asked why the City Council wanted to craft a
proposal with the intent of"selling it to the citizens."
256
August 16, 2005
A]Baccili,520 Galaxy Court,expressed opposition to extending the quarter-cent sales tax and stated
he opposed continuation of the vendor fee. He stated the open space tax and the vendor fee should
be used instead of extending the BCC tax. He stated ten years was too long for a tax.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, stated the ideas for the tax increase were promulgated
by the City staff rather than by the citizens. He suggested that there should be a citizen committee
to look at such tax packages. He stated at least half of the projects were being promulgated to"sell'
the continuation of the tax to various special interest groups. He stated the Senior Center expansion
project was on the list to get the vote of senior citizens and that the expansion would compete with
private health clubs. He stated the Lincoln Center project may not be needed because CSU had spent
a lot of money making the old Fort Collins High School into a performance center. He stated he
most people could use the Internet at home and did not need to go to a museum or library for
information. He stated the money could be better spent on broad band Internet access for the
community. He stated three alternative transit projects (bicycle, pedestrian and Transfort buses)
would have limited use.
Annette Giselman, Executive Director of Discovery Science Center, thanked the City for creating
a balanced package and for supporting a museum/Discovery Science Center partnership. She stated
35,000 visitors came to the Discovery Science Center and that the partnership would provide an
opportunity to create "something unique" in the community. She stated the Discovery Science
Center was committed to bringing private dollars to the project.
Mayor Hutchinson stated O&M was carefully considered and that the time frame for that was
shortened because O&M funding was not needed for a building or facility that had not been built or
changed yet. He stated this package reflected the "widest ranging thinking" about a variety of
options and that it was a balanced package supported by many people for specific reasons. He stated
these projects would be enhancements for Fort Collins. He stated it would be up to the voters to
decide whether the package should be approved.
Councilmember Roy asked how long the process had been to create this package. City Manager
Atteberry stated the process had taken at least two years. He stated there had been significant citizen
input and boards and commissions involvement.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the idea behind Building on Basics was to take care of the basics
that the community had in place. She stated there was no funding stream for taking care of those
basics. She stated the museum and the Discovery Science Center were existing"jewels" that had
not had community funding. She stated the funding would take care of things,such as North College
Avenue, that were already in existence. She stated it would be up to the voters to decide whether
they were willing to support the package.
Councilmember Brown stated this package was "good work'by the staff. He stated the Council
looked at many different proposals and determined the balanced list to be submitted to the voters.
He stated the package tried to "do something for everybody." He stated the voters would have the
final word on accepting the package, which he believed would benefit Fort Collins.
257
August 16, 2005
Councilmember Kastein asked for confirmation that the ballot language did not mention the
percentage that would go toward O&M. City Attorney Roy stated it did not.
Councilmember Kastein stated the Ordinance did mention the seven-year term for O&M. City
Attorney Roy stated the Ordinance was referenced in the ballot language and that it referenced the
seven years of maintenance and left it to Council's discretion to determine project design costs,
scheduling and amount of maintenance to be funded. He stated Council could determine that O&M
should exceed seven years.
Councilmember Kastein asked about adding succinct language in the ballot language to allude to the
minimum seven-year O&M. City Attorney Roy stated he would like to hear thoughts from other
Councilmembers on adding such language. He stated he would need some time to determine what
changes would need to be made to the ballot language.
Councilmember Kastein stated the ballot language did not give specifies relating to maintenance and
that he believed that it would be clearer to add language. City Attorney Roy stated his understanding
was that Councilmember Kastein was asking whether or not Council believed that it was advisable
to indicate in the ballot language itself the fact that the revenues would be used to fund at least seven
years of O&M on the projects.
Councilmember Roy asked how much more detail Councilmember Kastein believed should be
included in the ballot language.
Councilmember Kastein stated he would like to include language reflecting that revenues would be
used to fund at least seven years of O&M on the projects.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he had no strong objections to the addition of this language.
Councilmember Weitkunat questioned adding more language to the ballot language and stated this
was included in the Ordinance referenced in the ballot language. She stated additional language
tended to complicate the measure.
Mayor Hutchinson stated he tended to agree with Councilmember Weitkunat. He stated adding
specifics would be difficult when it would not be possible to explain in the ballot language why
O&M would not be fully funded.
Councilmember Kastein stated his intent was to add language reflecting that at least seven years of
O&M would be funded.
Mayor Hutchinson stated this could appear to indicate that only 70% of O&M was being funded,
when in fact 100%of the O&M was actually being funded since O&M funding would not be needed
until the facility was completed. Turnquist stated the intent was that Council would schedule when
the projects and costs would come on-line. City Manager Atteberry stated he would agree with the
Mayor's statement.
258
August 16, 2005
Councilmember Ohlson stated he agreed in concept with the Mayor and Councilmember W eitkunat
but that he could understand Councilmember Kastein's concern. He asked if the current language
could imply that it would permanently fund the O&M costs. He stated he wanted the ballot language
to be as clear as possible and that he would favor adding "at least seven years of operations and
maintenance."
Mayor Hutchinson stated he preferred language that indicated that O&M would be funded for the
projects for the life of the tax.
Councilmember Kastein stated the life of the projects would extend longer than seven years and that
the City would incur $600,000 in O&M costs per year after the expiration of the seven years of
O&M funded by the tax.
Mayor Hutchinson stated he believed that it was an accurate statement to say that the tax would fund
100% of the O&M for the life of the tax. City Manager Atteberry stated O&M funding would
continue beyond the life of the tax since projects would not come on-line at the beginning of the tax.
Councilmember Kastein stated in some cases O&M would be covered for a period of time shorter
than the life of the tax and in some cases O&M would be covered after the expiration of the tax. He
stated it was more accurate to say that seven years of O&M would be covered for each project.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the discussion reflected the complicated nature of the matter. She
stated addition of O&M language could complicate the ballot language for the voters.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he wanted language that could be supported fully by all
Councilmembers.
Councilmember Kastein stated he would support the Resolution in any case. He stated he wanted
to ensure that the voters understood that there would be an O&M obligation for the City beyond the
term of the tax.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if the City Attorney had a recommendation. City Attorney Roy stated he
would recommend a change in the body of the Ordinance and that Council determine whether there
should be a change to the ballot language. He stated language could be added after the word
"construction"the language"and at least seven years of O&M." He stated when a project came on-
line that the tax would fund at least seven years of O&M from that point forward. He suggested that
Section 2(a) of the Ordinance be amended as follows: "The design, scheduling and amount of tax
revenues to be set aside for the construction and operation and maintenance of said project shall be
determined by the Council, provided however that no decision regarding the design or cost of any
such project shall FUND LESS THAN SEVEN (7) YEARS OF O&M FOR EACH SUCH
PROJECT, OR SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE THE CHARACTER . . . ."
Councilmember Roy stated he agreed with the ballot language change suggested by Councilmember
Kastein and the change to the Ordinance recommended by the City Attorney.
Mayor Hutchinson stated he would support the changes.
259
August 16, 2005
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Resolution
2005-092 with an amendment to the Ordinance contained in the Resolution to read as follows: "The
design,scheduling and amount of tax revenues to be set aside for the construction and operation and
maintenance of said project shall be determined by the Council,provided however that no decision
regarding the design or cost of any such project shall FUND LESS THAN SEVEN (7)YEARS OF
O&M FOR EACH SUCH PROJECT, OR SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE THE CHARACTER . .
. ." and with an amendment to the ballot language to add language that seven years of O&M would
be covered for each project.
Councilmember Roy stated,except for the open space tax,this would be the first time that a City tax
included coverage of O&M. He stated he supported the package overall and that he particularly
supported the Discovery Science Center and North College projects. He stated the project list would
have "great value' for the City.
Councilmember Kastein stated the Council was trying to do things in a straightforward manner and
wanted people to understand exactly what was being proposed. He stated he was supportive of the
list of projects which dealt primarily with infrastructure (transportation and police) and also with
amenities offered by the City.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he strongly supported the package of projects offered to the voters
for approval. He stated this would not be a tax increase and that it was the continuation of an
existing tax.
Mayor Hutchinson stated this was a well crafted package and that it would be up to the people.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Ohlson, Roy, and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to Placing Proposed Charter
Amendments on the November 1, 2005 Ballot, Adopted
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 093, 2005, Submitting to a Vote of the Registered Electors
of the City of Fort Collins a Proposed Amendment to Article H of the City Charter,
Pertaining to Publication of Ordinances.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 094, 2005, Submitting to a Vote of the Registered Electors
of the City of Fort Collins a Proposed Amendment to Article VIII of the City Charter,
Pertaining to the Board of Elections.
260
August 16, 2005
These Ordinances place individual Charter amendments on the November 1, 2005 Special Election
ballot.
BACKGROUND
The City Council has adopted ordinance No. 081, 2005, calling a special election to be held on
November 1, 2005 in conjunction with the Lorimer County Coordinated Election. Ifadopted, these
two Ordinances will submit Charter amendments, described below, to the voters at the November
1 election.
Publication of Ordinances
Article II, Section 7 of the City Charter presently provides that every proposed ordinance, except
an emergency ordinance, must be published once in full at least seven days before its final passage
in a newspaper ofgeneral circulation published in the city. Article II, Section 7 also provides.for
publication of a notice offinal passage of an ordinance.
Staff believes it would be more cost effective to publish ordinances,prior to final passage, in full on
the City's web site, and by number and title only in the newspaper, which is estimated to result in
a 63% reduction in advertising costs ($10,000 savings annually). Any publication by number and
title only will include a statement that the full text of each ordinance is available for public
inspection and acquisition in the office of the City Clerk and on the Internet web site.
Board of Elections
The Election Board was created in 1954. The purpose of the Election Board is to assist with the
conduct of elections and to certify the election results. The Election Board consists of two citizens
appointed by the City Council, and the City Clerk.
Prior to the age of technology and mail ballot elections, the Election Board was very involved in the
conduct ofelections. Election Board members recruited individuals to serve aspollingplacejudges,
often relying on friends, relatives and church members. This was truly a.function benefttted by
community networking. However, as technology developed to manage lists of volunteers using
databases, it became more efficient for staff to assume the role of recruiting and managing polling
place judges. Certification of election results has also become effortless through the use of
technology. In the past, verification of the results was an exercise in calculation and recalculation
until the Board was satisfied that the numbers were accurate.
In 1995, when the City conducted its first mail ballot election, the need for polling place judges
became obsolete. Since 1995, the role of theElection Board has continually declined. In 2005, with
only one citizen member in place on the Board, the role was limited to certifying the results of the
election. Sophisticated election equipment and tabulation software now handle the tabulation
process with proven accuracy. Procedures for testing election machines and tabulation software
prior to counting ballots ensure accurate results. There is no need to manually recalculate results.
It is still important to have a body of authority certify election results. This proposed Charter
amendment recommends that the sole remaining function of the Election Board with regard to
261
August 16, 2005
certification be transferred to a "canvass board"consisting of the City Clerk, the ChiefDeputy City
Clerk, and the Municipal Judge, all of whom are sworn to uphold the Constitution and the laws of
the United States and the State of Colorado and the Charter and Ordinances of'Fort Collins.
ff this Charter amendment is approved by the voters on November 1, staff will bring an ordinance
to Council before the end of the year to amend Chapter 7 of the City Code which contains references
to the Board of Elections, and Section 2-493 of the City Code relating to the duties ofthe Municipal
Judge. "
City Manager Attebeny introduced the agenda item.
City Clerk Krajicek presented background information relating to the agenda item. She stated two
Ordinances were proposed to place Charter amendments on the November 1 ballot. She stated
Ordinance No. 093, 2005 would propose a Charter amendment that would allow publication of
ordinances by number and title in the newspaper and in full on the City's website. She stated there
would be text in the publication giving notice that the ordinances were available in full in the City
Clerk's Office and on the City's website. She stated Ordinance No. 094, 2005 would eliminate the
Election Board from the Charter and replace it with a Canvass Board that would be responsible for
certifying the election results and that would be made up of the City Clerk, the Chief Deputy City
Clerk and the Municipal Judge.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adopt Ordinance No.
093, 2005 on First Reading.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he liked to see all ordinances printed in the newspaper but would
support this change because Council had asked staff to cut costs wherever possible without
dramatically impacting services.
Mayor Hutchinson stated people would have two options to get a full copy of all ordinances.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the two Charter amendments reflected progress.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Ohlson, Roy, and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Kastein,to adopt Ordinance No.
094,2005 on First Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows:Yeas Councilmembers Brown,
Hutchinson, Kastein, Ohlson, Roy, and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2005-093
Authorizing the City Manager to Enter Into a Grant Agreement with the
262
August 16, 2005
State Board of the Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund for the
Inspiration Playground at Spring Canyon Community Park,Adopted
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
The City of Fort Collins has been awarded a grant of$200,000 from Great Outdoors Colorado for
the development of the Inspiration Playground at Spring Canyon Community Park. The grant
request was made in partnership with All Children Together(ACT), agroup ofdedicated community
members committed to raising funds for the playground. The total cost for the playground is
estimated at about $1,000,000. The Colorado Eagles Foundation has agreed to match gifts from
the community, dollar for dollar, up to $250,000. Funding from park impact fees is available for
the City's share ($300,000) of the playground. Pursuant to GOCO regulations the City has until
July of 2007 to construct the playground.
Funding for the operation and maintenance of the playground and.for Spring Canyon Community
Park is expected through the Budgeting,for Outcomes process.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Council-adopted Parks and Recreation Policy Plan identifies the development of the Spring
Canyon Community Park as the City's sixth community park. Community parks are designed to
serve the recreational needs of about 20,000 people. The City has been collecting impact fees to
build this park since 1996. Comm unityparks are developed with large playgrounds that contain a
variety of play equipment that can be enjoyed by children of all ages. The City's funding for
playgrounds is sufficient to comply with the guidelines contained in the Americans with Disabilities
Act. However, these guidelines do not fully integrate play and socializing between able-bodied
children and children with disabilities.
A fully accessible playground with a play surface and equipment that can be enjoyed by more
children with disabilities would be a significant addition to our park system and a great benefit to
our community. There are presently about 4,000 children with disabilities in our community who
will be able to play along side of able-bodied children at this playground. An Inspiration
Playground has additional elements that allow for children to play side-by-side on sensory rich
structures that encourage integration and the development of cognitive, emotional,physical, and
social skills for all children. The playground will include a water splash play area that will also be
accessible.
The City's public design process in 2004 included information about an Inspiration Playground at
the Spring Canyon Park. The concept for the playground was well received by the community.
Olander Elementary School, adjacent to the park, houses a severe, adaptive skills and moderate
needs program. This program serves children with special needs in a .full-inclusive model.
Currently, the school has very limited play equipment that promotes the full inclusion ofall children.
A new sidewalk will link the school directly to the Inspiration Playground in the park. "
263
August 16, 2005
Councilmember Kastein withdrew from participation on this agenda item due to a perceived conflict
of interest.
(Secretary's Note: Councilmember Kastein left the meeting at this point.)
City Manager Atteberry introduced the agenda item and stated this item represented a "fantastic"
partnership between the City and other organizations.
Craig Foreman, Parks Planning Director, stated the playgrounds in community parks were being
upgraded to improve enjoyment and accessibility for all children. He stated there had been
considerable public participation on the project and that the City had received Great Outdoors
Colorado grant for$200,000.
Bob Powell,All Children Together,Inc.board member,stated about 10%of the children in Northern
Colorado were notable to play in atypical community playground because of a disability. He stated
the new state-of-the-art for playground was greater accessibility for all children. He stated
completing the Spring Canyon Park playground to the state-of-the-art standards would require about
$875,000 ($500,000 more than the budget). He stated the group was within $175,000 of meeting
the $500,000 funding goal and that the Colorado Eagles organization was matching every dollar
raised by the community up to $250,000. He stated the group had been successful in obtaining the
top level grant from Great Outdoors Colorado. He stated this would be the first universally
accessible playground in the State.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to adopt
Resolution 2005-093.
Mayor Hutchinson stated this Resolution related to the GOCO portion of the project. He stated this
was an example of"excellence" and "innovation" for Fort Collins resulting from partnerships.
Councilmember Brown stated this was an excellent project.
Councilmember Weitkunat thanked everyone who was involved in the partnership. She suggested
that an effort be made to involve the School District in financial assistance for the project since
Olander Elementary School would use the park and playground. Foreman stated the School District
would be paying a share of the sidewalk costs.
Councilmember Ohlson stated this was a great project and that this type of agenda item made it"fun
to be a Councilmember."
Councilmember Roy thanked Brownie McGraw of All Children Together,Inc.forherhelp in getting
this project done. He also recognized former Mayor Martinez' efforts in keeping this project alive
in its early stages.
Mr. Powell recognized former board member Bill Neal for his efforts in getting the project going.
264
August 16, 2005
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Ohlson, Roy,
and Weitkunat. Nays: None. (Councilmember Kastein withdrawn)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Secretary's Note: Councilmember Kastein returned to the meeting at this point.)
Other Business
Councilmember Kastein noted that he had missed the discussion about the Open Space Yes board
that was to be created and asked if the Council had discussed whether the Council would be the final
authority on purchases.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the ballot language called for the Council to appoint an existing board or
create a new board to advise and make recommendations on purchases. He stated Council would
have the final authority on purchases. He stated his recollection of the discussion was that staff
would use its discretion within Council policy guidelines to decide when purchases would be
brought forward for the Council to consider.
Councilmember Ohlson spoke regarding the history of the Natural Resources Advisory Board
discussions on the new board. He stated he believed that the intent was that easements and leases
and bigger or controversial purchases would come to the Council. He stated there were reasons not
to have every purchase go through the Council ordinance process because of the sensitivity of
negotiations. He stated there was no intent to "exclude" the Council and that there had been
extensive discussion that indicated that the Council wanted to be involved in the process and wanted
to be kept informed.
Councilmember Kastein questioned having only high profile purchases come before the Council.
He stated be believed that the Council had an obligation and responsibility to sign-off on"significant
purchases."
Mayor Hutchinson stated the consensus ofthe Council reflected Councilmember Kastein's comment.
He stated staff would be coming back with details on the process and criteria.
Executive Session Authorized
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adjourn into
Executive Session under Sections 2-31(a)(]),2-31(a)(2)and 2-31(a)(3)of the City Code to discuss
personnel matters and to confer with attorneys for the City regarding litigation and related legal
issues and possible property acquisition. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Ohlson, Roy, and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
265
August 16, 2005
Mayor Hutchinson stated there would be no other business following the Executive Session except
adjournment.
(Secretary's Note: Council reconvened following the Executive Session at 10:40 p.m.)
Adiournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
266