Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 05/16/2006 - CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE A ITEM NUMBER: 6 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: May16, 2006 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Wanda Krajicek SUBJECT Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the April 4, 2006 Regular Meeting. April 4, 2006 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council-Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting- 6:00 p.m. A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, April 4, 2006, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy. Citizen Participation Mayor Hutchinson stated each participant would have three minutes to speak. Sandy Robbins, 5801 South Shields Street, questioned the payment of dues by the City to the Colorado Municipal League and the Colorado Association of Municipal Utilities, which were lobbying against a bill that would allow residents of areas being forcibly annexed to vote on the annexation. Courtney Przybylski, Director of Community Affairs for ASCSU, stated ASCSU was electing officers and a CSU Unity Event would be held on April 8. Joe Collins, 839 Langdale Drive, Kel-Mar Strip business owner and director of Citizens Against Forced Annexation, spoke against the Southwest Enclave Annexation. He stated the biggest issue relating to the annexation was the lack of a comprehensive plan for the annexation area. Alexis Maxwell, 1216 South Bryan Avenue,read a petition from members of the CSU community opposing the current noise ordinance, asking for decibel level standards to measure the severity of violations and requesting alternatives to automatic tickets, such as issuance of warnings and community service. Heather Rice, 226B West Laurel Street, expressed concerns regarding the current noise ordinance and described the experience of a friend who received a misdemeanor ticket under the ordinance. Andrew Vaughan,411 Myrtle Street,spoke regarding his experience with receiving a misdemeanor ticket for a noise violation. He asked Council to make the noise ordinance more specific. Mike Floren, 1512 Emigh Street, expressed concerns about the existing noise ordinance and its effects on CSU students. 435 April4, 2006 Ray Alman, 6001 South College Avenue, stated there should be benefits to the residents if the Southwest Enclave was annexed to the City and the City had not come up with any proposal to show what the benefits to the residents would be. Bob and Judy Brown, Greenbriar Village Homeowners Association, expressed concerns about the potential problems that would be created by the proposed homeless day shelter to be built by United Way in the single-family residential neighborhood. She also expressed concern about the possibility of a traditional homeless shelter on property adjoining the homeless day shelter. Carrol Chesneny,329 Butch Cassidy Drive, Sundance Hills Homeowners Association,opposed the proposed homeless day shelter in Greenbriar Village. Roxanne Servine, 507 Fox Glove Court, spoke in opposition to the proposed homeless day shelter at the Greenbriar location. Tom Bollinger, 524 Sundance Court, opposed the homeless day shelter in the residential area. Don Butler, 540 South Taft Hill Road,Homeless Day Shelter Committee,stated he had come to the conclusion that Conifer Street would not be a good area for a homeless shelter. He stated the committee would like to work in a positive way to help the homeless and a regional task force may be needed to find a better place for the homeless. Billy Henson, 518 Fox Glove Court, Greenbriar Homeowners Association, stated the proposed homeless shelter would have a separation between the men and the women and children because many of the women and children were "afraid of these men." The residents of the area were not given complete information about the shelter. He noted many of the homeless people would be from areas other than Fort Collins. He stated the misinformation created many problems. Gary Thompson, business owner in the proposed Southwest Enclave Annexation, spoke in opposition to the annexation. Citizen Participation Follow-up Mayor Hutchinson thanked everyone who spoke during Citizen Participation. He stated during an interview with the Coloradoan he described how the Council was investigating ways to mitigate the impacts of the Southwest Enclave Annexation. He believed all issues would be formally addressed by the Council in some way. Councilmember Manvel thanked those who spoke about the homeless shelter issues. He stated the City was continuing to work with neighborhoods and the North Fort Collins Business Association to try to resolve the issue in a way that would be satisfactory to everyone. Councilmember Roy stated the noise ordinance was not directed at CSU students. He was interested in looking at ways to measure decibel levels in an objective way. He noted the noise ordinance had some positive impacts for those whose lives had been disrupted by noise. 436 Apri14, 2006 Councilmember Ohlson asked if the City Manager would provide the requested information on dues paid to CML and CAMU. City Manager Atteberry replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Ohlson asked what Council's involvement would be with regard to the homeless shelter. City Manager Atteberry stated determining the location of the homeless shelter would involve a lot of work on the part of the Council, staff and other partners. The solution must be devised by a partnership of many entities. Some land use issues would likely come before the Council. He could provide a briefing memo on the next steps. Councilmember Ohlson stated noise and behavioral issues were not limited to CSU students and there were "real" issues. He asked for a summary of how the City operated under the noise ordinance. City Attorney Roy stated the noise ordinance had been upheld on constitutional grounds. The noise ordinance provided criteria to be used in determining whether noise was unreasonable. and called for a determination by police officers regarding whether the noise was unreasonable considering time of day,size of the gathering,whether there was noise amplification equipment and other factors. The noise ordinance also provided for an objective determination based on decibel levels,and this was a difficult determination with transient noise sources such as parties. He stated the noise ordinances were "legally defensible" and had been modified in response to the recommendations of the neighborhood quality of life task force. The Police Department had stepped up enforcement and the City Attorney's Office and Municipal Judge had responded to Council direction to take a"stringent position" with regard to disposition. Councilmember Kastein stated Council asked staff to work with those in the Southwest Enclave Annexation so questions could be answered prior to annexation. There were questions about an access road behind businesses on South College Avenue and it was his understanding that the access road would be built whether or not the Southwest Enclave Annexation happened. City Manager Atteberry stated this was his understanding and he would confirm this with the Transportation Services Director and CDOT. Councilmember Kastein stated the Council was interested in making sure current ordinances were enforced. There were valid points made during Citizen Participation that people were not sure when they were violating the noise ordinance. He had also received input asking that violations of the noise ordinance be made civil infractions rather than misdemeanors. He asked staff to explore some of those ideas. City Attorney Roy stated staff was working on the decriminalization of certain kinds of nuisance ordinance violations. He stated staff could look at the possibility of including the unreasonable noise ordinance in that study if that was Council's direction. He noted efforts had been made to make it easier to determine whether or not noise was unreasonable. Staff could look at whether the ordinance could be made even more specific. City Manager Atteberry stated staffs report on decriminalization of certain nuisance ordinance violations was on the Council's six-month planning calendar. City Manager Atteberry stated the South College Access Plan was formally adopted by Larimer County, the City of Fort Collins and CDOT. He stated the Plan would be implemented regardless of jurisdiction. 437 April4, 2006 Councilmember Kastein asked if that meant the access road behind the businesses would be built regardless of whether the road would be in the City or the County. City Manager Atteberry stated he believed the road was included in the adopted plan and he would confirm that. Councilmember Ohlson asked if noise violations were currently a criminal violation. City Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative and stated this was true of everything in the City Code with a few specific exceptions. Councilmember Ohlson stated he was very interested in the discussion on civil versus criminal violations. He did not want to"weaken"the noise ordinance and he would be interested in ways to "improve"it or"bring it clarity." He asked if people's records could be expunged if noise ordinance violations were decriminalized. City Attorney Roy stated a simpler approach would be to look at decriminalizing and staff would get back to the Council on the process to expunge records. Mayor Hutchinson asked for Council agreement to have staff follow-up on the homeless shelter issue and bring back information on the next steps for Council involvement. The consensus was to give staff that direction. Agenda Review City Manager Atteberry stated item#16 First Reading of ordinance No. 057, 2006,Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in Connection with the Ziegler Road, Kechter Road Intersection Improvements Project would be withdrawn from the agenda until April 18, 2006. John Pernicka withdrew item#13 Items Relating to theAirpark Village Annexation and Zoning from the Consent Calendar. CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Consideration and Approval of Minutes from the February 21 2006 Regular Meeting and the February 28, 2006 Adjourned Meeting 7. Second Readine of Ordinance No 045 2006 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund From the Colorado Department of Revenue Enforcement of Underage Drinking Law Program. The Colorado Department of Revenue, Enforcement of Underage Drinking Laws Program has awarded the Fort Collins Police Services with a grant in the amount of$51,983. This Ordinance, which was adopted unanimously on First Reading on March 21, 2006, appropriates the unanticipated grant revenue in the General Fund to pay for overtime in possession/illegal sales operations, joint enforcement activities with Colorado State University Police, and educational supplies and implementation through CSU's Office of Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention and Education Services Department. 438 April 4, 2006 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No 046, 2006 Authorizingthe he Appropriation of Operating Funds of the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport for the Fiscal Year BeginningJanuary 1 2006 and Authorizingthe he Appropriation of Unanticipated Revenue and Prior Year Reserves for Capital Improvements at the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 21, 2006, appropriates the City of Fort Collins contribution of the 2006 Airport budget,which is a 50% share and totals$269,185. It also appropriates the City of Fort Collins 50%share of capital funds for the Airport from federal and state grants; passenger charges; contributions from Fort Collins and Loveland; and the Airport General Fund. The capital funds are to be used to construct improvements to the Airport's ramp area for commercial aircraft, reconstruct taxiway Alpha,replace taxiway Alpha's lighting system,replace the airfield lighting control system, fog seal the main runway and replace the markings, and other measures aimed at increasing Airport safety. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 048, 2006 Amending Chapter 2 Article IV of the City Code by the Addition of a New Division 4 Rei4arding the Urban Renewal Authority. Ordinance No. 048, 2006,unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 21,2006, adds the Urban Renewal Authority to the listing of Authorities contained in Chapter 2,Article IV of the City Code. 10. Second Reading of OrdinanceNo.049,2006 Authorizing-the Lease of City-Owned Property at 2313 Kechter Road, Fort Collins Colorado for Up to Five Years The City acquired this property as part of the Affordable Housing Land Bank Program (the "Land Bank Program"). The property is composed of 15.959 acres of development land and is improved with a 2,967 square foot single family house and three outbuildings. This Ordinance,which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 21,2006,authorizes the lease of this property and will include the entire 15.959 acres with the single family residence and the three outbuildings. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No.050,2006,Authorizing the Conveyance ofNon-exclusive Easement Interests for the Construction of a Sanitary Sewer Line By the South Fort Collins Sanitation District On a Portion of Fossil Creek Reservoir Regional Open Space The South Fort Collins Sanitation District wishes to acquire a permanent right-of-way as well as temporary construction easements in order to install,maintain,and repair a sanitary sewer line on the Fossil Creek Reservoir Regional Open Space. The new sanitary sewer and related easements will parallel an existing right-of-way and sewer line that the District currently maintains on the property. The new sewer line will replace the existing sewer line which is not capable of providing adequate service. This Ordinance,which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 21, 2006, authorizes the conveyance of non-exclusive easement interests to the South Fort Collins Sanitation District. 439 April4, 2006 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 051, 2006, Authorizingthe Dedication of Certain Street Rights-of-Way and the Disposition of Certain Interests in Real Property in Connection with the Fort Collins Police Services Facility Site and the Spring Creek Farms North Plat. Ordinance No. 051, 2006, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 21, 2006, dedicates certain street rights-of-way in connection with the Fort Collins Police Services Facility site. These streets surround the Police Services Facility site and are Charles Brockman Drive, Joseph Allen Drive, Nancy Gray Avenue, and Timberline Road. It also conveys two utility easements included within the boundary of the Police Services Facility site. 13. Items Relating to the Airpark Village Annexation and Zoning A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 053, 2006, Annexing Property Known as the Airpark Village Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No.054,2006,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Airpark Village Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. This is a 100% voluntary annexation and zoning of a property approximately 148 acres in size. The site is an existing, privately owned airport and three abutting properties, all generally located north of East Lincoln Avenue, south of East Vine Drive and west of Timberline Road. Contiguity with the existing municipal boundary is gained along portions of the west and east property lines. The east property line abuts the Dry Creek Subdivision. These Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 21, 2006. 14. First Reading of Ordinance No.055,2006,Appropriating PriorYear Reserves in the General Fund for Police Asset Forfeiture Activity. The funds obtained through civil asset seizure and forfeiture actions will be used by Police Services to purchase new equipment,fund additional training,and contribute to partnerships with community groups that seek to promote positive youth activities, anti-violence, anti- drug, and diversity activities. 15. First Reading of Ordinance No 056 2006 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Street Oversizing Fund for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund - Trilby and Ziegler Road Improvement Project and Authorizing the Transfer of Existing Appropriations from the Street Oversizing Fund to the Capital Project Fund-Trilby and Ziegler Road Improvements Project to be Used to Construct a Roundabout at the Intersection of Ziegler and Kechter Roads. TheZieglerand Kechter Roundabout Project(the"Project")includes intersection and arterial street improvements for Ziegler Road, from Kechter Road south to Kinard Junior High 440 April4, 2006 School (approximately 1800 linear feet). These street improvements include widening Ziegler Road to minor arterial street standards from its existing two-lane configuration and the construction of a modern roundabout at the intersection of Ziegler Road and Kechter Road. The Fort Collins Loveland Water District will install a 24-inch water main prior to roadway paving and is including some of this work in conjunction with the Project. Roadway improvements include the installation of curb-and-gutter, sidewalks, asphalt paving, bike lanes, and storm sewers. The construction is planned to begin in June 1, 2006 and be completed prior to the start of fall semester of the Poudre School District on August 16, 2006. 16. First Reading_of Ordinance No. 057,2006,Authorizingthe e Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in Connection with the Ziegler Road, Kechter Road Intersection Improvements Project. Intersection improvements are planned for Zeigler Road and Kechter Road and include the construction of a modern roundabout at the Zeigler and Kechter intersection. Right-of-way acquisition for the Project is now underway. Because of the round configuration of the improvements and the square shape of the existing right-of-way, two small slivers of property are needed on the west side. One of these properties has been purchased and the other property owner,in spite of staffs diligent efforts,has not responded. 17. Items Relating to the Northside Aztlan Community Center Located at 112 Willow Street. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 058, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of an Exclusive Easement For a High Pressure Natural Gas Line to Public Service Company of Colorado Located at 112 Willow Street. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 059, 2006, Exempting the Relocation of a High Pressure Gas Line in Connection with the Redevelopment of the Northside Aztlan Community Center From Regulation Under the Land Use Code. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 060, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Permanent, Non-Exclusive Easement to Public Service Company of Colorado and the United States Environmental Protection Agency For Environmental Remediation Activities and Facilities On the Northside Aztlan Community Center Property and Gustav Swanson Natural Area. D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 061, 2006, Vacating an Alley Right-of-way Established as Part of the 1873 Map of the Town of Fort Collins. This item includes four Ordinances related to the completion of the plat and preliminary work associated with the construction of the new Northside Aztlan Community Center ("NACU)at 112 Willow Street. The new building is adjacent to the existing facility. Two 441 April4, 2006 of the Ordinances relate to the relocation of high pressure gas line,which will be necessary in order to allow the platting and construction of the NACC to proceed. In addition to a new easement for Public Service Company of Colorado for the gas line, an exemption from the requirements of the Land Use Code is in order to allow the relocation to proceed without separate advance review of the relocation. Ordinance No. 060, 2006, authorizes the grant of an easement to Public Service Company and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for permanent facilities for the environmental work along the Poudre River near the NACC. The Council has previously authorized this easement, but a new authorization is being requested in light of modifications to the easement area described. Ordinance No.061,2006, vacates an alley right-of-way that was shown on the original Town Plat and is located on the site of the NACC. These items are each needed in order to allow staff to finalize the plat for the NACC project. 18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 062, 2006,Authorizing the Conveyance of a Right-of-Way Easement and Temporary Construction Easement for the Construction of a Natural Gas Pipeline on Meadow Springs Ranch. Presently,there are several existing pipelines running through Meadow Springs Ranch at the northeastern-most corner of the Ranch, in Weld County, Colorado. Entrega Gas Pipeline, LLC is constructing a new interstate natural gas pipeline from Meeker, Colorado, to the Cheyenne Hub in Weld County,Colorado. This Ordinance authorizes conveyance of a right- of-way easement and temporary construction easement for construction of a natural gas pipeline at Meadow Springs Ranch. 19. First Reading of Ordinance No.063,2006,Vacating_a Portion of Right-of-way as Dedicated At Book 1174, Page 543 of the Larimer County Records. In 1962, a 25 foot-wide strip of land south of Plum Street,between Shields Street and City Park Avenue was dedicated to the City (Book 1174, Page 543) for street right-of-way purposes. The owners of the properties at 813 Scott Street, 809 Scott Street and 1201 W. Plum Street have requested the City vacate this 25 foot by 349.70 foot strip of land that is adjacent to and on the west side of their properties. The applicants have requested this vacation because they wish to upgrade, renovate or redevelop their properties and feel this land is needed in order to do so. This area of land is not paved and is not used for access or as a driveway to the properties, nor is it planned as use for public access. It does contain several utilities within the area. The applicants have been notified and are aware the City does not determine who will get the vacated property and that ownership of the vacated property is determined in accordance with state statutes. All public and private utilities have been notified of the proposed vacation and no objections have been stated,provided the area is retained as a utility easement. The entire area proposed to be vacated will be retained as a utility easement. 442 April4, 2006 20. Resolution 2006-039 Authorizing Extension of a Lease of the City Ditch on City-owned Property at 2005 North Overland Trail in Larimer County, Colorado to Larimer County Canal No. 2 Irrigating Company Through r April 5, 2008. This Resolution authorizes the extension of a lease to Larimer County Canal No.2 Irrigating Company of the City Ditch on the City's old Water Works Property at 2005 North Overland Trail Road. Although the original 1906 lease provided for an automatic renewal of the lease for an additional 99-year term at the Ditch Company's option, the Council's authorization at the time only authorized the lease for the initial 99 years. Pending resolution of this matter for the long term, a short term extension will allow the continued use of the City Ditch for irrigation flows on the same terms as have been in place during the original lease term, and will avoid disruption of the right to run those irrigation flows in the City Ditch for the 2006 irrigation season. In March 2005,the Council authorized extension of the lease for one year, but permanent arrangements have not yet been developed. 21. Resolution 2006-040 Making_Appointments to the Affordable Housing Board. Vacancies currently exist on the Affordable Housing Board due to the resignation of Jane Phelan and the expiration of the term of Kay Rios. Applications were solicited and Councilmembers Kastein and Ohlson conducted interviews. The Council interview team is recommending Donna Wetzler and Chris Crutcher to fill the vacancies with terms to begin immediately and set forth to expire on December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2009 respectively. 22. Routine Easement. Easement for construction and maintenance of public utilities from Richard and Pamela Dunlap, to underground existing electric system, located at 947 East Prospect. Monetary consideration: $10. ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 045, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund From the Colorado Department of Revenue, Enforcement of Underage Drinking Law Program. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 046, 2006, Authorizing the Appropriation of Operating Funds of the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport forthe Fiscal Year Beginning January 1, 2006, and Authorizing the Appropriation of Unanticipated Revenue and Prior Year Reserves for Capital Improvements at the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 048, 2006, Amending Chapter 2, Article IV of the City Code by the Addition of a New Division 4 Regarding the Urban Renewal Authority. 443 ,9pril4, 2006 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No.049,2006 Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property at 2313 Kechter Road, Fort Collins, Colorado, for Up to Five Years. 11. Second Reading of OrdinanceNo.050,2006,Authorizing the Conveyance ofNon-exclusive Easement Interests for the Construction of a Sanitary Sewer Line By the South Fort Collins Sanitation District On a Portion of Fossil Creek Reservoir Regional Open Space. 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 051, 2006, Authorizing the Dedication of Certain Street Rights-of-Way and the Disposition of Certain Interests in Real Property in Connection with the Fort Collins Police Services Facility Site and the Spring Creek Farms North Plat. 13. Items Relating to the Airpark Village Annexation and Zoning. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 053, 2006, Annexing Property Known as the Airpark Village Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No.054,2006,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Airpark Village Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. 26. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 047, 2006, Authorizing an Addendum to the Existing Intergovernmental Agreement with the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District,Extending for Five Years the Time for Annexations of Subdivisions to be Eligible Under the Agreement. 27. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 052, 2006, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Storm Drainage Fund For a Loan to the Urban Renewal Authority Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 14. First Reading of OrdinanceNo.055,2006,Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Police Asset Forfeiture Activity. 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 056, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Street Oversizing Fund for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund - Trilby and Ziegler Road Improvement Project and Authorizing the Transfer of Existing Appropriations from the Street Oversizing Fund to the Capital Project Fund-Trilby and Ziegler Road Improvements Project to be Used to Construct a Roundabout at the Intersection of Ziegler and Kechter Roads. 17. Items Relating to the Northside Aztlan Community Center Located at 112 Willow Street. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 058, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of an Exclusive Easement For a High Pressure Natural Gas Line to Public Service Company of Colorado Located at 112 Willow Street. 444 April4, 2006 B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 059, 2006, Exempting the Relocation of a High Pressure Gas Line in Connection with the Redevelopment of the Northside Aztlan Community Center From Regulation Under the Land Use Code. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 060, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Permanent, Non-Exclusive Easement to Public Service Company of Colorado and the United States Environmental Protection Agency For Environmental Remediation Activities and Facilities On the Northside Aztlan Community Center Property and Gustav Swanson Natural Area. D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 061, 2006, Vacating an Alley Right-of-way � Y Established as Part of the 1873 Map of the Town of Fort Collins. 18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 062,2006,Authorizing the Conveyance of a Right-of-Way Easement and Temporary Construction Easement for the Construction of a Natural Gas Pipeline on Meadow Springs Ranch. 19. First Reading of Ordinance No.063,2006,Vacating a Portion of Right-of-way as Dedicated At Book 1174, Page 543 of the Larimer County Records. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt and approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown,Hutchinson,Kastein,Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Reports Councilmember Weitkunat reported on the discussions ofthe Poudre Fire Authority Board and stated the Council would be discussing fire issues with the PFA Board at the April 11 Work Session. She also reported the Commission on the Status of Women sponsored Women's History Month in March and gave the Marcille Wood Award to Dr. Audrey Faulkner. She reported the Commission also sponsored an essay contest on influential women for high school students. Ordinance No. 047,2006, Authorizing an Addendum to the Existing Intergovernmental Agreement with the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, Extending for Five Years the Time for Annexations of Subdivisions to be Eligible Under the Agreement Postponed to April 18 2006 The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Under the provisions of the existing Intergovernmental Agreement, certain developing properties 445 Apri14, 2006 in the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District service area have the option of meeting either City or District water development requirements. The Agreement specifies that the properties were within the City limits at the time of the Agreement or must be annexed into the City within five years from the date of the Agreement to be eligible. The initial five-year period is nearly passed. The Agreement allows for two five year extensions to the period under which properties can annex and beeligible. This Ordinance authorizes afiveyear extension ofthe Agreement and was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 21, 2006 " City Manager Atteberry introduced the agenda item. Roger Buffington,Water Utility Development Review Manager,presented background information regarding the agenda item and compared the District and City raw water requirements and plant investment fees. Tom Dougherty, 4129 Shoreline Drive, stated his Linden Park project precipitated the existing agreement five years ago when City Plan was just going into effect and the cost of Colorado-Big Thompson water was changing in a year from$2,000 per acre-foot to$15,000. He stated City land that was to be developed at higher densities under a more arduous Land Use Code existed in southeast Fort Collins and in the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District. At the time,the difference for a single-family dwelling unit was about $12,000. This would have been untenable and would have stopped his project. There was an intergovernmental agreement in place between the City and the District for delivery of water to the area when one of the systems was low on pressure and volume. The District was amenable to a plan that would allow the developer to bring City water at City water rates to the area. A number of projects with over 1,000 units then came into the area under that plan. The issues are the same now as they were then. Property owners in the area west of Timberline Road with LMN and MMN properties would benefit i.e., the homeowners would receive the same services provided by the City to City homeowners. The District had no means of delivering water at the same rate as the City. The District had therefore agreed to this"complicated" system and it has worked well for the last five years. Councilmember Manvel requested clarification regarding costs, prices and supplies and the difference between City and District raw water and plant investment fees per unit. Buffington stated the City and District calculated fees differently. Mike Smith, Utilities General Manager, stated historically,the District was set up to serve rural areas and the District did not have much experience in dealing with high density development. The City had historical data on water use for high density development and the City's calculations were based on that data. The District did not have that kind of data available. Councilmember Manvel asked if the District would treat a four-plex unit as four units. Smith replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Manvel stated the total fee for the City for a four-plex was about$24,000 and the fee for the District was about $42,000 ($4,500 per unit). 446 . .. __ ......_........ ... . ... Apri14, 2006 Councilmember Ohlson asked for figures relating to twelve-plexes and if it was correct that the difference between the City's and District's fees would be about $77,000. Buffington stated the difference was about$71,000 ($6,000 per unit). Councilmember Manvel stated there would be a"big advantage"to the developer to go with the City because of lower City fees per unit. He asked if the price of the water was a wholesale price ($1.592), why this figure was so precise and whether it could be questioned. He asked if there was a similar price that could be quoted for the wholesale price for Colorado-Big Thompson water. Bill Switzer, Utility Rate Analyst, explained the cost of service structure, the allocation to customer classes, and peaking factors. Councilmember Manvel stated he had asked earlier about the actual retail price for customers in the IGA area and in the District. He stated information was provided indicating the IGA price was similar to the rate structure just adopted for Fort Collins. People would pay a bit less in retail price for water than Fort Collins customers would pay. He understood people in the District would pay even less than the IGA price. The up-front fees were high and the water rates were low and he would like more information on that. Mike DiTullio,Manager of the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District,stated the District did not have the sophisticated rate structure the City had. He stated the District charged one acre-foot of water for a residential unit and six-tenths of an acre-foot of water for a multifamily unit. The base rate was set at a value of$12,500 for one acre-foot of CBT water. The difference between the raw water costs was the$12,500 base fee compared to the City's base fee of$6,500. The District collected cash-in- lieu of water at $12,500 and those funds were used to purchase water. There was a base fee of $11.82 plus $1.00 per 1,000 gallons for the first 15,000 gallons of use and $1.75 per 1,000 gallons for anything over 15,000 gallons. He stated multifamily units were given a 40%break because of lower water use. The District entered into the agreement five years ago at the request of the developers. The District's rate for 15,000 gallons was$2.41 per 1,000 gallons in the IGA area. He stated the system seemed to work well. It allowed the City to utilize water rights the City would not use at the same rate as the purchase rate, it allowed the City to run the plant at a higher (more efficient)capacity,and it allowed the City a return on its investment because part of the transmission cost was paid by the District on underutilized lines. The price of raw water at $12,500 per unit did not seem to deter developments in the District's basic service area. The District used that money to purchase water and to install new facilities. The District's rates were low,it was debt-free and there was a surplus of over$25 million. This was an example of growth paying its own way and was a win-win for everyone. Councilmember Manvel stated he understood Colorado-Big Thompson water was very expensive and the District was selling water for $1.00 per 1,000 gallons while people in Fort Collins were paying $2.50 to $3.50 per 1,000 gallons. He stated he did not understand this "disconnect." Mr. DiTullio stated the District charged$12,500 for raw water and bought water for less than that. This was being run as a"business." The water rates were sufficient to"take care of the expenses of the District." 447 April4, 2006 Councilmember Manvel stated there was a precise number for the City's cost of selling water at wholesale to the District and delivering to these customers. He questioned whether the City should be charging more than$1.52 to cover the City's costs. It seemed to him that it was to the advantage of the developers and property owners to get water from the City instead of from the District. If the City was operating this as a"business," it would be charging more. Smith stated the $1.52 figure was derived from the cost of service study. Some costs were not applicable to wholesale customers i.e.,the District was not being asked to pay for anything unless it benefitted the District. The figure was increased as there were general increases in water rates. The cost to the District depended on the City's cost of service and the City was not making a profit on it. The City and the Districts had worked hard over many years to cooperate on projects of benefit to City and District customers. The Pleasant Valley pipeline was an example of that cooperative effort and the City saved more than$6-7 million by working with the Districts on the project. The City focused on "pure cost of service" rather than making a profit from its partners. Councilmember Weitkunat stated the agenda item related to an intergovernmental agreement dealing with supplying water to properties that would eventually be annexed. The residents of this area would become Fort Collins residents at some point. Councilmember Manvel stated the service would continue to be provided by the District and he understood the water would not be turned on until the units were annexed. Mayor Hutchinson stated he understood that, at build-out, Water Districts would be providing service to over half the houses in the City. The question was how Council should consider the cost of water that it was providing. He asked if the price could be raised without damaging the relationship between the City and the District. Smith stated the range was pure cost of service up to matching the District's fees. If the District's fees were matched there would be no need for the agreement. There was no "scientific"way to determine what mid-range fees would work. It was a"policy and philosophical question"relating to how much extra should be charged. Staff had not dealt with this because the focus had always been on cost of service. Councilmember Roy stated the old Agenda Item Summary indicated this action would result in approximately$20,000 in General Fund revenue for 2006. Smith stated there was a payment in-lieu- of taxes of 6% on the water sale that went to the General Fund. Councilmember Roy asked how much this was"worth"to the District. Smith stated he did not have that amount readily available. Mr. DiTullio stated the District paid just over a half million dollars to the City for water. Teresa Bryant, Utilities Finance/Budget Manager, stated the City billed the District in November for the following year and$270,000 was billed in 2004 for potable water. She stated the 2005 bill for 2006 was about $350,000. Councilmember Roy asked if there was a profit of$120,000 to the District in this arrangement. Mr. DiTullio stated the City charged $1.52 and the District tacked on 20% to make the minimum bill $1.84 for the first 15,000 gallons. This covered the District's cost of maintaining the system,billing and collecting. 448 April4, 2006 Councilmember Roy stated he would like to know the difference between the savings to the City ($20,000)and the savings to the District. Bryant stated staff had not figured the value or savings to the District and the City was charging the District what it cost for the City to deliver the water to the District. Councilmember Manvel stated he understood the District did not have a savings and was charging customers the cost plus a mark-up. The District was therefore not making money on the water and the benefit was to the developer due to lower development fees. He asked if the plant investment and raw water fees charged were 100% of the estimate. Smith stated the Council adopted updated plant investment fees as of January 1. Councilmember Manvel asked if the plant investment and raw water fee increased on January 1 to 100%. Smith stated only the wastewater fees were being phased over three years. Mr. DiTullio stated, if the agreement did not continue and the water was purchased from the District,it would be billed at the rate of$1.00 for the first 15,000 gallons and $1.75 per 1,000 gallons thereafter. He stated the District was not making a profit with the arrangement under the IGA. Mayor Hutchinson asked if staff had any recommendations on whether the price was at the appropriate level or whether it should be changed. Smith stated if the City raised the fees above the cost of service level the Utility would receive additional revenue. The "bottom line"was that the residents of the Citybeing served would pay more money. The"profit"to the City would come from future City residents and it would be more than what would be needed to make the system work. The question was whether the Utility should make more than the cost of providing the service and this was a policy question. This question had come forward in the last few days and staff had not had time to do an analysis. If Council wanted to have staff do such an analysis, the item could be continued. Mr. DiTullio stated the District's raw water purchases were market driven and the rates reflected the market price of raw water. Mayor Hutchinson asked about the impact of a change to increase the rate. Mr. DiTullio stated it was more beneficial for anything up to 20,000 - 21,000 square feet to develop under the City rate. City Manager Atteber y stated Council could direct staff to develop a policy recommendation based on information heard at this meeting and any additional staff work that might be necessary. Mayor Hutchinson asked if this item was time sensitive. City Manager Atteberry stated there would be no problem in delaying the item. Councilmember Weitkunat made amotion,seconded by Councilmember Kastein to adopt Ordinance No. 047, 2006 on Second Reading. Councilmember Ohlson stated he had asked that this item be placed on the discussion agenda for several reasons. It was a"myth"that the City was always more expensive than everyone else. This agreement was sought by a developer rather than the District and was not a"relationship"issue with the District. City residents under another water system would be paying more. The City was not "making money off the Water District" at all on this and that was not his intent. It did not make 449 April4, 2006 sense five years ago and it made even less sense now. The City should make some money off of an arrangement that would benefit the developer when the District was a neutral party. This would be a benefit to the City ratepayers. If there were enough units the City might have to "prematurely expand" at a cost to the ratepayers. He would like a staff analysis on the best approach since there would be no harm in waiting for two weeks to adopt the Ordinance. Councilmember Kastein stated there had been no motion to postpone. He stated he would support postponement if Council wanted more information and there was no urgency. Councilmember Weitkunat spoke regarding the intent of the Fossil Creek Subarea Plan to maintain agricultural lands, to develop clusters, and to have higher density. The developers were honoring the intent of the Subarea Plan and the development agreement was made with the understanding that the properties would be annexed and they would meet the higher density requirements. One of the problems was the cost of water. An intergovernmental agreement was developed to meet the needs of the County and the Districts in a"special area"of the City. It was necessary to "honor things of the past." She did not want to seethe City substantially increase the rates just to"make some money off of people who were developing in this area." Recovering the City's cost was fair,equitable and "how we treat residents of Fort Collins" She did not understand why the City would want to charge more. Councilmember Ohlson stated he wanted to make sure the City was recovering its costs, including potential capital costs that could result from expansion. Councilmember Manvel stated he wanted a better understanding of the issue and would support discussing this more in two weeks after more information was available from staff. Councilmember Roy asked about the parliamentary process to amend the motion or to postpone for two weeks. City Attorney Roy stated a motion to postpone would take precedence over the pending motion and if there was a second, the motion to postpone was debatable only with regard to the propriety of the postponement. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to postpone consideration of Ordinance No. 047, 2006 on Second Reading until April 18, 2006. Councilmember Ohlson stated it did not appear that postponement would hurt anything. He felt this would be approved,possibly with slightly higher rates, once staff brought back a recommendation based on the discussion. Mayor Hutchinson stated it made sense to allow time for the Council questions to be answered. He stated he was interested in a"broader view" of the actual costs. The vote on the motion to postpone was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson and Roy. Nays: Councilmember Weitkunat. THE MOTION CARRIED. 450 April 4, 2006 ("Secretary's Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point.) Ordinance No. 052, 2006, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Storm Drainage Fund For a Loan to the Urban Renewal Authority. Adopted on Second Reading The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On September 20, 2005, Council, acting as the Urban Renewal Authority(URA), approved the use of URA funds to reimburse Valley Steel for an extension ofa sanitary sewer line serving its property and several otherproperties along Hickory Street. The amount ofassistance was established at an amount not to exceed$150,000. Since the Valley Steel improvement wasfor utilities infrastructure, staff recommended a loan to the URA from Stormwater Utility Reserves in the amount of$150,000 for the Valley Steel utility improvement. Ordinance No. 052, 2006, which was adopted on March 21, 2006 with a vote of 6-1 (Nays: Ohlson), authorizes use of prior year reserves in the Storm Drainage Fund for a loan to the URA. " City Manager AttebSTY introduced the agenda item. Councilmember Weitkunat made amotion,seconded by Councilmember Brown,to adopt Ordinance No. 052, 2006 on Second Reading. Councilmember Manvel stated the issue on First Reading was whether to use Stormwater Utility reserves or General Fund reserves. He was concerned with using reserves for something that was not"strictly"the Utility. He questioned why Utility reserves should be used instead of General Fund reserves but at this point he did not have a"big problem"with using Stormwater Utility reserves for this purpose. Councilmember Ohlson stated he voted against the Ordinance on First Reading and would vote against it on Second Reading because he believed it would be more appropriate to use General Fund reserves. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Ohlson. THE MOTION CARRIED. Items Relating to the Airpark Village Annexation and Zoning.Adopted on Second Reading The following is staff s memorandum on this item. 451 April4, 2006 "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 053, 2006, Annexing Property Known as the Airpark Village Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 054, 2006,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Airpark Village Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. This is a 100%voluntary annexation and zoning ofa property approximately 148 acres in size. The site is an existing,privately owned airport and three abuttingproperties, all generally located north of East Lincoln Avenue, south of East Vine Drive and west of Timberline Road. Contiguity with the existing municipal boundary is gained along portions of the west and east property lines. The east property line abuts the Dry Creek Subdivision. These Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 21, 2006 " City Manager Atteberry stated staff would be available to answer any questions. John Pernicka,2636 Dumire Court,invited the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Board to participate in a sound demonstration at the Downtown Fort Collins Airpark. Three helicopter companies would like to conduct the demonstration for the benefit of the City to help people understand the "significance of noise" and how it should be measured in an objective way. The annexation request was "flawed" with regard to the ownership of properties included in the annexation. The City Attorney's Office needed to do "due diligence"to determine the ownership of Tract D. He asked that the annexation request be postponed until the ownership issues could be resolved. Mikal Torgerson, M. Torgerson Architects, representing Airpark Village, asked Council to move forward with the annexation. The applicant's attorney certified the annexation plat and,after further review of the documents provided by Mr. Pernicka, recertified the annexation. He stated "allegations" could not stop an annexation if an attorney was willing to certify the ownership. Housing next to heliports was not relevant in the context of the annexation or zoning because both of the zones that would be permitted for this site allowed housing. Troy Jones, representing the applicant, stated a Power Point presentation from First Reading was available if it was needed. Councilmember Kastein asked for the City Attorney's response to Mr. Pernicka's statement about property ownership. City Attorney Roy stated the question was who should bear the burden of determining the status of the title to the property when the City was presented with a petition for annexation. The City had an obligation under the statute to move ahead with an annexation that was deemed to be sufficient. The question was what was sufficient in this context. The City had the attorney's certification and recertification, the title policy had been reviewed, court documents provided by Mr. Pernicka were reviewed, and attorney Doug Konkel had not provided a response 452 Apri14, 2006 to an inquiry from the City Attorney's Office. His office had not seen anything in the court documents that addressed or determined the ownership of Tract D. The issue may need to be ultimately resolved in court. The City's obligation was to process the application and he believed that the City had done everything "reasonably possible" to determine whether the petition was sufficient. It would be helpful if Mr.Pernicka's attorney had something besides the court documents submitted that addressed the ownership of the parcel. Action on the petition should move forward. He noted the applicant could consider taking Tract D out of the petition and it appeared the applicant had decided not to do that. He disagreed with Mr. Pernicka and the City had done"due diligence" insofar as its obligation to do that. He recommended Council move ahead. Councilmember Kastein asked the City Attorney to explain the certification. City Attorney Roy stated there were two ways to assure the ownership of property: an attorney's opinion or certification resulting from a title search, or title insurance. In this case, an attorney had certified that, in his opinion, ownership is vested in the parties indicated on the petition. One way to clarify property ownership is a quiet title action and, to his knowledge, there had not been such an action. Mayor Hutchinson asked if the sound demonstration would be relevant at this stage or if it would be more relevant during the development review process. City Attorney Roy stated the relevancy would be up to Council. If Council determined the noise issue was pertinent to the decision on how to zone the property (which sets the stage for the permitted uses), then a way could be found to accommodate that kind of demonstration if the Council would find it to be useful. Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt Ordinance No. 053, 2006 on Second Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson,Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson,Roy and Weitkunat. Nays:None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Ordinance No.054,2006 on Second Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows:Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Councilmember Ohlson stated he had a clarification as a follow-up to the work session discussion regarding recycling. He agreed with Mayor Hutchinson and Councilmember Kastein that the City should continue to gather data regarding the 50% calculation but he saw this as only one criteria. This was an"imperfect calculation"that focused just on landfill space and ignored hazardous waste issues. He supported continuing to track the data and to have this as a goal. He would like a broader look at hazardous waste and he did not want staff to look only at the 50% goal. He also wanted to clear up an"accidental misrepresentation"regarding the water rates. No matter what Council did, it was revenue neutral i.e.,there was a zero rate increase system wide. Many people thought water rates were raised. Some Councilmembers had disagreed on the base fee. He favored a system in 453 Apri14, 2006 which people would pay the same rate for each 1,000 gallons used with a significantly reduced fixed monthly rate(a conservation rate). Conservation would delay or minimize or eliminate the need for an expensive storage delivery and treatment facility that would ultimately raise all utility bills. Conservation would actually have a positive economic benefit. His favorite option would have been less costly for many more people than the adopted option. Large residential users did not pay more per 1,000 gallons used than low water users under the adopted system and large users would actually pay less per 1,000 gallons than the lower user. Councilmember Kastein stated he wanted to make some clarifications regarding water rates. Large water users would pay less per 1,000 gallons than lower users only when the average price of water was considered and the fixed fee was figured in up front. It would not be true for the incremental cost of each additional gallon of water purchased. Councilmember Manvel stated under the newly adopted water rate system, people using 10,000 gallons would pay$32.30 and people using 100,000 gallons would pay$254.00 (not the expected $323.00). Most people would agree that the people using the most water would pay less for water than the people using the least amount of water. Councilmember Weitkunat stated the Council C came a long way during discussions of the waterrates. She stated a 5-tier water rate system was"devastating"to the community and not received well when it was implemented. The new 3-tier rate would help "bridge the gap between both ends of the spectrum." In the long run, people would not see any large fluctuations in their bills. Very few people were using 100,000 gallons of water. The concern was the middle group of people using 7,000 gallons, except in the summer watering season. Watering yards was an "important element" of this community. Penalizing those who watered their lawns with excessive rates did not make sense. She felt the entire community benefited from Council's action to change the water rate structure. Councilmember Manvel stated 90% of the water bills would be higher under the new rate system. He stated only the top 10% of bills would reduced. Executive Session Authorized Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adjourn into Executive Session as permitted by Section 2-31(a)(2)and(3)ofthe City Code to discuss the possible acquisition of real estate by the City and related legal matters. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. ("Secretary's Note: The Council adjourned into Executive Session at 8:30 p.m. and reconvened following the Executive Session at 8:55 p.m.) 454 April4, 2006 Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 455