Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 08/18/2009 - CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE J ITEM NUMBER: 6 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: August 18, 2009 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Wanda Krajicek, SUBJECT Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the July 7 and July 21, 2009 Regular Meetings. c I July 7, 2009 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, July 7, 2009, 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: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy, and Troxell. Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Jensen, Roy. Citizen Participation Eric Sutherland,631 LaPorte Avenue,questioned the term"zero energy district"and stated the entire city should participate in the new technologies being developed instead of limiting those technologies to only one area of the community. Jeff Emmel, 543 Spindrift Court, urged Council to adopt an ordinance banning drivers from using cell phones while driving. Mary Humstone,4420 Bingham Hill Road,stated the City of Greeley plans to build a 60-inch water pipeline through a National Register listed property and will destroy critical resources. She asked Council to help protect the historic area. Justine Reed, 146 South College Avenue, owner of the White Balcony Store, asked that Brewfest be moved out of the downtown area because Brewfest has become too big and is bad for downtown business. She presented a petition signed by 87 downtown business owners and managers asking for Brewfest to be moved to a different location. Mandy Kotzman, 3400 Orchard Lane, spoke against the Greeley water pipeline. Al Dunton, 233/235 Linden Street, stated Brewfest should be moved because it has gotten worse over the past 6 years with more property damage resulting from drunkeness. James Pritchett, Bellvue, stated the Greeley water pipeline will adversely affect the instream flows of the Poudre River and the availability of water, particularly in scarce water years. Rebecca Lee, 3273 Silverthorne Drive,urged citizens to oppose the United Nations Convention on children's rights. George Burnette,4420 Bingham Hill Road,spoke against the Greeley water pipeline because it will harm the flow of water in the Poudre River through Fort Collins. 221 July 7, 2009 Anne Lance,424 Pine Street, Executive Director of United Daycare Center,thanked the City for its continued support by providing CDBG funds. Greg Speer, 1831 LaPorte Avenue, opposed the Greeley water pipeline project. Nancy Jackson,3249 Silverthorne Drive,Disabled Resource Services Director,thanked the City for the CDBG funding provided for Disabled Resources to help extremely poor individuals. Dee Amick, 221 Park Street, stated preservation of older neighborhoods is not being addressed by City staff. Two weeks ago, an application for a landmark district in her neighborhood was unanimously accepted by the Landmark Preservation Commission. Advanced Planning has just notified Ms. Amick that there is inadequate justification of the designation and the application is invalid. A house located at 223 Park Street will now be allowed to be demolished because the historic district designation is not in place. Linda Preston, 2918 Trenton Way, BASE Camp Director, thanked Council and the CDBG Commission for providing funding to support families in the community. Carol Jones, 6869 East County Road 54, opposed the Greeley water pipeline project because it will destroy much wildlife habitat. Tracy Mead,Executive Director of the Education and Life Training Center,thanked Council and the CDBG Commission for continuing to support social service agencies,enabling the agencies to assist the low-income population. John Carr, 115 North Washington, questioned the need for the Greeley water pipeline project and he opposed the route chosen to place the pipeline. Vicky Lutz, Crossroads Safehouse Director, thanked the CDBG Commission and the City for continuing to provide funding for Crossroads Safehouse,which assists victims of domestic violence. Mary Carraher, Project Self-Sufficiency Executive Director, thanked the City and the CDBG Commission for recommending funding for Project Self-Sufficiency,which will allow the program to expand and aid more single-parent families.. Stacy Lynne, 216 Park Street, thanked the City Clerk's Office for the assistance it provided during the referendum process. She expressed concern about the process to designate her neighborhood as a landmark district because the process did not work properly. Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony, stated the City's economic development ideas will not work and should not be pursued. 222 July 7, 2009 Citizen Participation Follow-up Councilmember Roy expressed interest in the attempts to create an historic neighborhood on Park Street and stated his concerns about the demolition of the home at 223 Park Street. He asked if the historic preservation process had been followed. City Attorney Roy stated the Code has-certain processes that must be followed and a hold cannot be placed on the demolition of the Park Street home. Joe Frank, Director of Advance Planning, stated a group of property owners submitted an application for.the creation of an historic district for Park Street. The Landmark Preservation Commission accepted the application and directed staff to proceed with investigation of the potential for a landmark district. Staff reviewed the information presented in the application, found the information was incomplete and did not meet the requirements of the Code and contacted the applicant today. The applicants will be given another opportunity to submit their application to the Landmark Preservation Commission tomorrow night. Jeff Scheick, Director of Planning, Transportation and Development, stated the owner of the lot at 223 Park Street has been working with the City for several months to develop a plan to clear the lot and build a new house. The owner has followed the State and City processes to acquire a demolition permit. The professional engineer for the project has determined the existing dwelling is not structurally adequate and is not habitable. The Building Inspections staff has also reviewed the building and agrees with the engineer's assessment. The demolition permit has been issued. Councilmember Roy asked if the demolition could be delayed to allow time to process the application for historic designation. City Attorney Roy stated the City Code sets out a process for historic designation of either a particular structure or a district, which was set in motion by the Landmark Preservation Commission. A provision in the Code states no building permits will be issued for a certain period of time until the Council decides whether to designate the structure or the district. The application for the Park Street neighborhood was found to be incomplete,so the interim period of time did not apply. A separate provision of the Code that addresses demolition or relocation of historic structures states such structures will not be demolished until the Code processes have been followed. City staff and the Chair of the Landmark Preservation Commission have approved the structure for demolition without having to go through a more protracted process. Scheick stated mistakes were made in the handling of the historic neighborhood application and the applicants will be given another opportunity to present a completed application to the Landmark Preservation Commission tomorrow night. City Attorney Roy stated the Code does contain a hearing process to delay the demolition of an historic structure,pending some review. A demolition permit could not be issued if the Advance Planning Director and/or the Chair of the Landmark Preservation Commission determine the matter should be reviewed by the Commission. If the structure has not been designated as historic and is not within an historic district,the demolition permit could then be issued. City Manager Atteberry stated the City's process should be followed and the Advance Planning Director and the Chair of the Landmark Preservation Commission need to make that decision. Councilmember Ohlson asked for an examination of the City's policies allowing demolition of structures to protect historic neighborhoods,both short term and long term. City Manager Atteberry stated such a review is a major planning effort that will require funding. City Code gives staff the option of requiring any"scrape-offs"to be reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission and 223 July 7, 2009 the Advance Planning Director. Frank stated the Code provides for the option to have the Landmark Preservation Commission review any demolition request of structures that would be eligible for landmark designation. A complete review of the City's policies will probably take six to eight months with much public input into the process. City Manager Atteberry stated Council could adopt an ordinance that declares a moratorium on "scrape-offs" in the City for a certain period of time while a review of the policy is done. City Attorney Roy stated staff could prepare a white paper listing "pros" and "cons" of putting a moratorium into place or Council could direct that a draft ordinance be prepared for its consideration. Councilmember Roy asked what the timeline would'be the property at 223 Park Street. City Attorney Roy stated not every structure 50 years of age and older is subject to the demolition delay process. If the structure is of that vintage and meets one or more of the criteria for historic designation, it is discretionary for the Advance Planning Director and the Chair of the Landmark Preservation Commission to determine whether a hold should be placed on a permit, pending the owner following the procedure for review by the Commission. There is nothing Council can do at this time to halt the demolition of the property. The City Code puts the discretion of issuing a demolition permit in the hands of the Advance Planning Director and the Chair of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Frank stated the act of condemnation of the property negates the demolition delay process. City Attorney Roy stated the City has ordered the demolition or renovation of the property. If the only option given to the property owner was demolition, then the demolition delay process would be negated. If the possibility of renovation is real and if renovated,the property would meet one of the criteria for historic designation,then the demolition delay process is not negated. Frank stated. it is the intent of the property owner to demolish the property and not renovate it. Councilmember Roy asked for a timeline to allow the neighborhood applicants to resubmit their completed application without the demolition of the structure at 223 Park Street. Frank stated the applicants will be given the opportunity tomorrow night to present their application to the Landmark Preservation Commission and the Commission can then decide whether to continue the process to determine if the neighborhood should receive historic designation. The house at 223 Park Street has been condemned,a demolition permit has been issued and the demolition will be allowed to occur. Councilmember Roy stated several citizens expressed their concerns about the location of the Greeley water pipeline and he asked for information about the pipeline and how it will affect the Poudre River, riparian habitat and historic areas, because building the pipeline could affect Fort Collins. Councilmember Poppaw thanked the CDBG Commission for its work in allocating affordable housing and HOME funds. 224 July 7, 2009 Councilmember Ohlson stated Brewfest has outgrown its current location and the Downtown Business Association should work with the business owners who presented the petition to address their concerns. Councilmember Ohlson stated the citizens concerned with the Greeley water pipeline need present their issues to the Larimer County Commissioners and the City of Greeley. There is little the City of Fort Collins can do to change the location of the pipeline. Councilmember Troxell stated Brewfest and the Irish Festival caused considerable problems in the Downtown area and the Downtown Business Association and the Downtown Development Authority should present some solutions to the issues raised. Councilmember Poppaw asked why the Downtown Business Association(DBA)believes Brewfest is good for business when so many downtown business owners signed a petition stating Brewfest adversely affects their businesses. David Short, Executive Director of the Downtown Business Association,stated Brewfest is a large fundraiser for the DBA and those funds are put back into the downtown area. Some businesses did record business during Brewfest. The DBA wants to work with downtown businesses to address the issues raised and still continue the Brewfest. Moving the location of Brewfest is one possibility. Councilmember Ohlson asked if Brewfest created any additional costs for the City. Mr. Short stated the DBA pays for off-duty police officers to work during Brewfest. The only cost to the City is for any overtime incurred by police officers from the District 1 office. District 1 has asked the DBA to pay for the overtime. Councilmember Poppaw asked for a comparison of crime statistics for Brewfest between this year and previous years. Councilmember Troxell asked how many businesses belonged to the DBA. Mr. Short stated the DBA has 215 members and he noted many of the businesses that signed the petition are not members of the DBA. The DBA Board anticipated receiving the petition and will work with the downtown businesses to address the issues. Agenda Review City Manager Atteberry postponed consideration Item #25 Resolution 2009-064 Approving Expenditures from the Art in Public Places Reserve Account in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund to Commission an Artist to Create Art Elements for the West Harmony Road Project because of current economic conditions. The medians on West Harmony Road do not seem to be the ideal location for this particular art project. He asked staff to remand this item back to the Art in Public Places Board. City Attorney Roy read the changes made to Item #26, Resolution 2009-065 Amending Policies Regarding the Issuance of Proclamations. 225 July 7 2009 Eric Sutherland,631 LaPorte,pulled Item#20 First Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2009 Amending Chapter 26, Article VI, Division 4 of the City Code Relating to Excess Circuit Charge. Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony, pulled Item #22 First Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2009, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements Related to the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project (Phase Two). CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the May 19 and June 2, 2009 Regular Meetings and the May 12 June 9 and June 23, 2009 Adjourned Meetings. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 063 2009, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves. Ordinance No. 063,2009,was unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 2,2009. The Ordinance appropriates prior year's reserves for expenditures authorized in 2008 by Council but which could not be completed by the end of 2008. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 064 2009 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Natural Areas Fund for the Purpose of Providing Natural Areas Programming Not Included in the 2009 Adopted City Budget and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations to the Capital Projects Fund. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 2,2009, appropriates prior year reserves in the Natural Areas Fund for the purpose of land conservation, construction of public improvements, fences and trails, restoration of wildlife habitat and other natural areas program needs to benefit the citizens of Fort Collins. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No 065' 2009 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Cultural Development and Programming Activities and the Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 2, 2009, appropriates lodging tax revenues that were in excess of 2008 budgeted lodging tax receipts to Cultural Development and Programming("CDP"),Visitor Events, and the Convention and Visitors Bureau ("CVB") accounts. Lodging tax revenues for 2008 were estimated to be $746,241 and the 2008 budget appropriated an equal amount. However, actual receipts totaled $833,468 for 2008 and the difference of$87,227 has not been appropriated. The CDP and Visitor Events accounts each had funds from revenue received and previous year lodging tax allocations which were not used during 2008. The unexpended 2008 funds are: CDP - $75,207, and Visitor Events - $54,031. These funds are in the General Fund 226 July 7, 2009 reserves for lodging taxes and must be appropriated into the respective CDP and Visitor Events accounts. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No.066,2009,Making Various Amendments to the City Land Use Code. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 2,2009 makes a variety of proposed changes, additions and clarifications in the 2009 annual update of the Land Use Code. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 067 2009, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Community Development Block Grant Fund. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 appropriated $1 billion in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to states and local governments to carry out,on an expedited basis, eligible activities underthe CDBG Program. The City has received an allocation of$271,137 of FY 2008 CDBG funds through the CDBG Recovery Program from the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD). Ordinance No. 067, 2009, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 2, 2009, appropriates those funds. 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 068 2009, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue from the Colorado Department of Transportation in the Transit Fund for the Development of the Transit Strategic Plan. Transfort has received a grant in the amount of$15,000 from CDOT, under Section 5304, a statewide transit planning grant program, to contribute toward the work necessary to complete the 2009 Transit Strategic Plan with a total project budget of $197,555. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 2, 2009, appropriates the grant funds. 13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 069 2009 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capitals Projects Fund Mason Corridor Project for the South Transit Center Proiect. The Colorado Department of Transportation is providing funding for the design portion of the South Transit Center, which is a component of the Mason Corridor/MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 2, 2009, appropriates those funds. 14: Second Reading of Ordinance No. 070,2009,Authorizing Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in Connection with the Harmony Road and College Avenue Improvements Project. The College Avenue and Harmony Road Improvements Project requires acquisition of various real property interests from five different properties which are located at the 227 July 7, 2009 College/Harmony and Harmony/Mason intersections. This project is partially federally funded through the Colorado Department of Transportation and,since the project will modify College Avenue, which is a State highway, all aspects of the project, including property acquisitions, must comply with procedures for federally funded projects. The acquisition phase of this project will conform to the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970 as Amended (Public Law 91-646). In accordance with these regulations,property owners must be informed about the possible use of eminent domain and their rights i pursuant to Colorado Statute in the official Notice of Interest Letter. Authorization from City Council is needed prior to sending this information to property owners. This letter is the first official step in the acquisition phase and happens prior to the appraisals. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 2, 2009, authorizes the use of eminent domain for this project. 15. Second Reading of Ordinance No.071 2009 Appropriating Funds Transferred from the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority Fund into the Capital Projects Fund for the North College Avenue and East Willox Lane Improvement Project. The Marketplace development is located on the northeast corner of North College Avenue and Willox Lane. It is a large commercial shopping center with a King Soopers grocery store anchor tenant. There will be significant,beneficial financial impacts to both the City and the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority from this project. On May 19, 2009, City Council adopted, on Second Reading, Ordinance No. 049, 2009, authorizing acceptance of the transfer of funds from the URA to a City Capital Projects account for the purpose of designing and constructing improvements to the northeast corner of North College Avenue and Willox Lane. However, this Ordinance did not appropriate those funds. Because the URA and the City are separate legal entities, it is necessary for Council to appropriate the transferred funds. Ordinance No.071,2009,unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 9, 2009, accomplishes this. 16. First Reading of Ordinance No 072 2009 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Restorative Justice Program and Authorizing the Transfer of Matching Funds Previously Appropriated in the Police Services Operating Budget. A grant in the amount of$21,574 and additional funds of$5,000 have been received from the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ) for salaries associated with the continued operation -of Restorative Justice Services, which includes the RESTORE program for shoplifting offenses,and the Restorative Justice Conferencing Program(RJCP)for all other offenses. Restorative Justice is an alternative method of holding a young offender accountable by facilitating a meeting with the offender, the victim and members of the community to determine the harm done by the crime, and how to repair the harm. By identifying and repairing the harm caused by the crime, Criminal Justice Officials are optimistic repeat offenses by these youth will be reduced and the needs and concerns of the victims and affected community will be addressed. A$7,191 cash match is required for the $21,574 grant and will be met by appropriating funds from the police operating budget. A 228 July 7, 2009 $1,667 cash match is required for the $5,000 additional funds and will be met by appropriating funds from prior program income. 17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 073 2009 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Light and Power Fund for the Energy Star New Homes Program and for the Residential Solar Grant Program and Authorizing the Transfer of Matching Funds Previously Appropriated in the Light and Power Operating Budget. 1, This Ordinance appropriates grant funds received from the State of Colorado's Governor's Energy Office totaling$72,500. $22,500($45,000 with the Utilities match)will be used for the Residential Solar Program. $50,000 was granted for the implementation of the ENERGY STAR New Homes Program. This will require a $15,000 match from the Utilities and a $35,000 match from other program partners. The Utilities funds will be transferred from existing Light and Power operating appropriations. 18. Items Relating to the Completion of the 2009 Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process for Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing and Community Development Activities Utilizing the Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, and Home Investment Partnership (HOME) Program and the City's Human Services Program and Affordable Housing Fund. A. Hearing and Resolution 2009-060 Approving the Programs and Projects That Will Receive Funds from the Federal Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)and Home Investment Partnership (HOME) Programs, and the City's Human Services Program and Affordable Housing Fund. B. Hearing and Resolution 2009-061 Approving the Fiscal Year 2009 Home Investment Partnerships Program for the City of Fort Collins. C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No.074,2009,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Community Development Block Grant Fund. ' D. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No.075,2009,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the HOME Investment Partnership Fund. The Resolutions and Ordinances will complete the 2009 spring cycle of the competitive process for allocating City financial resources to affordable housing programs/projects and community development activities. It 19. First Reading of Ordinance No 076 2009 Dissolving the Telecommunications Board and Amending City Code by Repealing Sections Relating to the Telecommunications Board. This Ordinance will dissolve the Telecommunications Board. Because of the current state of the telecommunications and cable TV regulatory environment and the City's limited role in either providing or regulating any form of data and telecommunications services, the charter and mission of the Telecommunications Board is no longer aligned with City needs 229 July 7, 2009 and priorities. In light of that assessment,the Telecommunications Board can be dissolved without adversely affecting the City. 20. First Reading of Ordinance No 077 2009 Amending Chapter 26 Article VI Division 4 of the City Code Relating to Excess Circuit Charge. This Ordinance allows the Utilities to respond promptly to a customer's request for excess capacity service based on the proposed Code provision. The charges for the service will be stated in the Code and revised when electric cost of service studies are updated. 21. First Reading of Ordinance No 078 2009 Amending the City Code and the Traffic Code Regarding Obstructions of Parking Spaces for Persons with Disabilities. This Ordinance will relocate Traffic Code Section 1208(10)regarding parking privileges for persons with disabilities to City Code, Section 20, for more logical placement within the Code and to increase effectiveness of enforcement. This Section prohibits any person from placing or allowing to remain,any snow,ice,litter or other materials onto any parking space which is identified for use by persons with disabilities, or on any area immediately adjacent thereto. 22. First Reading of Ordinance No 079 2009 Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements Related to the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project(Phase Two). The Mason Express ("MAX"), bus rapid transit project is entering the right-of-way acquisition phase of the project. Project acquisitions have been broken into three phases. This Ordinance pertains to the second phase (Phase Two) and consists of eighteen distinct property ownerships. Phase One was adopted by Ordinance No. 059,2009 on June 2,2009. As a critical, federally funded transportation project, staff requests authorization to utilize eminent domain, if necessary, and only if good faith negotiations break down, in order to ensure a timely acquisition of the necessary property interests. 23. First Reading of Ordinance No 080 2009 Repealing Ordinance No. 038,2009,Expanding the Boundaries of the Fort Collins Colorado Downtown Development Authority: and Amending the Plan of Development of the Authority. Council adopted Ordinance No. 038, 2009 on May 5, 2009, that approved the inclusion of the Lemay/Lincoln Avenue Area Properties,and Howes/Laurel Street Area Properties within the boundaries of the District. As the Ordinance was being prepared for recording with Larimer County, the Assessor's staff contacted the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) and noted an error in the legal description of the DDA boundary amendment. Staff determined the error was perpetuated from the beginning of the inclusion process, due,to inconsistent records that staff relies upon to routinely verify legal descriptions: Therefore, 230 July 7, 2009 Ordinance No.038,2009 must be repealed and anew Ordinance approved with the corrected legal description and petition. NOTE: As a result of working together to solve the issue related to the legal description error, the DDA, County and City staff identified other errors in the official DDA boundary legal description. Staff used this housekeeping exercise as an opportunity to correct errors dating as far back as the 1980's, and has provided a corrected district legal description in the attached ordinance. The petitions for inclusion would change the boundaries of the DDA District and amend the Plan of Development of the Authority to include in the Lemay/Lincoln Avenue area and the South Howes Street area. 24. Resolution 2009-063 Approving the Acceptance of the Proposed Donation of the Sculpture "Transcend." This Resolution accepts the donation of artwork, a sculpture entitled "Transcend"by artist Collen Nyanhongo, to the City. The sculpture will become part of the City's Art in Public Places collection. 25. Resolution 2009-064 Approving Expenditures from the Art in Public Places Reserve Account in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund to Commission an Artist to Create Art Elements for the West Harmony Road Project. This Resolution will approve expenditures of$38,600 for design,materials,installation and contingency for a project by the artist Christopher Weed to create sculptural elements for the West Harmony Road Project. 26. Resolution 2009-065 Amending Policies Re ag rding the Issuance of Proclamations. Adoption of this Resolution will amend the Council policies related to proclamations to clarify that proclamations are intended to honor local persons or to celebrate certain community activities or events and are not intended to be a means by which the City takes a position on controversial matters that maybe the subject of strongly divergent views within the community. 27. Resolution 2009-066 Reappointing Gordon F. Esplin as Temporary Judge and Authorizing the Execution of an Employment Agreement. Council originally appointed Gordon F. Esplin as Temporary Judge (Assistant Municipal Judge)in 1989,and has reappointed him every two years thereafter. His current appointment terminated on June 30, 2009. Municipal Judge Kathleen M. Lane recommends that Mr. Esplin be reappointed for another two-year term. 231 July 7, 2009 Mr. Esplin has been paid$85 per hour for his services for several years now. While that rate is well below the going rate for legal fees in Fort Collins, it is an appropriate rate for this occasional hourly service when compared with what other municipalities pay their Assistant Municipal Judges. Mr. Esplin has agreed to continue in this position at the current pay rate. 28. Resolution 2009-067 Making Appointments to the Commission on Disability and the Downtown Development Authority. A vacancy currently exists on the Commission on Disability due to the resignation of Kimberly Imig. Mayor Doug Hutchinson and Councilmember Lisa Poppaw conducted interviews and are recommending that Carrie Sue Rogers fill the vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2011. A vacancy currently exists on the Downtown Development Authority due to the resignation of Ryan Keiffer. Mayor Pro Tern Kelly Ohlson and Councilmember Ben Manvel reviewed the application on file. The Council interview team is recommending Janet Bramhall to fill the vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2011. r 29. Routine Easements. A. Easement dedication for a permanent drainage easement from Lone Cactus Capital Group, LLC, to enlarge existing detention pond, located at 4800 Wheaton Drive (parking lot). Monetary consideration: $10. B. Easement dedication for permanent utility easement from Lone Cactus Capital Group, LLC, for the relocation of a fire hydrant and meter pit that is related to a parking lot expansion being done at 4800 Wheaton Drive. ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Deputy City Clerk Jensen. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 063, 2009, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 064, 2009, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Natural Areas Fund for the Purpose of Providing Natural Areas Programming Not Included in the 2009 Adopted City Budget and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations to the Capital Projects Fund. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 065, 2009, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Cultural Development and Programming Activities and the Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No.066,2009,Making Various Amendments to the City Land Use Code. 232 July 7, 2009 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 067, 2009, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Community Development Block Grant Fund. 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 068, 2009, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue from the Colorado Department of Transportation in the Transit Fund for the Development of the Transit Strategic Plan. 13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 069, 2009, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capitals Projects Fund, Mason Corridor Project for the South Transit Center Project. 14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 070,2009,Authorizing Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in Connection with the Harmony Road and College Avenue Improvements Project. 15. Second Reading of Ordinance No.071,2009,Appropriating Funds Transferred from the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority Fund into the Capital Projects Fund for the North College Avenue and East Willox Lane Improvement Project. 16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2009, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Restorative Justice Program and Authorizing the Transfer of Matching Funds Previously Appropriated in the Police Services Operating Budget. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Deputy City Clerk Jensen. 17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 073, 2009 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Light and Power Fund for the Energy Star New Homes Program and for the Residential Solar Grant Program and Authorizing the Transfer of Matching Funds Previously Appropriated in the Light and Power Operating Budget. 18. Items Relating to the Completion of the 2009 Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process for Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing and Community Development Activities Utilizing the Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, and Home Investment Partnership (HOME) Program, and the City's Human Services Program and Affordable Housing Fund. C'. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No.074,2009,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Community Development Block Grant Fund. D. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No.075,2009,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the HOME Investment Partnership Fund. 19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 076, 2009, Dissolving the Telecommunications Board and Amending City Code by Repealing Sections Relating to the Telecommunications Board. 233 July 7, 2009 20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2009 Amending Chapter 26, Article VI, Division 4 of the City Code Relating to Excess Circuit Charge. 21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2009 Amending the City Code and the Traffic Code Regarding Obstructions of Parking Spaces for Persons with Disabilities. 22. First Reading of Ordinance No.079,2009,Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements Related to the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project (Phase Two). 23. First Reading of Ordinance No. 080,2009,Repealing Ordinance No. 038,2009;Expanding the Boundaries of the Fort Collins, Colorado Downtown Development Authority; and Amending the Plan of Development of the Authority. 33. First Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2009, Amending the Land Use Code to Reduce the Buffer Around Wastewater Treatment Plants. Councilmember Ohlson made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Poppaw to adopt and approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar and to adopt Item #26 as 'revised. Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Consent Calendar Follow-up Mayor Hutchinson noted the CDBG Commission is composed of volunteers who work with staff to make difficult decisions and he thanked the Commission for its work. i Councilmember Troxell asked if the donation of the sculpture"Transcend"(Item#24)will provide an in-kind contribution in lieu of requiring another project to use 1%of the project funds for Art in Public Places. City Attorney Roy stated the donation cannot be considered in lieu of another project. Each project that is required under the Code to contribute 1% is still required to do so and is not relieved of that necessity by this art donation. Staff Reports City Manager Atteberry stated the national trade publication, Recreation Management, named the Northside Aztlan Community Center as the winner of its 2009 innovative architecture and design award. City Manager Atteberry noted Soapstone Prairie Natural Area was featured in National Geographic's Traveler's Magazine in June. City Manager Atteberry thanked Campus Crusade for holding its biennial conference at Fort Collins, which brings almost 6,400 visitors to Fort Collins. Many members of Campus Crusade have 234 July 7, 2009 volunteered at various parks and natural areas this summer and provided.over 900 hours of volunteering to the City. Deputy City Manager Jones stated the stakeholder committee, composed of CSU students, neighborhood and industry representatives, has met twice to review the Occupancy Ordinance and has also met in separate focus groups to discuss the impacts of the Occupancy Ordinance and to provide recommendations to make the Ordinance more effective. The whole committee will meet in July, August, and September and will have an opportunity to review the Corona Report that has been prepared on the Occupancy Ordinance. ("Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) Ordinance No. 081, 2009, Amending the Land Use Code to Reduce the Buffer Around Wastewater Treatment Plants, Postponed The following is staff s memorandum for this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility will soon be significantly upgraded with aggressive odor controls and additional treatment technologies. This includes introducing bio-filters, covering all basins and adding a carbon filter. Reducing the buffer from 1,000 to 500 feet acknowledges the effectiveness of these measures. The reduced buffer exceeds the regulations and policies of the Colorado Water Quality Control Division. BACKGROUND The Land Use Code was first adopted in March 1997. Subsequent revisions have been recommended on a regular basis to make changes, additions, deletions and clarifications that have been identified since the last update. The proposed change will reduce the buffer around the Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility from 1,000 feet to 500 feet. On May 21, 2009, the Planning and Zoning Board considered the proposed change as part of a set of 15 revisions. The Board then made a motion to approve all 15 of the proposed revisions as a package and then voted 6—0 to forward to City Council a recommendation ofapproval. Ordinance No. 066, 2009, adopted on Second Reading earlier this evening as part of the Consent Calendar, approves the other 14 revisions. " Steve Dush, Current Planning Director, stated this item is a collaborative effort between Current Planning and Utilities. Current Planning is involved because the proposed change will amend the Land Use Code. Utilities is involved because of the technical upgrades to the Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility. The Planning and Zoning Board unanimously approved this amendment to the Land Use Code. 235 July 7, 2009 Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, stated the current standard was adopted in 2001 and provided a 1000- foot odor buffer around waste treatment plants. The proposed Land Use Code change will reduce the buffer to 500 feet,based on wastewater treatment plants providing certain upgraded technologies. The odor buffer will not impact existing buildings and will allow building additions and expansions. The odor buffer will impact future new construction or when there is a change of use in an existing building. The proposed change will remove a small section of the East Side neighborhood, located along Riverside and Mulberry, from the odor buffer. f The Land Use Code provides a 300-foot buffer for natural habitat and features along the Poudre River, measured from top of the bank of the River. A 100-year floodway and floodplain buffer, measured from the River, also exists around the Mulberry Plant. The most stringent buffer requirements would prevail on any property located with the various buffers around the Mulberry Plant. The proposed 500-foot buffer is exceeded by the 300-foot natural habitat and feature buffer and the 100-year floodway buffer, in combination. Rich Shannon,Pinnacol Consulting Group,510 Granite Street,Loveland,representing the property owners of the Lincoln Greens property,supported the proposal and stated the staff recommendation is reasonable. Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony, did not support any change at this time and he suggested waiting until the upgrades were complete at the Mulberry Plant to deter mine if the upgrades warrant making any changes to the odor buffer. Councilmember Poppaw asked if there was any reason to change the odor buffer at this time and if it would be possible to wait until the upgrades are installed before considering a change to the odor buffer. Brian Janonis,Utilities Executive Director,stated there was no urgent reason a change to the odor buffer. Mr. Shannon stated the technology behind the upgrades to the Mulberry Plant is well- tested and tried throughout the state. Testing the effectiveness of the upgrades is not done by"taking a whiff"but but is based on modeling, with testing done at the Plant,itsel£ Current technology shows that, at most,there might be an odor at 250 feet. A 500-foot buffer will give the community a large margin of error and is a reasonable compromise. Changing the odor buffer will allow the property owners to move forward with the sale of the property. The property has much potential for the Downtown Development Authority and the City of Fort Collins. There is no buyer for the property at this time because of the size of the current buffer,which inhibits planning for development of the property. The property could be annexed into the DDA boundary and create a large amount of tax , increment to support many goals for the downtown area. The ability to move forward with the sale process,the planning process with the City should be happening now so that when the economy turns around in the next two to three years, the property will be ready. A delay of three to four years creates a significant burden on the property owners. Councilmember Manvel asked what restrictions would be placed on the property,which is located on the flood fringe. Marsha Hilmes-Robinson, Stormwater Civil Engineer, stated non-residential structures can be build in a flood fringe, but would need to be elevated two feet above the flood elevation. Any development that included residential or mixed-use would first be required to go through a separate process with FEMA to remove the land from the,floodplain and would still be v 236 July 7, 2009 required to elevate buildings two feet above the flood elevation. There are restrictions as to what type of businesses would be allowed in the floodplain. Councilmember Manvel asked if the buffer for residential development would remain at 1000 feet, if the proposed Land Use Code amendment were adopted. Shepard stated the proposal takes the buffer from 1000 feet to 500 feet and does not differentiate between residential and commercial development. Councilmember Manvel asked what percentage of the property is unable to be developed with the current odor buffer. Mr. Shannon stated about 50% of the property is unable to be developed at present,but changing the size of the odor buffer will alter the configuration of the property and allow a more comprehensive master plan approach to development. Decreasing the size of the odor buffer will allow 25% more of the property to be developed. Mayor Hutchinson asked for clarification of the points to be considered in making this decision. Shepard clarified solids will not be treated at the Mulberry Plant but will be bypassed to the Drake Plant. This Plant will only be treating liquids and will have upgraded odor control through the biofilters and the carbon scrubbers and the covered basins which is sufficient to lower the odor buffer to 250 feet. Staff is recommending an odor buffer of 500 feet, which exceeds the state recommendation. The Planning and Zoning Board was comfortable with the technology being installed at the Mulberry Plant and recommended approval of the odor buffer change. Janonis stated odors could always be an issue, but the best technology is being installed with the upgrades to the Mulberry Plant. Councilmember Ohlson asked for more information about the upgrade to the Mulberry Plant, the cost and when it will be completed. Janonis stated the trickling filter was built in 1948 and failed in 2003,which raised the odor level significantly in the area. Utilities made the decision to replace the trickling filter and upgrade the Plant. Upgrades are currently underway at a cost of$30 million with $2 million for odor control. Steve Comstock, Water Reclamation and Biosolids Manager, stated the $2 million is an additional cost for the second stage of odor control. Janonis noted the additional cost was included to provide protection of existing rate payers and was not related to any request from the owners of the Lincoln Green property. The upgrades to the Plant are scheduled to be completed in 2010 and be in operation by early 2011. Councilmember Roy noted a memo from the Chair of the Water Board stated the City was approached by the owner of Lincoln Greens regarding the effects of the current buffer zone limits on their property. Janonis acknowledged the Lincoln Green property owners approached the City about lowering the odor buffer zone,but the equipment being installed for odor control was selected to protect existing rate payers. Utilities did not intend to reduce the odor buffer when the upgrades were designed. Mayor Hutchinson noted none of the expenditures for the project were aimed at lowering the odor buffer to increase buildable land but were to protect rate payers. Janonis stated the driving force behind the upgrades to the Mulberry Plant was the failure of the trickling filter. EPA standards state 237 July 7, 2009 the life expectancy of a wastewater treatment plant is 50 years so the Mulberry Plant is past due for an overhaul. Councilmember Kottwitz asked if the funds for the upgrades have already been allocated and if any change to the odor buffer will affect the cost to upgrade the Plant. Janonis stated the upgrades are already underway and any change to the odor buffer will not affect the cost of the upgrades. Councilmember Troxell asked if the state-mandated odor buffer of 250 feet included any safety factors. Comstock stated the 1000-foot buffer was put into place at the recommendation of state policy. The 250-foot buffer is recommended for public health to prevent contamination by airborne bacteria and is not related to odor. Councilmember Troxell asked what benefits the City might get from the Pickle Plant Project. City Manager Atteberry stated the Pickle Plant Project is currently on hold. The odor buffer is not related to the Pickle Plant Project. Janonis noted the Pickle Plant is a solar project and will not be a habitable structure and would be allowed inside the 1000-foot odor buffer. Carrie Daggett, Deputy City Attorney, stated the State's public health policy that sets the 250-foot buffer is used to evaluate proposed expansions or new locations for wastewater treatment plants and the State reserves the right to require a larger buffer if the circumstances require. She noted Council is setting a regulatory standard to determine the proper buffer for a plant that meets the zero dilution threshold standard and is not specifically considering development of an individual property. Councilmember Ohlson asked for clarification of the amount of developable land that would be located in the floodplain. Hilmes-Robinson stated it is very difficult to develop within the floodway line because City Code prohibits any residential,non-residential or mixed-use within the floodway. The only way to develop within the floodway is through a major construction project that raises the land and would require FEMA to remap the property. Development can occur in the floodplain. Councilmember Ohlson asked if the area between the 500 and 1,000 feet would be habitable but could not be residential. Shepard stated the Code change does not require any differentiation between habitable or non-habitable structures in the area between the 500 and 1,000-foot zone. Councilmember Ohlson stated a spill occurred several years ago that was never attributed to any entity and he asked if the spill contributed to the decision to upgrade the Plant. Janonis stated the spill or intentional dumping that occurred several years ago was a contributing factor to the failure of the trickling filter. It was never determined who did the illegal dumping. Replacement of the Plant was being considered, but the failure of the trickling filter moved the upgrades,forward by several years. Councilmember Manvel asked what were the odds of equipment failure at the Plant that would create significant odor problems. Janonis stated it is impossible to predict when or if failure might occur. Odor control is the most difficult area to control in wastewater treatment. 238 July 7, 2009 Councilmember Manvel asked if the Plant would ever be expanded. Janonis stated the Plant will never be expanded because it is at its maximum allowable size. Additional treatment will probably be required within the next ten years to meet new nutrient standards for the Poudre River. Councilmember Troxell asked for the life of the upgraded facility. Janonis noted EPA guidelines state a treatment plant will last 50 years. Councilmember Troxell stated the State allows an odor buffer of 250 feet, but the proposed Code change is for 500 feet. Janonis stated 250 feet is the State minimum for a buffer. Councilmember Ohlson noted the State standard is set for airborne contaminants and not for odor control. Councilmember Poppaw asked for clarification of the memo from the Chair of the Water Board, which states"The state policy for buffer zones recommends a zone of 1000 feet." Comstock stated the 250-foot buffer and the 1000-foot buffer recommended by the State are for two separate issues. The 250-foot is the minimum standard set for public health but the recommendation for odor is 1000 feet. The State policy has changed since the City set the odor buffer at 1000 feet. Daggett stated the State policy no longer references 1000 feet. Comstock stated, from the State's perspective,there is no regulation or requirement for odor control so the numbers provided in the State's policy relate to a facility with no odor control equipment at all. Some of the measures included in the upgrade directly address odor control. Councilmember Ohlson asked if the State Policy prohibits residential within the odor buffer zone. Daggett stated she needed to confirm what the Policy states before she could give an answer. Councilmember Ohlson asked if there were any plans to change the 1000-foot odor buffer currently in place at the Drake Treatment Plant. Janonis stated private storm drainage facilities, City-owned natural areas,Utility-owned property,CSU Nature Center and one small parcel of private ownership are located within the 1000-foot buffer and there are no plans to change the buffer at the Drake facility. Comstock noted the proposed Code language references the type of technology being installed at the Mulberry Plant and is not installed at the Drake Plant so the Drake Plant would not qualify for a smaller odor buffer. Councilmember Ohlson asked if the odor buffer at the Drake facility had ever been reduced. Janonis stated the Drake Plant had no buffer and was surrounded by farm land. A development was proposed that would have been located close to the Drake Plant. At that time, the State policy of 1000-foot buffer was implemented and the developer put stormwater facilities at the lower end of his property so no habitable structures would be located within the 1000-foot buffer. Utilities bought another parcel to prevent development within the buffer. Millions of dollars were spent on odor control at the Drake Plant because odors occur, even with a 1000-foot buffer. Comstock stated the funds were spent to renovate the existing facility and no new odor control equipment was installed. The renovations replaced equipment and moved the plant from chemical treatment to biological treatment of waste. 239 c - July 7, 2009 Councilmember Manvel asked if changes to the waste flow through denser material from low-flush toilets would affect the odor control measures. Janonis stated water conservation has increased the waste concentration. Comstock noted the increased waste concentration moves slower through the pipes and degrades quicker so the waste has more odors associated when it gets to the treatment plant. Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel,to postpone further discussion of Item #33 until after consideration of the two pulled items to allow time for Deputy Attorney Daggett to finish her research of the State policy. Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 077,2009 Amending Chapter 26, Article VI, Division 4 of the City Code Relating to Excess Circuit Charge.Adopted on First Reading The following is staffs memorandum for this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance allows the Utilities to respond promptly to a customer's request for excess capacity service based on the proposed Code provision. The charges for the service will be stated in the Code and revised when electric cost of service studies are updated. BACKGROUND Large commercial and industrial electric customers may request electrical distribution services related to excess circuit capacity. Currently, the Electric Utility reviews individual customer requests for these services, determines the impact to service disruption and the distribution system, and forms a special services agreement setting the charges for this additional service. A special services agreement with each customer allows the Utility to properly bill for the excess circuit capacity requested. Ordinance No. 057, 2009, adopted June 2, 2009, requires the Utilities to bring all special services agreements that modify rates,fees or charges before the Council for approval. The excess circuit capacity charge is a modification of the standby charges. The electric distribution system is designed with certain levels ofredundancy whereby, ifservice to afacility is disrupted, service can be rerouted through alternative routes to reconnect to a customer. When a customer wants immediate backup service for an automatic throw over (ATO) or by manually performing the same operation, the Utility will provide a service path that is always available in case of a disruption, so that switching is immediate and no outage is experienced. The charges for this service are based on the costs relevant to the facilities needed to provide immediate switching capabilities. Current commercial tariffs have a Distribution Standby Charge designed to recover the capital and operations and maintenance(O&M)expenses associated with the reserved capacity, should a customer want to purchase it for intermittent or stand-by loads. A customer load 240 July 7, 2009 supplied for immediate backup does not need additional substation capacity. Without substation costs, the facilities charge is 62.4% of the standard facilities charge. Immediate switching of customer load from one source to another source increases infrastructure costs by 33%. Based on this, the facilities charge for excess circuit capacity service calculates to 20.8% of the current facilities charge (62.4%x 3301o). In order to accommodate and expedite the process for customers who may request excess circuit capacity, utilities staff is recommending codification of the excess circuit capacity charge. This would allow the Utilities to respond promptly to a customer request for this service. The suggested Code change will be presented to the Electric Board at its regular July 1, 2009 meeting. Excerpts from the minutes of that meeting will not be available by the packet distribution deadline for the July 7 Council meeting. Excerpts related to the Code change will be provided prior to Second Reading on July 21, 2009." Eric Sutherland, 631 LaPorte, stated the process to regulate the municipally-owned utility is not optimal. The Electric Board did not have the proposed Code language at the time it met. The lack of process does not allow Council to fully utilize its boards and commission and gain all perspectives on complex issues. Councilmember Ohlson asked why the Electric Board did not have the proposed Code language to consider when it discussed this issue. Brian Janonis,Utilities Executive Director,stated boards and commissions are generally asked to advise on policy issues but Code changes are not typically considered by the boards. Code language is crafted by the City Attorney's office and is not reviewed by boards and commissions. City Attorney Roy noted final Code language is often not provided to Council when it discusses various issues at a work session. When the Planning and Zoning Board discusses proposed Land Use Code changes, it sometimes only has draft language or concepts to consider and does not have the final Code languages. The timing of the agenda process and the timing of board meetings often dictates whether the final Code language is available, presented in conceptual form or is presented in outline form. Mayor Hutchinson noted the Council is not"flying blind"without any input or information because the City has an experienced, professional staff that provides much information to Council. There is a line between volunteer advisory boards and professional staff. Councilmember Manvel asked how often the numbers in the rate schedule will change. Janonis stated the proposed rate schedule is similar to water and wastewater rates. Only Council can establish rates and authorize all special services agreements that modify rates, fees or charges. The rate schedule will be established annually with other Utility rates. Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel,to adopt Ordinance No. 077, 2009, on First Reading. Yeas: Hutchinson,Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson,Poppaw,Roy and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 241 July 7, 2009 Ordinance No. 079,2009, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements Related to the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project(Phase Two), Adopted on First Readine The following is staff s memorandum for this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Mason Express("MAX'), bus rapid transitproject is entering into the right-of-way acquisition phase of the project. Project acquisitions have been broken into three phases. This Ordinance pertains to the second phase(Phase II)and consists of eighteen distinctproperty ownerships. Phase I was adopted by Ordinance No. 059, 2009 on June 2, 2009. As a critical,federally funded transportation project, staff requests authorization to utilize eminent domain, if necessary, and only if good faith negotiations break down, in order to ensure a timely acquisition of the necessary property interests. BACKGROUND The Mason Corridor bus rapid transit project, branded Mason Express ( "MAX') is a five mile, north-south byway which extends from Cherry Street on the north, to south of Harmony Road(the site of the new South Transit Center). MAX will link major destinations and activity centers along the City's primary transportation and commercial corridor including, "Old Town, "Colorado State University, Foothills Mall, and South College retail areas. In addition to greatly enhancing the City's north-south transportation movement, MAX will be a significant catalyst for economic growth, both as a short-term stimulus and as a long-term development/re-development driver. The City is targeting a 2011 Fall operation date for the corridor. The project is predominately located within the outside twenty-five feet of the east half of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (the "BSNF')property. The overall project right-of-way will consist of a combination of property owned by the BNSF, Colorado State University, private land owners, and the City. At present, in addition to the BNSF, Colorado State University, the Colorado State University Research Foundation, and several ditch companies, the project will involve property acquisition from forty-two distinct property owners. Each acquisition is unique, but the typical acquisition need for Phase II of the Project can be characterized as a ten- oot permanent easement and a thirty to fifty foot temporary construction easement along the rear of properties adjacent to the project. Fee simple ownership is also needed in a variety of locations to accommodate stations, utilities and other ancillary project improvements. Staff has taken great effort to minimize impacts to property owners and will continue to do so as the project progresses. To accommodate workflow and timing,property acquisitions have been broken into three phases. The secondphase(Phase II)consists ofeighteen distinctproperty ownerships(see attached location map). Phase III, the remaining seventeen property ownerships, will come for Council consideration on August 18, 2009. 242 July 7, 2009 , In addition to hosting a number of public forums on various aspects of the project, staff has had initial communications with all the property owners along the corridor. Additionally, staff has had property specific communications with the eighteen ownerships in Phase II. Furthermore, all Phase Hownerships have been notified by certified mail ofstaffs intention to request authorization to use eminent domain, if necessary, to acquire project property interests. In all communications staff strongly emphasizes the City's desire to cooperatively work towards achieving a voluntary agreement. To ensure the integrity of the project schedule, maintain certain project efficiencies, and to remain a viable Federal Transit Administration funded project, it is critical that the City have the ability to acquire the property interests in a timely manner. Staff has a high degree of respect and understanding for the sensitivity of the acquisition process and commits to utilizing eminent domain only if absolutely necessary, and only if good faith negotiations are not successful. " Bruce Lockhart,2500 East Harmony,did not support adoption of this Ordinance because it will give the City Manager a blank check to proceed with eminent domain proceedings against private property owners. Councilmember Manvel asked for an explanation of the eminent domain process. Helen Matson, Real Estate Services Manager, stated the Mason Corridor Project is a federally funded project. A set process is required when using federal funds, including a notification to be sent to private property owners, notifying them of their rights and of the authorization to use eminent domain proceedings. The notice cannot be sent to the property owners until Council has authorized the use of eminent domain. The federal process is intended to protect private property owners and provide due process to the citizens. Official negotiations cannot begin until the notice of interest letter is sent to the property owners. Councilmember Kottwitz asked if there was another time in the process where Council could decide to halt any eminent domain proceedings. Matson stated Council will not consider this item again because the Ordinance gives the City the authority to proceed with eminent domain proceedings, if necessary. City Manager Atteberry noted Council would be informed if any eminent domain proceedings were initiated. City Attorney Roy stated before eminent domain actions can proceed in court,a number of prerequisites must be met. Good faith negotiations must have been attempted. Staff requests authorization of the use of eminent domain if good faith negotiations fail and the authorization is necessary to allow the timetable for the project to still be met. Negotiations continue from start to finish. Council must decide if the property acquisition is important enough to authorize eminent domain proceedings. Councilmember Kottwitz asked if the property owners were aware of the City's interest in their properties. Matson stated open houses have been held for the last two years on the different phases of the Mason Corridor Project. Every owner knows the process the City is following and is aware that Council is being asked to authorize eminent domain proceedings, if needed. 243 July 7, 2009 Mayor Hutchinson noted the use of eminent domain is pursued only as a last resort. He asked for the number of eminent domain proceedings that have been pursued in court. City Attorney Roy noted very few have been required to go through a full hearing. A small percentage of the total number of properties acquisitions have had the proceedings started against the properties. The court process ensures that'the property owner is fairly compensated for the property. Councilmember Ohlson noted there has been no abuse of the use of eminent domain in over 35 years. City Manager Atteberry stated staff is cautious in its use of eminent domain and Council has consistently directed that eminent domain be used sparingly and as a last resort. It is used only for projects that are of community-wide benefit and could not occur without the property acquisition. Councilmember Manvel noted the Mason Corridor Project only requires a 10-foot strip of land for right-of-way along various properties that back onto Mason Street. The Project should increase the value of these properties and will benefit the property owners. Matson stated many of the properties will have permanent easements and temporary construction easements and owners will be adequately compensated for use of the property. Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Poppaw,to adopt Ordinance No. 079, 2009, on First Reading. Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Council returned to the discussion of item#33 First Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2009,Amending the Land Use Code to Reduce the Buffer Around Wastewater Treatment Plants. Mayor Hutchinson asked for clarification of the State policy concerning the size of a buffer around a wastewater treatment plant. City Attorney Roy stated the State policy does not apply to the proposed plant under consideration,because the Mulberry Plant is not a new plant and the upgrades are not an expansion of an existing plant. In the future, if there is an expansion of the Plant and the same policy is in place, a 1000-foot buffer would be needed to acquire State approval of the expansion. If the buffer were less than 1000 feet, and the same policy is in place, the City would need to demonstrate adequate odor mitigation measures in order to warrant approval by the State. Mayor Hutchinson asked if the City would be required to provide both a biological filter to minimize odor and protect public health and place a restriction on residential homes in the buffer zone, if a 500-foot buffer zone were put into place. Deputy City Attorney Daggett stated the State evaluates a proposed plant, the processes to be used at the plant, odors and other impacts from the plant and determines if the proposed controls are adequate. If the City were seeking State approval of an expansion of the Mulberry Plant,the State would already be evaluating the controls that were being proposed for the new plant because of existing homes that are located within the buffer zone of the Plant. Councilmember Ohlson asked if the State would be evaluating the Mulberry Plant and if any of the proposed new State regulations will require an evaluation of the Plant. Daggett stated the State will 244 July 7, 2009 not be evaluating the Plant because it is not being expanded in capacity at this time and no permit is required. New regulations relating to discharge permit restrictions and nutrient standards are under consideration by the State and would affect the Plant's discharge, if they are adopted. The current construction at the Plant is not considered to be an expansion and does not require State approval. Councilmember Manvel asked to see a copy of the State's policy. Councilmember Troxell made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Kottwitz,to adopt Ordinance No. 081, 2009 on First Reading. Councilmember Ohlson stated there did not seem to be any need to consider a change to the odor buffer until the construction is completed at the Mulberry Plant. Councilmember Roy stated there were too many unanswered questions about the impacts of changing the odor buffer and there was no hurry to authorize any change. Councilmember Poppaw stated there is no harm in waiting to change the odor buffer and she did not support changing the odor buffer until the upgrades to the Plant are completed to ensure the best decision is made. J Councilmember Troxell stated the odor control upgrades being installed at the Plant are utilizing the best technology available and will benefit the residences that already exist within the buffer. Changing the size of the odor buffer would allow more property to be developed, which would benefit the downtown area. Councilmember Kottwitz stated allowing the change to the odor buffer will benefit the entire community by enabling more economic development. Councilmember Manvel stated there was currently no development proposal for the Lincoln Greens property and probably will not happen anytime soon. He did not support adoption of the Ordinance. Councilmember Kottwitz asked if a postponement of further consideration of this item could be considered. City Attorney Roy stated Council can choose to support a motion to postpone. Councilmember Kottwitz made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson,to postpone further consideration of Ordinance No. 081,2009,until the implementation of the upgrades at the Mulberry Plant. Mr. Shannon asked Council to table the item indefinitely so all parties can clarify the issues and the impacts of changing the odor buffer. City Attorney Roy noted that the item could be postponed indefinitely, with the understanding that it will come back if and when the City Manager, in consultation with the Leadership Team, thinks it is ready for reconsideration by the Council. 245 July 7, 2009 Councilmember Kottwitz amended her motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to postpone consideration of Ordinance No. 081, 2009, to such time as the City Manager and the Leadership Team have determined the item is ready for reconsideration. Councilmember Poppaw stated postponement was a good compromise and will allow time to resolve the issues. Councilmember Roy asked for more background information before the item is brought for further Council consideration because the request is driven by development interests for economic gain. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson,Kottwitz,Manvel,Ohlson,Poppaw,Roy and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Mayor Hutchinson asked Council to give the City Manager and City Attorney direction regarding any actions Council might take to address the issue of the demolition of historical buildings and the impacts of any such Council action. Councilmember Roy stated Council should consider declaring a moratorium on any scrape-offs. He wanted to examine preservation status of older neighborhoods. Any delay in Council action could put neighborhood desires at risk. Design and architectural standards need to be in place to protect neighborhoods. A short-term moratorium could ensure staff is working for the best possible answer. Councilmember Ohlson noted if Council supported a moratorium, it would only be directing staff to develop language for Council to consider about"scrape-offs." Consideration should be given to which areas of the city to apply a moratorium because it would not be appropriate to place a moratorium citywide. Protections should be put into place that ensure buildings are not deliberately damaged to qualify for condemnation. Mayor Hutchinson stated staff should be directed to tell Council the pros and cons of any demolition moratorium and any other options available. City Manager Atteberry clarified that the intent of Council is develop a policy to determine if a proposed scrape-off is appropriate and if the new building fits with the existing character of the neighborhood. Councilmember Roy stated the neighborhood on Park Street did not receive all the information it needed to protect its neighborhood in a timely fashion and he asked what tools a neighborhood can utilize to achieve landmark preservation. Some "scrape-offs" have resulted in new buildings that fit very nicely with their neighborhoods but others are very inappropriate and do not fit into the architecture of the neighborhood. Staff needs to develop a process to facilitate neighborhoods in creating landmark preservation districts and protect architecture. 246 July 7, 2009 Councilmember Ohlson stated "pop-ups" and "scrape-offs" can be beneficial to a neighborhood, when they are done right, but a process should be developed to ensure the new building enhances the neighborhood and is not a detriment. Councilmember Poppaw stated a moratorium would assure that a property, such as the one on Park Street, could not be demolished until neighborhood protections are put into place. City Attorney Roy stated there could be other options that are worth considering. One option is an amendment of the demolition delay ordinance that would require all structures over a certain age or in a certain area go through the demolition review process. A moratorium may be the best solution, but it would be good to allow time for other options to be considered before a moratorium is put into place. Mayor Hutchinson stated imposing a moratorium without considering all the options could have some unintended and detrimental consequences. Time should be allowed to consider options. Councilmember Ohlson stated all options need to be considered to avoid unintended impacts that could occur from a moratorium. Jeff Scheick, Director of Planning, Development and Transportation, stated situations can exist where condemnation and demolition are the correct solution. A building may be occupied, but is unsafe and uninhabitable and drastic action needs to occur. A moratorium on all demolition may put some people at risk with regard to public health and safety. The City's Historic Preservation Program is an active program that has much open public engagement and property owner engagement. Staff works closely with the Landmark Preservation Commission. The issue with the historic designation of the Park Street neighborhood is not a systemic problem but was a particular incident that went awry. Mayor Hutchinson summarized Council direction that staff is to bring options regarding the issue of"scrape-offs," including the possibility of a moratorium, and identify other options to,solve the ` problem that arose with the Park Street neighborhood. Staff is to bring its recommendation and the pros and cons of each option for Council consideration at the next regular Council meeting. A long- term issue to be resolved is maintaining the character of older neighborhoods. City Manager Atteberry stated the time line for preparing the agenda for the next Council meeting is very short and he requested Council allow staff to prepare these options for the August 18 meeting. Staff can provide a memo to Council that outlines the options that will be brought forward before the August 18 meeting. Councilmember Ohlson suggested staff prepare an item for Council consideration on August 18 that would require Landmark Preservation Commission review of all demolition projects for an interim period. 247 July 7, 2009 City Attorney Roy stated staff could provide a memo for Council of possible options and recommendations, in conceptual form, before the next meeting so Council could provide more feedback at the end of the next meeting. Any formal action could be considered on August 18. Councilmember Poppaw asked if Council would support the establishment of an Energy Board to support the goals of the Energy Policy and the Climate Action Plan. Councilmember Roy expressed his support for creation of an Energy Board and for creation of a Technology Board to help the City utilize technology to communicate with citizens. Councilmember Ohlson supported Council consideration of the creation.of an Energy Board. Councilmember Poppaw asked for a staff analysis of the pros and cons of establishing an Energy Board. The Electric Board has expressed unanimous support for creation of an Energy Board. Councilmember Troxell asked if an Energy Board would replace the Electric Board and if sustainability would be considered. City Manager Atteberry stated the Electric Board and staff need to develop the parameters for an Energy Board. He will discuss the matter with Brian Janonis, Utilities Executive Director, to determine the schedule of the Electric Board and the staff time needed to develop this new board. He will provide a time frame and initial definition of the role of an Energy Board. Mayor Hutchinson noted a work session might be in order to discuss the duties of an Energy Board. Councilmember Poppaw asked if other Councilmembers would support a review of City Code regarding vicious dogs, barking dogs and Humane Society issues. Councilmember Roy supported the review and also requested addressing the dumping of vicious dogs outside the City into the County. City Manager Atteberry stated staff is also interested in reviewing the issue. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 248 July 21,2009 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,July 21, 2009, 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: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy, and Troxell. Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy. Citizen Participation Cheryl Distaso, 135 South Sunset, thanked the City for conducting sound demonstrations on July 9 and 10 for the proposed sound standards for the Downtown Entertainment District. The demonstrations showed there is more information to be gathered before any changes should be made to the sound standards. The Bohemian Foundation Oxbow Performance Venue will greatly impact the Buckingham neighborhood. She requested a noise demonstration to illustrate the sound volume that will be allowed up to 1 1/2 hours after a performance at the venue. Joe Solomon, 1721 Lindenwood Drive, expressed concern about financing infrastructure projects in the Mountain Vista Subarea. Before Council considers adoption of the Plan, a method of financing the grade-separated crossings that will be necessary so traffic will not become untenable as the area develops should be included. Stacy Lynne, 216 Park Street, expressed her dislike of the CFL lights recently installed in the Council Chambers. Matt Majoros, 1405 Linden Lake Road, stated his concerns with the the proposed realignment of Vine Street,which could become a truck bypass route. He asked that the proposed Mountain Vista Subarea Plan include a section that states Vine is not designed to be a truck bypass route. Mike McGarry, 7220 Randolph Court, thanked Council and City staff for the rapid response in correcting the spelling of a street name in Registry Ridge. Andrew Scott, 514 North Shields, stated Councilmember Roy does not live in District 6 and should not be allowed to vote on City issues. Ray Martinez,4121 Stoneridge Court,asked for a full disclosure of all City fees,including any new fees that might be proposed and any increases in utility rates. 249 July 21, 2009 Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony, expressed his concerns about recycling and stated the City should not offer curbside recycling because it requires more energy for trash trucks to haul recyclables away than is saved through recycling. Citizen Participation Follow-up Councilmember Kottwitz asked if the online disclosure of City expenditures would provide full disclosure of all City fees. City Manager Atteberry stated the project to provide transparency about City expenditures to the public,will be completed before September 1. The City is transparent about any proposed fee increases as part of the budget process. Council adopts utility fees. If other fees are changed administratively, Council is informed through the Budget process. An upcoming work session is planned to discuss utility issues; including cost of service and rates. He does expect electric, water and wastewater fees to increase. Mayor Hutchinson noted utility fees are not automatically increased and Council has to approve all utility rate increases. Councilmember Ohlson stated the new lighting in Council Chambers was installed to provide more energy savings but needs to be adjusted to lessen the harshness of the glare. Councilmember Troxell thanked Mr. McGarry for providing the information needed to correct the spelling of"Truxton" Street in the Registry Ridge neighborhood. Councilmember Roy stated he lives within District 6 in the City of Fort Collins and is fully qualified to be a Councilmember. Agenda Review City Manager Atteberry stated Item #15 Resolution 2009-069 Renaming Certain Streets in the Registry Ridge First and Third Filings and Richards Lake First Filing has been revised. He pulled Item #17 Resolution 2009-071 Authorizing the Issuance of a Revocable Permit to the Board of Governors ofthe Colorado State University System forinst, llation of Electric Service Lines on City- owned Property from the Consent Agenda because Councilmember Troxell has filed a conflict of interest with the item.He requested that Council vote to postpone consideration of Item#25 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 062, 2009, Amending Chapter 26, Article VI of the City Code Relating to Net Metered Electric Service until new interconnection standards can be brought forward. Ray Martinez,4121 Stoneridge Court,pulled item#10 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2009 Amending Chapter 26, Article VI, Division 4 of the City Code Relating to Excess Circuit Charge. 250 July 21, 2009 CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2009, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Restorative Justice Program and Authorizing the Transfer of Matching Funds Previously Appropriated in the Police Services Operating Budget. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 7, 2009, authorizes the appropriation of a grant in the amount of$21,574 and additional funds of$5,000 that have been received from the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice for salaries associated with the continued operation of Restorative Justice Services and authorizes the appropriation of matching funds in the amount of$8,858 from the Police Services budget. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 073, 2009 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Light and Power Fund for the Energy Star New Homes Program and for the Residential Solar Grant Program and Authorizing the Transfer of Matching Funds Previously Appropriated in the Light and Power Operating Budget. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 7,2009,appropriates grant funds totaling $72,500 received from the State of Colorado's Governor's Energy Office to ` fund additional solar rebates for eligible residential solar installations within the service area. 8. Items Relating to the Completion of the 2009 Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process for Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing and Community Development Activities Utilizing the Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, and Home Investment Partnership (HOME) Program, and the City's Human Services Program and Affordable HousingFund. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No.074,2009,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Community Development Block Grant Fund. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 075,2009,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the HOME Investment Partnership Fund. These Ordinances,unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 7,2009,complete the 2009 spring cycle of the competitive process for allocating City financial resources to affordable housing programs/projects and community development activities. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No.076,2009,Dissolving the Telecommunications Board and Amending City Code by Repealing_Sections Relating to the Telecommunications Board. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 7, 2009, dissolves the Telecommunications Board. Because of the current state of the telecommunications and cable TV regulatory environment and the City's limited role in either providing or regulating any form of data and telecommunications services, the charter and mission of the 251 July 21, 2009 Telecommunications Board is no longer aligned with City needs and priorities. In light of that assessment,the Telecommunications Board can be dissolved without adversely affecting the City. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2009 Amending Chapter 26,Article VI, Division 4 of the City Code Relating to Excess Circuit Charge. This Ordinance,unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 7,2009,allows the Utilities to respond promptly to a customer's request for excess capacity service based on the proposed Code provision. The charges for the service will be stated in the Code and revised when electric cost of service studies are updated. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 078,2009 Amending the City Code and the Traffic Code Re ag rdingObstructions of Parking Spaces for Persons with Disabilities. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 7, 2009, relocates Traffic Code Section 1208(10) regarding parking privileges for persons with disabilities to City y Code, Section 20,for more logical placement within the Code and to increase effectiveness of enforcement. This Section prohibits any person from placing or allowing to remain, any snow, ice, litter or other materials onto any parking space which is identified for use by persons with disabilities, or on any area immediately adjacent thereto. 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2009, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements Related. to the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project (Phase Two). The Mason Express ("MAX"), bus rapid transit project is entering into the right-of-way acquisition phase of the project. Project acquisitions have been broken into three phases. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 7, 2009, pertains to the second phase(Phase II)and consists of eighteen distinct property ownerships. As a critical, federally funded transportation project, staff requests authorization to utilize eminent domain, if necessary, and only if good faith negotiations break down, in order to ensure a timely acquisition of the necessary property interests. 13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2009, Repealing Ordinance No. 038, 20097 Expanding the Boundaries of the Fort Collins,Colorado Downtown Development Authority; and Amending, the Plan of Development of the Authority. Ordinance No. 080, 2009,unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 7, 2009, changes the boundaries of the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) District and amends the Plan of Development of the Authority to include properties located in the Lemay/Lincoln Avenue area and South Howes Street area. , 3 252 July 21, 2009 14. Resolution 2009-068 Adopting the Recommendations of the Cultural Resources Board Regarding Fort Fund Disbursements. The Cultural Development and Programming and Tourism Programming accounts (Fort Fund) provide grants to fund community events. This resolution will adopt the recommendations from the Cultural Resources Board to disburse these funds. 15. Resolution 2009-069 Renaming Certain Streets in the Registry Ridge First and Third Filings and Richards Lake First Filing. Registry Ridge First and Third Filings and Richards Lake First Filing are three recorded subdivisions that contain errors in the spelling of three street names. Since these names are misspelled on the recorded plats,they must be changed by Resolution. These three streets, with their correct spellings, are Truxton, Seawolf and Beam Reach. This Resolution will allow the Streets Department to change the street signs. 16. Resolution 2009-070 Authorizing a Twelve-Month Extension of the Revocable Permit Issued to Platte River Power Authority for Installation of Two Meteorological Towers on Meadow Springs Ranch Property, On February 19,2008,Council adopted Resolution 2008-022,authorizing the City Manager to issue a temporary revocable permit to Platte River Power Authority for the purpose of installing meteorological(MET)towers at Meadow Springs Ranch.Due to an unanticipated interruption in data collection, Platte River is requesting a 12-month extension to improve its data set. The proposed Resolution will authorize the City Manager to issue a 12-month extension to the revocable permit for the purpose of extending the data collection period. The extension for the temporary towers will allow Platte River to collect detailed wind speed and other data to investigate the site for potential wind generation. 17. Resolution 2009-071 Authorizing the Issuance of a Revocable Permit to the Board of . Governors of the Colorado State University System for Installation of Electric Service Lines on City-owned Property. Colorado State University (CSU) is in the process of constructing a new parking garage on the north side of Prospect Road between Centre Avenue and Bay Street. CSU plans to install a solar array on the roof of the new parking garage and would like to connect the garage and array to CSU's electrical system on campus. 18. Resolution 2009-072 Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property Located at 212 West Mountain Avenue For Up to Two Years as Part of the Rocky Mountain Innovation Initiative Pro rg am. Since the summer of 2004, the City has leased space to RM12 and its participating companies. Currently,RM12 leases space in Suites A and C at 200 West Mountain Avenue 253 July 21, 2009 and 321 Maple Street. This Resolution is a request for authorization to lease the facility at 212 West Mountain Avenue to RMI2. 19. Resolution 2009-073 Amending Resolution 2002-062 Relating to the Recruitment and Appointment Process for Boards and Commissions. This Resolution will change the current policy relating to the application and interview process for incumbents on boards and commissions. 20. Resolution 2009-074 Making Appointments to Various Boards and Commissions. A vacancy currently exists on the Community Development Block Grant Commission due to the resignation of Phil Majerus. Councilmember Lisa Poppaw and Mayor Doug Hutchinson conducted interviews and are recommending Vickie Traxler to fill the vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2010. A vacancy currently exists on the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board due to the resignation of Ray Boyd. Councilmember Aislinn Kottwitz and Mayor Pro Tem Kelly Ohlson conducted interviews. The Council interview team is recommending Paul Mills to fill the vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2012. A vacancy currently exists on the Youth Advisory Board due to the resignation of Vivian Acott. Councilmember Aislinn Kottwitz and Mayor Pro Tern Kelly Ohlson conducted interviews and are recommending Brigette Bleicher to fill the vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2011. A vacancy currently exists on the Zoning Board of Appeals due to the resignation of David Shands. Mayor Pro Tern Kelly Ohlson and Councilmember Aislinn Kottwitz conducted interviews. The Council interview team is recommending Peter Bohling to fill the vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2012. ***END CONSENT' Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2009, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Restorative Justice Program and Authorizing the Transfer of Matching Funds Previously Appropriated in the Police Services Operating Budget. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 073, 2009 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Light and Power Fund for the Energy Star New Homes Program and for the Residential Solar Grant Program and Authorizing the Transfer of Matching Funds Previously Appropriated in the Light and Power Operating Budget. 254 July 21, 2009 8. Items Relating to the Completion of the 2009 Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process for Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing and Community Development Activities Utilizing the Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, and Home Investment Partnership (HOME) Program, and the City's Human Services Program and Affordable Housing Fund. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 074,2009,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Community Development Block Grant Fund. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No.075,2009,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the HOME Investment Partnership Fund. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No.076,2009,Dissolving the Telecommunications Board and Amending City Code by Repealing Sections Relating to the Telecommunications Board. r 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2009 Amending Chapter 26, Article VI, Division 4 of the City Code Relating to Excess Circuit Charge. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 078,2009 Amending the City Code and the Traffic Code Regarding Obstructions of Parking Spaces for Persons with Disabilities. 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2009, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements Related to the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project(Phase Two). 13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2009, Repealing Ordinance No. 038, 2009; Expanding the Boundaries of the Fort Collins,Colorado Downtown Development Authority; and Amending the Plan of Development of the Authority. 25. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 062, 2009, Amending Chapter 26, Article VI of the City Code Relating to Net Metered Electric Service. Councilmember Manvel made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Poppaw,to adopt and approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar and to adopt Item #15 as revised. Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Reports Mayor Hutchinson reported he attended the Colorado Municipal League Executive Board retreat. 255 July 21, 2009 Resolution 2009-075 Adopting Pilot Trash and Recycling Services District Boundaries and Directing the City Manager to Request Proposals for Trash and Recycling Collection Services Within Said District, Adopted The following is staff s memorandum for this item. "FINANCIAL IMPACT If the Resolution is adopted, the City will have one-time startup costs (approximately$25,000)for implementing the billing system through the Utility Billing system. These costs will be incurred in 2009,prior to the start-up of the district billing and are expected to be paid with 2009 General Fund monies. On an ongoing basis throughout the length of the 5-year contract, the program would be self- sustaining through user fees, including the monthly hauler charge and administrative charges. Administrative costs are projected to average as follows: On-going City costs: $1.00 per month/per account for billing $ .25 per month/per account for contract administration Based on a population of 6,500 residential accounts in the pilot area, total annual costs of$97,500 include: $78,000 per year billing $19,500 per year contract administration EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Resolution directs staff to implement a proposed Trash Services Pilot District and outlines a number of key components of the District. If the resolution is adopted by Council, staff will take the following steps to implement the Trash Services Pilot District: • Issue the State required 6-month notice to haulers of the City's intent to provide service in the designated area,- Issue a Request for Proposals for haulers to submit proposals to provide the service in the district; • Interview qualified proposers, select a provider, and negotiate a contract; • Seek Council approval of the Trash Services Fee for customers within the District(includes hauling charges and administrative costs); • Notify residents of the change; and • Implement service in Pilot Trash District in the 1st Quarter, 2010 Staffproposes that the District include the area bounded by College Avenue on the east, Prospect Road on the south, City limits on'the west, and the Poudre River on the North. This area is specifically described in Resolution 2009-075. 256 July 21, 2009 BACKGROUND The proposed pilot program is an outgrowth of comprehensive analyses and discussion by the City Council about how to bring greater levels of waste reduction and greater efficiency to the community's trash collection system. A pilot trash and recycling services district is targeted at addressing the original problem statement in the 2008 Trash Services Study: "In what ways can the City reduce the impacts of trash collection services in Fort Collins, addressing issues of the cost of street wear, air quality, neighborhood aesthetics, noise,_ and other neighborhood impacts? Are there ways that the City might also improve diversion rates for recyclables?" Issues related to trash collection, recycling and the impact of a large number of trash vehicles on neighborhood streets have been reviewed by the City Council a number of times over the past 20 years. In 1995, concerns about adverse impacts of trash trucks in neighborhoods led to a Council resolution and goals to reduce the number of trucks and strive for greater consolidation of residential trash services. The City conducted a study regarding trash districting in 1998, and in 1999, City Council established a goal to divert 50%of the community's waste stream from landfill disposal by 2010. Staff has recently analyzed 2008 data regarding recycling rates and landfill statistics. Staff calculates the community's overall recycling rate at 33%. This increase over the past few years is attributed to several factors, including the addition of single stream recycling, additional materials included in the community's recyclingprograms(cardboard,paperboard and plastics 1-7) and reduced landfill rates because of the slowing economy (a 20 % drop in volumes at landfills in recent months.) The curbside recycling rate has grown from 13% in 2006 to 20%. A brief report on current recycling rates is included as Attachment 1. In directing staff to undertake the 2008 Trash Services Study, Council set forth goals to improve the community's diversion rate and reduce the impact of trash trucks on residential streets. Council also expressed specific interest in improving the "Pay-as-you-throw"(PAYT)solid waste ordinance. These goals are consistent with key goals of the 2008 ClimateAction Plan approved by City Council in December 2008. They are also consistent with several of the goals in the draft 2006 Strategic Plan for Solid Waste Diversion reviewed by City Council. On May 5, 2009, City Council adopted several modifications to the City Code regarding trash and recycling services as developed from the Trash Services Study, that focus on requiring haulers to take actions that will improve recycling diversion rates and improve the pricing incentives of the Pay-as-you-throw Ordinance. These new initiatives become effective starting September 1, 2009. At the May 5 meeting, Council also adopted Resolution 2009-046, directing staff to develop one or more pilot trash districts in a portion of the community. In the designated area, the pilot would change the market for trash services from a purely open competitive market for residential trash services to a mix of City-contracted service and open competitive service. Council directed staff to develop a specific proposal for one or more pilot districts, and to more specifically outline the steps 257 July 21, 2009 necessary to move forward to implement the pilot district. These items are included in this Resolution and attachments to this Agenda Item. PILOT TRASH SERVICES DISTRICT PROPOSAL Staff has developed a draft implementation plan for a Pilot Trash District. This option was raised at the December 9, 2008 work session as Council was discussing the Market Option of creating a city-wide trash services contract, or trash districting system. Council suggested considering a pilot trash district in a portion of the community, rather than implementing the strategy city-wide. Districting Process The City can elect to develop a trash and recycling district for a specific geographic area, award a single contract for trash services within that area, and charge a City fee to single-family residences, according to State statute. The City would offer private trash haulers the opportunity to compete to provide trash and recycling services within the area, with fees billed by the City on its monthly Utility bill. A key component of a pilot trash district project would be to carefully analyze and document the effectiveness of the program. Staff would conduct a pre- and post project data collection project to measure the effectiveness of the program in achieving waste stream reduction goals and in reducing the impacts of trash vehicles upon streets and other aesthetic issues in the district. If the Council chooses to adopt the Resolution, State statute requires a 6-month notice period to the existing trash haulers before the City could begin contracting for trash service; the haulers then would have 30 days following the notice to respond and let the City know if they are interested in participating in the process. During this 6-month period, the City would issue a Request for Proposals(RFP), select a provider, negotiate a contract and work though implementation issues. Six months after the notice, the City would issue a trash/recycling contract for service to all residential customers in the pilot program area (single family dwellings and multi family dwellings of 3 residences or fewer). A tentative schedule for implementation of the pilot district, should Council vote to proceed with the project, is included as Attachment 2. A draft Request for Proposals is included for City Council's review and discussion. (See Attachment 3.) If the Resolution is approved, final terms of the RFP will be completed and issued by approximately September 1, 2009. Staff expects to allow approximately six weeks for haulers to develop and submit proposals for the contract. The selection process would include review of the proposals, selection of qualified vendors for interview, rating of the proposals and negotiation with the top candidate. Criteria for evaluation of the offers would include several factors, including: • Price to customers; • Ability to meet high standards for delivery of trash and recycling services, compliance with local requirements and customer service; 258 July 21, 2009 • Ability to meet additional conditions outlined in the Request for Proposals, e.g., work in coordination with the City to provide recycling education within the district; and • Other innovations proposed by the hauler which would reduce solid waste and increase diversion, e.g., curbside yard-waste recycling, special recycling events, market-based initiatives such as Recycle Bank, or other incentive based programs. Though price to customers would be a major factor in the winning proposal, the other qualitative factors would also be an integral part of the purchasing process to determine the best qualified proposal. Upon selection of the top ranked proposal, staff would return to the City Council in the 4th Quarter, 2009 with a resolution to authorize the application ofa fee for service to residents within the district. The Trash Service Fee is the fundamental tool for implementing the Pilot Trash District. It is a fee for the City providing trash service to residences and is composed of the cost for the subscription level of trash service(per the rates quoted by the successful contractor)plus the administrative costs for billing and contract administration. The final component of the implementation would be notification to residents in the district regarding the change in service. Staffanticipates written notification would be made via direct mail, utility bills and public meetings to provide information to affected residents. Proposed District The pilot area boundaries would be set by clearly identifiable landmarks. Staff has tentatively identified a pilot area north of Prospect Road, south of the Poudre River, east of Overland Trail Road, and west of College Avenue. (See Attachment 4.) This area includes approximately 6,500 dwelling units which would be served by the pilot district contractor. Commercial properties and multi family units ofgreater than 3 dwellings would be excluded from the contracted service per state law. Criteria used by staff in tentatively selecting this area included the clear boundaries, relatively few commercial properties within the area except those along the boundaries of College Avenue and Prospect Road and a limited number of Homeowners Associations(HOAs)which might have existing trash service contracts. Contract Terms Terms of the contract for service could include (but are not limited to)provisions such as: a. The contract would be for a term of 5 years. b. The hauler would be asked to provide subscription service rates for all single family residences and multi family dwelling up to 3 units in the proposed district, with the exception of Homeowner's Associations with existing contracts, if they include all residences in the HOA. C. The successful hauler would be required to fully comply with the City Code regarding trash and recycling. 259 July 21, 2009 d. The hauler would be asked to quote a price to provide curbside yard waste recycling service (at an additional cost) to customers upon request. e. The hauler would be asked to quote a price and a proposed process for implementing a bag or tag system for overages, including a proposed method for distributing the bags/tags to district customers. f. The hauler wouldprovide specific recycling education information to customers who fail to properly prepare or set out recyclable materials (e.g.,friendly cart hanger notices for a customer who places non-recyclable materials into the recycling container, or places recyclable materials in the trash container). g. The hauler would ensure that all collection vehicles are in clean and safe operating condition, meet DOT standards, and be operated according to manufacturers specifications for loading (e.g., use of tag axles.) h. The contract for service would include performance standards for the hauler, addressing such issues as customer service, missed pick-ups, etc. i. Signage and/or outreach'materials would be used by the hauler to encourage recycling and motivate customers to participate in waste reduction activities. Issues Analysis In developing the general parameters of a Trash and Recycling Services Pilot District, staff has explored a number of issues. • Contract for Pilot Trash District would be for a term of 5 years. Analysis: A successful contractor for the trash district may need to acquire additional equipment to serve the pilot district, including trash and recycling vehicles, toters or poly- carts for trash and recycling, and other business equipment. In order to give a high quality, low price for the service, they would need to be able to amortize their equipment purchases over a reasonable period of time, such as 5 years. Such a long-term contract would also make it more difficult for one company to provide an artificially low proposal to secure the contract in order to drive out other competitors for the future. • The Pilot District would include 6,500 households. Analysis: The tentative pilot district identified by staff includes approximately 6,500 accounts. The pilot district would be of a large enough.size to attract quality bids. This size district could be bid on by a company with approximately 3-4 trucks. The boundaries of the district should be clearly defined by major streets so that as Council districts, census districts or other boundaries change, the pilot trash hauling district would remain well defined. • Establish a Pilot District with a variety of housing types. Analysis: The geography and demographics of the district needs to be factored into how a hauler would price its proposal. For instance, it is possible that a district that contains 260 C July 21, 2009 many older homes with alleys would be more time-consuming, and therefore expensive, to serve than an area of newer development with curbside service on uniform streets. If an area with a great deal of alley service is included,prices could be higher than if it featured more HOAs or new development. • Data Collection and Analysis. Analysis: A key component ofa pilot trash districtproject would be to carefully analyze and document the effectiveness of the program. Staff would collect pre- and post project data to measure the effectiveness of the program in achieving waste stream reduction goals and in reducing the impacts of trash vehicles upon streets and other aesthetics in the district. Staff would develop a data plan for the project and implement plans to do data collection such as a trash and recycling set-out survey. The set-out survey would be afield study(both within and outside the proposed district) to gather data about the volumes of trash and recycling which are set out by randomly selected households during a representative week. By weighing and measuring actual materials set out for collection on trash day, detailed information can be gathered about customer behaviors before and during the pilot project. The number of different haulers within the district would also be documented before and after the district is established. • Billing and Customer Service. Analysis: The City would be contracting for trash service within the district and would provide customer billing for the fees; the additional new costs for billing service and other administrative costs would be covered by a specific additional charge in customers'trash bills. All eligible residences within the district would be billed for at least the minimum level of service. Without this automatic billing for all customers, some customers may be able to choose not to participate in the pilot and continue with their existing hauler or choose to self-haul. This would defeat the goals of reducing truck traffic and undermine the pilot district's effectiveness. The City proposes that customer service for changes in accounts such as start-up for new accounts or discontinuation of services would be handled by City customer billing staff. The contracted hauler would provide first-line response to other customer service issues such as cart delivery/maintenance, missed collection or other performance issues. As billing issues are addressed, the final Request for Proposals may need to be adjusted to address the inclusion of multi family units within the district. Currently, some multi family units receive one utility bill for all units, while others receive separate bills for each unit. In addition, some multi family units utilize communal collection(Dumpsters)for their trash service. Depending on the final analysis of the accounts included in district, additional language describing the residences which will receive service may need to be added to the RFP that is issued. 261 July 21, 2009 • The City's implementation costs would be covered within the charges on customer bills. Analysis: The City would incur new costs for both administering the contract and billing for a trash service fee. The City would need to include an administrative charge on each account to cover these costs. Once the City agrees on a price per account, it would determine the rate for the City's fees, including overhead charges so that the monthly charge reflects the total true cost ofservice. Based on the experience of other communities implementing trash contracts, hauler proposals should be lower than prices offered in other portions of the community because the hauler won't have to cover billing costs and because of the efficiencies to be gained by having a consolidated district where every residence is served by the same hauler. The City would collect fees to cover its expenses for the program so that the program is self- sustaining. If the Resolution is adopted, a contract executed and the service fee established, the City would have some one-time startup costs for implementing the billing system through the Utility Billing system. One-time billing start-up costs are projected to be $25,000. These costs would be incurred prior to the start-up of the district billing in 2009 and would likely be paid through current year general fund monies. On an ongoing basis the program would be self-sustaining through user fees, including the monthly hauler charge to customers based on the service level they choose and additional administrative fees. Administrative fees which would be used by the City for its administration are projected to average as follows: On-going City costs: $1.00 per month/per account for billing $.25 per month/per account for contract administration Based on a population of 6,500 residential accounts in the pilot area, total annual costs of $97,500 include: $78,000 per year billing $19,500 per year contract administration Billing fees would pay for on-going customer service for start-ups, changes, stop-service, collections, and billing computer system maintenance. In addition to the billing costs, other overhead cost would be recovered through the trash services fee for contract administration costs. These fees would pay for a portion of a staff member's time in the Natural Resources Department to administer the contract, review performance data, work with the hauler to conduct recycling education programs in the district, and measure the success of the program in meeting the Council's goals. The estimated total administrative fee would average $1.25 per account per month. Pilot Districted Trash Service 262 July 21, 2009 Financial Benefits: Costs: • Potential savings to City for street 0 City implementation costs = $25,000 for maintenance = $40,000-50,000 retooling the Utility Billing system • Potential savings to some of the a Ongoing City administrative costs = District's residents = lower monthly $25,500 annually, not including City rates with increased efficiency of system billing costs (based on experience of other communities) Achieves: Shortcomings: • Reduced Truck Traffic 0 Customer concern re: loss of choice 0 Trash truck related street damage would be reduced in a portion of the Fear of cost increases causes concern for community- $40,000-50,000 per some residents. Actual cost of service year savings in street maintenance under revised system would be unknown (could be more because we don't until offers are solicited(though offers know how many trash vehicles are need not be accepted if offers represent over legal weight limits) significant cost increase) 0 40+ tons in reduced CO2 emissions 0 Less fuel consumed by haulers • Improved neighborhood aesthetics within • Current haulers will be concerned that pilot district with fewer days of trash new haulers to community would be able cans on streets, uniform containers and to compete for business in pilot district less noise • Opportunity to gain experience before 0 Some haulers will lose business. These implementing change to entire haulers may include locally owned, community, ifsuccessful established businesses • Increased safety within pilot district with Significant involvement in privately fewer trucks in neighborhoods provided service is considered negative by some • More readily available tools for 0 Customers would be required to pay a increased diversion - as terms of the City service fee, including those contract, City could require successful customers who might choose to continue hauler to: using their existing hauler's services 0 Provide greater levels of education regardless of City contract within the about recycling to customers in the pilot district pilot district 0 Offer yard waste at additional Self-haulers would not be able to avoid charge with a set formula approved fee and opt out of the service by the City 0 Build in requirement for audit/data monitoring and analysis 263 July 21, 2009 Achieves: Shortcomings: • Greater leverage to guarantee no Haulers concerned that a large, national overweight vehicles if include company may make an artificially low contractual requirement for random initial offer to receive the contracts, then weighing of trash trucks increase prices in future years when local businesses are no longer able to compete • Smaller area impacted than with city- 0 Some believe that a contracted hauler wide districting system would provide lower level of service because of lack of day-to-day competition • Reduced overall cost with greater system Some believe that prices for service efficiency due to economies of scale would go up under this model o Other communities pay less after contract for service established 0 Selection of an older neighborhood/area a Some in HOAs already enjoy these for the pilot project may bias the results rates - others could benefit too, of the pilot toward higher than average creating more "social equity" costs to provide service, (e.g., more alley o Increased operational efficiency for service) compared to newer areas of hauler selected development o Competition preserved when bidding on contract • Could choose an area where few HOAs a Some or all of the current haulers will exist or a mix of housing types exists not be awarded the district. This could significantly impact them. • Could be a demonstration of improved 0 Administrative costs for administrative efficiency and lower rates for the rest of staff,program oversight and auditing the community • City administrative costs would be 0 5-year commitment required by contract completely covered by user fees; this would lead to changes in assignments for overhead may not be much different from City staff to work on billing and private subscription costs of billing and administration administration normally built into cost of services. • Self-hauling may be reduced, which helps Ifprice to customers is lower than open improve safety and reduce costs at market, non-districted residents may Larimer County landfill. object to not being included. Ifprice to pilot district customers is higher than open market, City could choose not to proceed with contract. 264 July 21, 2009 Achieves: Shortcomings: • Current economic conditions may make it difficult for haulers to secure financing to make the required investment in new equipment, including additional vehicles • If current trash rates have been held down because of uncertainty of the local market, the pilot project could cause non- districted accounts to see a price increase. (Such an increase could occur with any final resolution concerning districting, a decision that has now been pending for two years) Mayor Hutchinson stated in May, Council adopted an ordinance amending the City Code relating to trash hauling, with the general purpose of increasing the incentive for solid waste customers to reduce trash and improve recycling diversion rates. The item before Council at this time is a resolution that directs the City Manager to prepare a pilot trash hauling district within the city. Staff has recommended one area of the city for the pilot district. The resolution, if adopted by Council, directs the City Manager to solicit proposals from any trash haulers that are interested in serving the district and to either select a proposal and negotiate a contract or to inform Council that none of the proposals is satisfactory. If a proposal is selected, the final step in the process is for Council to impose a fee for the service to be provided in the district,which is scheduled to occur before the end of 2009. Ann Tumquist,Policy and Project Manager,stated the City has spent the past 18 months examining ways to reduce the impact of trash trucks on residential streets, improve air quality, address issues of aesthetics related to trash service and improve recycling rates in the community. Many public outreach meetings have been held and Council has held several work sessions on the issue. If the resolution is adopted, staff will begin implementation of the pilot district. The resolution will set the trash district boundaries and directs the City Manager to issue a Request for Proposals for trash and recycling collection service within the designated district. The City would award a five-year contract for the pilot program through a competitive process where trash haulers would be invited to submit a proposal to provide those services. The City will provide the billing service through the existing Utility billing process and the cost of the billing service will be processed through residential utility bills within the district. The proposal is only for residential service and not for commercial service or larger,multi-family residences. Any homeowner associations within the pilot district that already have existing contracts with trash haulers will be exempt from the pilot district. The district would be located in the northwest portion of the community with boundaries set by Prospect Road on the south, College Avenue on the east, the Poudre River and City limits on the north and Overland Trail on the west and encompasses about 6500 residences. This area was chosen because it has clear boundaries that will not change over five years. It has relatively few homeowner 265 July 21, 2009 associations, which often have their own contracts with trash haulers. One goal of the pilot district is to demonstrate the effectiveness of consolidated service. The area has a high density and variety of residential housing which will be easier for the trash hauler to service. There are relatively fewer commercial properties, which will be exempt from the pilot district. A goal of the pilot district is to keep the overall cost for residents in the district lower than residents' current trash costs. Other communities have experienced lower costs when trash service has been consolidated. The City has the financial goal of ensuring the program pays its way with fees and does not add costs to the City. The actual cost of the service to residents will be determined by the competitive proposals submitted by the trash haulers. The competitive process to award the contract should keep costs lower with more efficiencies. Information will be collected before and during the pilot program and will include the number of trucks in the district, impact on streets, recycling volumes, the cost to residents and aesthetic issues. If the resolution is adopted, staff intends to issue the RFP within 30 days and seek proposals from trash haulers. The proposals will address issues including the price for various levels of trash collection service,other services the hauler may be willing to provide as part of the contract,and any innovative ideas to increase recycling within the district. Staff will evaluate each proposal using criteria such as the price to customers,customer service qualifications,and any other elements of the proposal that meets the City's goal of increasing waste diversion to 50% by 2010. The City is required by State law to give the haulers,a 6-month notice that the City intends to provide service through a contract. That notice would be published by August 1. The RFP will be issued by September 1 and the haulers will be given six weeks to submit their proposals. Staff will conduct interviews, negotiate a contract and then return to Council later in the fall with an ordinance that establishes the fee. The amount of the fee will not be known until a contract is negotiated. Staff will contact residences with the pilot trash district later this fall to notify them of the change in service. The following citizens did not support implementation of a pilot trash services district and urged Council not to adopt the proposed resolution: Wayne Davis, 3913 Lynda Lane Ashlynn Bullchag, Fort Collins resident Lyn Pring, 1136 East Stuart Gina Bagbey, 2523 Constitution Patty Kennedy, 559 South Saint Louis Avene Tom Weatherly, 2550 Custer Stacy Lynne, 216 Park Street Tom Jackson, Fort Collins resident Mike Farrell, 518 Ramah Kathleen Bailey, 924 East Ridgecrest Road Rudy Zitti, 1626 Fantail Court Mike Schwab, 2902 Rigden Parkway Kathy Dillon-Durica, 906 Bramblebush Kathy Wydallis, 812 LaPorte Avenue 266 July 21, 2009 David Steinmetz, 4936 Smallwood Court Noreen Flood, 21313 Hampstead Drive, Loveland Levi Gallegos, Gallegos Sanitation Eli Luhong, Gallegos Sanitation Marc Siegfried, 1030 Wagonwheel Andrew Scott, 514 North Shields Tracy Brand, Gallegos Sanitation Matt Gallegos, Gallegos Sanitation Colleen Finnman, 3306 Creekstone Drive Bob Brown, President of Greenbriar Homeowner's Association Phillip Salazar,Fort Collins resident John Puma, Ram Waste Systems owner Nate Burns, Fort Collins resident Rudy Gallegos, Gallegos Sanitation owner Ray Harvey, Fort Collins resident Ray Meyer, 1344.Saint John Place Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Mark Glorioso, Gallegos Sanitation Ray Martinez, 4121 Stoneridge Court David Shine, Ram Waste J. D. Padilla, Fort Collins resident David Palmer, Ram Waste Art Gallegos, Gallegos Sanitation Howard Dimmick, 7015 Avondale Road Jason Gallegos, Gallegos Sanitation Don Raymond, Fort Collins resident The following citizens supported implementation of a pilot trash services district and urged Council to adopt the proposed resolution: Reiner Lomb, 6718 Avondale Road, Climate Task Force member Dan Bihn, 421 South Howes Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb Cheryl Distaso, 135 South Sunset, Mary Smith, 1618 Sagewood Drive Gary Wockner, 516 North Grant Eric Levine, 514 North Shields, Chair of the Air Quality Advisory Board (**Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) Councilmember Roy asked for the cost of developing the pilot trash program. Turnquist stated considerable staff time has been spent in developing the program,but there has not been an estimate of the cost of staff and attorney time. Council had authorized up to $70,000 to be spent on a trash study done last year, which cost $55,000. 267 Jury 21, 2009 Councilmember Troxell asked who was the City organization's trash hauler and what amount of trash is recycled.. Susie Gordon, Senior Environmental Planner, stated Waste Management holds the City's contract for all City buildings. The City has improved its recycling rates, but she did not have actual figures. Councilmember Troxell asked for information about the accuracy of the data that has been presented for recycling rates. Turnquist stated the trash study consultant estimated that 14%of recycling was a result of curbside residential recycling as opposed to all recycling within the community. The consultant was working with data that was about two years old. There have been significant changes in the types of materials that are collected in the recycling stream and the estimate is now 20% for curbside recycling. The total community diversion rate is estimated at 33% for 2008. Councilmember Troxell asked for clarification of a pilot district. Turnquist stated the pilot is the concept of the City providing service under a contract with a private hauler. Councilmember Troxell asked if an assessment plan had been developed to help understand what works within the pilot district, such as actually measuring the wear on city streets caused by trash trucks and not just estimating what the street wear might be. Turnquist stated data will be gathered before and during time of the contract with the pilot district. The pilot is an effort to demonstrate what consolidated service will look like, what it will cost, and to show that consolidated service is more efficient service. Councilmember Troxell noted the RFP will allow a flat fee to be charged within the pilot district but trash service to other parts of the city will be required to conform to the pay-as-you-throw ordinance. He asked how the proposed rate structure will be assessed from the RFP. Turnquist stated the trash haulers must include administrative.fees as part of their fees. The City will have administrative costs as part of providing the billing service for the pilot district. Staff estimates the City's fees will average $1.25 per customer. It will not be applied to each customer's bill as a flat rate, but will be a proportional rate, the same way trash haulers will apply fees to customers under the pay-as-you- throw rates. Councilmember Troxell asked what customer service the City will provide to citizens within the pilot trash district. Turnquist stated the City will handle customer service issues such as starting and stopping service within the pilot district and changes in level of service because they relate to the price of service. Customer service concerning missed pick-ups, temporarily halting service or provision of the trash and recycle containers will be provided by the haulers and will be part of a trash hauler's bid for service in the pilot district. Councilmember Troxell asked for an explanation of an opt-out policy for those citizens who live in the pilot district but do not wish to be part of the pilot. Turnquist stated there is no opt-out option for customers in the pilot district. Every residence will be charged at least for the minimum level of service. I Councilmember Kottwitz asked if the City fee would only be charged to the residents within the pilot trash district and if they have been notified they are located with the district. Turnquist stated only 268 July 21, 2009 residences located with the pilot trash district will be charged the City fee. Each residence will be contacted as part of the implementation of the plan to provide information about pricing and procedures. Councilmember Kottwitz asked if commercial and multi-family dwellings would excluded from districting, if it were applied citywide. Turnquist stated current State law does not allow this type of program for commercial or multi-family of greater than eight units. An existing HOA located within the district that has a contract with a trash hauler would be exempted from the pilot. Councilmember Manvel asked if most ofthe trash dumped at the landfill is generated by commercial businesses. Gordon stated 72% of landfill tons delivered to a landfill are attributed to the commercial sector. The community is producing less waste and the slowdown in construction has also contributed to the lower amount of waste produced. Councilmember Roy asked if the price structure will be different for residences within the district as compared to rates some homeowner associations receive. Turnquist stated residences that are not part of a group pricing typically pay a higher price for trash collection than those residences that have banded together and negotiated a group price, such as many homeowner associations have done. The expectation of the proposals submitted by the trash haulers is that the fees will be lower than what is currently charged residents within the pilot district. If the fees are not lower,Council could decide not to continue with the pilot. Other communities who have moved to consolidated trash service have seen lower prices as a result of consolidation. Councilmember Roy asked how the proposed program will affect any HOAs in the pilot district. Turnquist stated any HOA in the district that has a contract with a trash hauler would be exempted from the pilot. Councilmember Poppaw asked if an HOA will be able to renegotiate its trash contract if the contract expires during the time of the pilot program. Turnquist stated if an HOA is exempted from the pilot, -it is unlikely it would be included into the pilot at a later date. Mayor Hutchinson asked if any mitigation measures have been considered for trash haulers who are required to provide large recycle carts for all their customers, but may not be awarded the contract for the pilot district. Turnquist stated the implementation date for providing recycling carts is January 1,2010. The contract for the pilot district should be awarded before the end of 2009, so the haulers will know who has received the contract before the implementation date for the recycling carts. Councilmember Kottwitz asked if the pilot will be implemented for five years or if further Council consideration could be brought forward in two or three years. City Manager Atteberry stated the pilot district program is designed to be implemented for a five-year period. The length of time of the contract is designed to allow time for ample data collection and determination of the success of the pilot. Council will consider this issue in five years and,at that time,could decide whether or not to move forward with citywide districts or determine the pilot has not been successful and discontinue the program. The issue of trash collection has been discussed for over 20 years and one 269 July 21, 2009 problem has always been the lack of hard data. The program is intended to gather solid data so an informed decision can be made by Council in five years. Tumquist noted the hauler who is awarded the contract will need to purchase new equipment to service the district and the five-year length of the contract is designed to give the hauler a set income to amortize the payments for that equipment. Councilmember Kottwitz asked for the financial impacts of adding the billing responsibilities to the Utilities billing department. Turnquist stated the administrative fee the City will add to utility bills for residences within the district is designed to cover the costs of providing the billing services. No BFO offer to add additional staff will be submitted. Councilmember Ohlson asked if the trash haulers' preference was for the contract to run for five years. Turnquist stated the consultant indicated a pilot needs to run for a long period of time. Staff has not discussed the length of the contract with the trash haulers to avoid any"pre-negotiation"of a contract. City Attorney Roy stated it is possible to poll the haulers to determine if they would prefer a shorter time frame for the pilot. Councilmember Troxell asked how staff will determine if a proposal is underbid just to win the contract. Jim O'Neill, director of Purchasing and Risk Management, stated there will be several rating criteria for the proposals and cost would only be one of those criterion. Cost is typically weighted at 20% of a proposal for a City contract. The quality of the proposer, the type of service to be provided and other factors are considered in addition to cost. The contract will not be awarded solely on a low cost. Consideration is given to the scope of the proposal, which describes how the hauler will provide the service to the City, what type of employees will be working on the service, availability to provide the service and if the hauler is offering any special services to the customer. City Manager Atteberry stated the criteria used to evaluate the proposals are typical of those used to evaluate proposals submitted for City contracts. Councilmember Troxell questioned how the City could adopt a policy that harms local businesses and is counter to the City's economic health objective. He asked if the Economic Advisory Commission had reviewed the proposal. City Manager Atteberry stated the proposal has not been presented to the Economic Advisory Commission. Councilmember Poppaw asked how the reference evaluation will enhance the RFP process. O'Neill stated once a trash hauling firm is selected,reference checks will be performed,overall performance will be evaluated, including the timetables the hauler has set for other contracts, their ability to maintain costs as bid for other contracts and their knowledge of the type of service they will provide. Once the reference checks were completed, contract negotiations would occur with the selected company. Councilmember Poppaw asked if the reference evaluation will allow the haulers an opportunity to demonstrate their customer service and attention to customer needs. O'Neill answered in the affirmative. Councilmember Kottwitz asked if the City's RFP process considers local businesses first. City Manager Atteberry stated a large majority of City organization purchases are made locally. A 270 July 21, 2009 national firm could be chosen in the event a local company is not available. The criteria for purchasing process does not require a local preference. A local preference policy can discourage competitive bidding and can drive costs up. O'Neill stated the City tries to ensure local businesses have an opportunity to compete. Councilmember Ohlson asked for clarification of the number of residences to be included in the pilot district. Gordon stated she did not have that clarification but would provide information about the percentage of Fort Collins residences that will be included in the pilot district. Councilmember Troxell asked if a residence within the district already will be able to continue a contract they might already have with a particular trash hauler. City Attorney Roy stated people will continue to have the option of using another hauler in the district, but they will still be required to pay the fee. The districting program will not prohibit people from maintaining a current contract. Tumquist stated a group contract, such as one held by an existing HOA,would be exempt from the pilot district. Councilmember Troxell asked if a trash hauler will be required to disclose its customer list to the City. City Attorney Roy stated the pilot district proposal is not requiring proprietary information such as customer lists, from trash haulers. City Manager Atteberry stated Utilities has information files on residences in the district and that information will not be required from the haulers. The customer service provided by the hauler for the pilot district will be part of the contract negotiations. Mayor Hutchinson asked if a citizen initiative can be mounted to overturn the resolution, if it is adopted. City Attorney Roy stated under the Charter, only ordinances can be referred by the voters after adoption by the Council. A citizen can initiate a resolution or ordinance, but this resolution cannot be referred. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution 2009-075. Councilmember Kottwitz asked if three Councilmembers could bring the resolution to the voters' before Council votes to adopt the resolution. City Attorney Roy stated Council can refer either an ordinance or resolution to the voters. If Council adopts the resolution and does not refer it to the voters, it cannot be referred to the voters by citizens. It takes a majority of four Councilmembers to take formal action, such as referring an ordinance. Councilmember Kottwitz asked Council to refer the resolution to the voters of Fort Collins before taking a vote at this time. City Attorney Roy stated Council needs to dispose of the motion to adopt the resolution before any consideration of referring the matter to the voters. If adoption of the resolution fails, Council can then make a motion to refer the matter to the voters. Councilmember Troxell supported the request to refer the resolution to the voters and asked Council not to adopt the resolution at this time. 271 July 21, 2009 Councilmember Manvel stated the idea of a pilot trash district makes sense because it lowers the risk that local companies could be put out of business. Much of the trash hauling business in Fort Collins will not be affected by the pilot trash district. Residential collection is not the major part of trash haulers' business. The haulers do considerable business outside the city limits. HOAs will be exempt from the district. It appears the proposal involves a small part of the total trash hauling within the city limits that will be awarded to one company. The proposal does takes away some business from two companies but is not intended to put them out of business. The customers in the district will probably pay less for their trash service and should still receive excellent service that may offer more options than the customers currently have available. The fee collected by the City to provide billing service will be large enough to cover costs but will not provide a profit to the City. The City will benefit from fewer trash trucks on the street which will lessen the wear on the streets. Mayor Hutchinson stated the idea of the pilot district and gathering data sounds good in the abstract but the people affected by the proposal also need to be considered. Requiring all residences within the pilot district to pay at least the minimum fee is not the way Fort Collins operates. Councilmember Manvel stated all people in town are required to pay for government services that are provided for everyone, whether they use them or not. Most trash service in the country is provided by a municipal server or a single contractor. The proposal is not advocating that the City provide trash collection for its residents. Some groups in town already have districted service and are pleased with the service. HOAs negotiate contracts with trash haulers where one hauler serves the entire neighborhood for a reduced rate, which is the definition of a districted service. HOA boards select the trash hauler for the entire neighborhood;the choice is not made by each residence. A voluntary group could negotiate a contract with a trash hauler but it is not often a satisfactory, long-term solution because the group rate disappears when new people move into the neighborhood and do not want to join the group. It is also difficult to forma large,voluntary group that would have the impacts that a trash district can have. Councilmember Troxell stated people have the choice of moving into a neighborhood with an HOA that requires the use of one trash hauler. Choice is removed when the City forms a district and requires all residences within that district to participate. Councilmember Ohlson stated most municipalities in the country have municipal trash service and do not have multiple companies providing trash service. The City is not proposing to take over trash hauling. Trash hauling is a licensed, regulated business in Colorado. State statute grants municipalities authority to create districts and to regulate trash hauling but does not grant a municipality the right to set rates. The pilot district does not include multi-family or commercial trash collection. The district will not include any HOAs that have a contract with a trash hauler. The district is a small portion of the trash collection in Fort Collins and should not put anyone out of business. The issue has been carefully considered by City Council since 1985. This Council has held four work sessions on the topic. The concept of neighborhoods banding together to form voluntary groups for trash collection has not worked in the past and is not a good solution to the issue. He thanked citizens for providing input. He supported the motion and did not support -referring the matter to the voters. 272 Jury 21, 2009 Councilmember Poppaw stated Council has worked on this issue for 18 months and much information has been provided on which to base her decision. She thanked the citizens for providing their input and concerns. The pilot district will provide valuable information to determine whether districting the entire city would be a wise decision in the future. Residents within the district will pay less for trash services, the impact of collection on the environment will be decreased, road maintenance cost will be reduced and will lead to quieter streets. Councilmember Roy thanked citizens for speaking about the issue. The resolution begins the process to select a proposal to negotiate a contract for services with the selected trash hauler or determine that no proposal is sufficient or satisfactory. He supported adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Troxell noted many citizens have urged Council not to adopt the resolution and he thanked the citizens and the trash company employees who shared their thoughts. The pilot trash district gives residents less choice, less service and will raise costs to citizens and the City. The City's estimates are too low and the expectations are unrealistic concerning customer service. The pilot objectives are not specified and there is no assessment plan. The consultant's report used by staff was based on false and inadequate data and reporting. There will be multiple haulers within the pilot district because commercial hauling will be provided by all three haulers. Creating a government monopoly is not the solution and moving forward with a pilot district is not listening to what citizens are saying. The City should not put local businesses out of business. He did not support the resolution. Councilmember Kottwitz stated the pilot program will allow a trash hauler to charge one single fee which seems contradictory to the ordinance recently adopted which stated haulers could not charge a flat fee. The goal of the pilot is to decrease trash truck traffic.on residential streets and increase aesthetics with uniform containers but with the program, residents can pay the fee and can choose to opt out. An organized group is already planning to opt out of the pilot program. The goals of the pilot will not be met. One compromise would be for the City to assist neighborhoods in forming volunteer groups to negotiate a rate with one hauler. The residents in the pilot district have not been notified of the proposed fee and will have their choice in trash haulers removed. Councilmember Ohlson noted the pilot program will be developed over the next six months to formalize the arrangements with the trash hauler who is awarded the contract. The fee will be minimal because the cost will be lower for the residents in the district, similar to what HOAs experience throughout the city. Councilmember Manvel stated HOAs are exempt because they already have contracts with haulers. The City is attempting to reduce truck traffic on residential streets and lower costs to residents. HOA members already receive those benefits. Residents will see financial benefits from the formation of a district even though they will not have a choice in which hauler to use. There will be less damage to streets because there will be less heavy truck traffic on residential streets. This is not the government "taking over" trash service but is the government organizing a group in the city to receive certain benefits. He did not believe the pilot district will cause any trash hauler to go out of business because most of the trash hauling in the city is not from residential, single-family housing in the northwest quadrant of the city. 273 July 21, 2009 Councilmember Poppaw stated HOAs benefit from the ability to negotiate a contract with one hauler for the entire neighborhood and that economy of scale should be extended as a benefit to other residents in the city. Mayor Hutchinson stated the issue is about people and choice and the City should not be removing citizens' choice in this issue. Having neighborhoods voluntarily banding together to form a group does not work because people want choice. The current system works quite well and does not need to be fixed. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, and Roy. Nays: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Troxell. THE MOTION CARRIED. ("Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) Councilmember Kottwitz left the meeting at this point. Ordinance No. 077, 2009 Amending Chapter 26, Article VI, Division 4 of the City Code Relating to Excess Circuit Charge,Adopted on Second Reading The following is staff s memorandum for this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 7, 2009, allows the Utilities to respond promptly to a customer's request for excess capacity service based on the proposed Code provision. The charges for the service will be stated in the Code and revised when electric cost of service studies are updated. " Councilmember Manvel made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Poppaw,to adopt Ordinance No.077,2009 on Second Reading. Yeas: Hutchinson,Manvel,Ohlson,Poppaw,Roy and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 2009-071 Authorizing the Issuance of a Revocable Permit to the Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System for Installation of Electric Service Lines on City-owned Property, Adopted The following is staff s memorandum for this item. 274 July 21, 2009 "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Colorado State University(CSU)is in the process of constructing a new parkinggarage on the north side of Prospect Road between Centre Avenue and Bay Street. CSU plans to install a solar array on the roof of the new parking garage and would like to connect the garage and array to CSU's electrical system on campus. BACKGROUND CSU has asked Council to grant a revocable permit to allow CSU to install conduits and cable across Lake Street, between Centre Avenue and Bay Street. CSUis currently building a newparking garage on the site and plans to install a solar array on the roof of the structure. CSU would like to connect the array to the campus electric distribution system it owns and operates. As provided in Section 26-444(2)of the City Code, if a customer-generator wishes to furnish electric service to customer-generator's own property for use by the customer-generator and installation ofelectricfacilities under apublicplace is necessary, the installation shall be allowed onlypursuant to the issuance of a revocable permit approved by the City Council, after determination by resolution that the provision of such service will not materially alter the viability of the electric utility system and will benefit the citizens of Fort Collins as well as the customer-generator. Connection of the parking garage and solar array to the electrical distribution system owned and operated by CSU willprovide a significant benefit to the long range UniverCity goal of establishing a zero energy district downtown and on campus. Additionally, as a partner in the FortZED Renewable Distributed System Integration (RDSI)grant from the Department of Energy, CSU has committed matchingfunds towards the grant. Permitting the parking garage solar array to connect to the campus system will connect the facility to one of the two electrical feeders that are part of the FortZED RDSI project. The installation of the solar array will add to the distributed resources being utilized for the RDSI project and will help CSU meet its grant commitment. " Councilmember Troxell withdrew from the discussion of Resolution 2009-071 Authorizing the Issuance of a Revocable Permit to the Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System for Installation of Electric Service Lines on City-owned Property due to a conflict of interest. Councilmember Roy asked if the project is required to place utility lines underground. Steve Catanach, Light and Power Operations Manager, stated all the power lines will be placed underground. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Resolution 2009-071. Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, and Roy. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 275 July 21, 2009 Ordinance No. 062,2009, Amending Chapter 26, Article VI of the City Code Relating to Net Metered Electric Service, Postponed to early 2010 The following is staff s memorandum for this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 19, 2009, amends Chapter 26, Article VI the City Code to define the net metering requirements for qualifying renewable generation facilities. In light ofrecent technological and legislative developments, the City intends to formalize its net metering program. Pursuant to a pilot program, the City has offered net metering services to its customers since 2005 through special services contracts. The intent of this amendment to the City Code is to codify the net metering rate in the Utility's existing rates. During the June 2, 2009 Council meeting, Second Reading of the Ordinance No. 062, 2009, was postponed. Staff was directed to come back with language that more clearly expresses the generation limits on the maximum level at which net metering is offered. Staff recommends the following revisions. The net metering rate language in each of the General Services Rate Codes could be changed as detailed below. Additions to the Code language are underlined. "Net metering. Net metered service is available to a customer-generator producing electricity exclusively with a qualifying facility and using a qualifying renewable technology. For qualifying facilities that generate more than twenty-five(25)kilowatts, the generation capaciU ofsuch facility shall not exceed 125%ofthe customer's peak demand or rq7-t -one megawatt, whichever is less. Ifthe customer's peak demand is unknown, then the name plate capaciU of the customer's service entrance shall serve as the limit....... .. Staff has presented the language above to the Electric Board and the Electric Board voted 5-1 in support of the proposed change. The Natural Resources Advisory Board had not met to consider this language prior to the printing deadline of this Agenda Item Summary. A brief memo will be placed in the "read-before" packet advising Council of the outcome of the Natural Resources Advisory Board's consideration of this item. BACKGROUND In reference to the original proposed Code language, the size of generator a City of Fort Collins customer could install was limited by both the physical limits of their service entrance equipment and by the Parallel Generation portion of the Rate Code. The Parallel Generation component of the Rate Code limits the size ofgeneration that can be installed to no greater than the customer's instantaneous energy or capacity i.e., the customer's peak demand. The proposed revised net metering language will increase that limit to 125% of peak demand for renewable technologies. Additionally, if peak is unknown, the limit will be the service entrance size. In either case, by 276 July 21, 2009 limiting the size ofgeneration to either the customer's peak demand, 125% of the customer's peak demand, or the name plate capacity of the service entrance, the ability of a customer to generate more energy than they consume is limited. Net metering is intended to define the financial treatment that will be applied to excess energy that is generated by a renewable source. The Code language in the Ordinance adopted on First Reading; limits net metering to 1 megawattfor commercial customers and does not allow customers to install generation up to 1 megawatt. The language states the City will purchase the annual excess energy generated at the customer's retail energy rate for installations up to 1 megawatt. Under the Code language adopted on First Reading, a customer must have a peak demand of I megawatt or greater to install 1 megawatt of generation. If the revised language is approved, a customer with a peak demand of 800 kilowatts could install up to I megawatt of generation. For most customers, this would allow them to move closer to supplying their own energy needs but in most instances, they would still not be producing any excess energy. Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading with the revisions referenced above. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to continue consideration of Second Reading of Ordinance No. 062, 2009 until new interconnection standards are brought forward. Eric Sutherland, 631 LaPorte, stated in 2008, the State legislature required interconnection .agreements to be similar to those interconnection agreements developed by the Public Utilities Commission for regulating investor-owned utilities. The City's interconnection agreements do not meet that standard. The City's Utility has hired a consultant to advise the City about its interconnection agreements. There are model interconnection agreements available and it should not be necessary for the City to spend money to hire a consultant. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Councilmember Ohlson made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Manvel,to adjourn the regular meeting until after the General Improvement District No. 1 meeting. (Council adjourned into the General Improvement District No. 1 meeting at this point in the meeting) Council reconvened at 10:35 p.m. 277 July 21, 2009 Suspension of Rules Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Poppaw,to suspend the rules and extend the meeting. Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, and Roy. Nays: Troxell. THE MOTION CARRIED. Executive Session Authorized Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to go into executive session as permitted under Section 2-31(a)(3) of the City Code to consider the possible acquisition of real property by the City for water storage purposes. Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. ("Secretary's note: The Council went into executive session at this point in the meeting.) Council reconvened at 11:32 p.m. Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to cancel the August 4, 2009 regular Council meeting to allow Councilmembers and staff to participate in Neighborhood Night Out activities. Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw,Roy and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 278