No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 02/06/2007 - CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE O ITEM NUMBER: 6 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: February 6, 2007 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Wanda Krajicek SUBJECT Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the October 17,2006 and November 7,2006 Regular Meetings and the Adjourned Meetings of October 24, 2006 and November 14, 2006. October 17, 2006 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council-Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting- 6:00 p.m. A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday,October 17,2006, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy. Citizen Participation Mayor Hutchinson stated each participant would have three minutes to speak. Lief Youngs, 720 City Park Avenue, CSU employee, expressed appreciation for the services available to the Fort Collins community. Am Jackson, 1492 Sailcrest Court, spoke in opposition to prairie dog extermination in natural areas and the use of taxpayer dollars for failed restoration projects. She stated only one person in Colorado had died in the last 50 years from plague contracted from fleas carried by prairie dogs. Steve Pries, 1801 Homer Drive, supported funding for the Youth Activity Center. Mayor Hutchinson asked Mr. Pries to speak during the budget agenda item. Laura Sebastian, 2917 Oxford Court, opposed prairie dog extermination and stated 20 individuals w who took this position were at the meeting. She stated information on plague had been presented to the Council but the Natural Resources Department had "stonewalled requests for information about the number of prairie dogs being killed on natural areas. Scott Somers, Fort Collins resident, spoke against exterminating prairie dogs on natural areas. He stated the Humane Society did not advocate on behalf of prairie dogs because it was afraid of losing its contract with the City. Colin Berry,Colorado State Coordinator for the Humane Society of the United States,stated the fear of plague carried by prairie dogs was"not based on science and research." The Prairie Dog Coalition received assistance from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to put together information about plague and prairie dogs that had been presented to the Council. Oakley Roberts, Fort Collins resident, opposed extermination of prairie dogs in natural areas. 369 October 17, 2006 Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, stated more time should be allotted to speakers on the budget issues and objected to the placement of the budget at the end of this agenda. She suggested that public forums should be held to discuss the budget. Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, spoke regarding the overpopulation of prairie dogs in his area due to few predators. He suggested people should have more concern about what to do about 150 displaced families in the Dry Creek Mobile Home Park. He noted the City had a lot to say about design standards for the mobile home park, even though it was outside City limits and questioned whether those restrictions were one of the reasons the park could not be profitable and would close. The City should have some response to the closing of that mobile home park. Mary Brophy, 1109 West Harmony Road,stated she intended to pull item#27 Resolution 2006-108 Expressing City Council's Opposition to Ballot Issue 38 in the November 7, 2006 Election and Urging Residents of the City to Vote Against Such Measure from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion. She stated this was a complicated issue and asked that the Mayor give at least five minutes for people to speak on that item. Citizen Participation Follow-up Councilmember Manvel commented on the closing of the Dry Creek Mobile Home Park and stated it was in the City limits in his Council District. He had talked with the residents and staff had been involved in helping them relocate. Council was concerned about the problem. Councilmember Brown stated he had contact information regarding several organizations that would relocate prairie dogs at their cost for trapping and removal. He asked if staff could compare those costs with what it was costing to fumigate the prairie dogs. City Manager Atteberry stated he would appreciate receiving the information. He stated typically the issue was finding a site for relocation rather than the cost of relocation. Councilmember Ohlson stated he shared the concerns that had been expressed about prairie dogs and he hoped the City could do better in dealing with the issue. He believed a work session had been scheduled in January dealing with wildlife management policies and he hoped staff would include information in the agenda material about the number of acres eradicated and prairie dogs killed. He encouraged citizens to stay involved and to"bring expertise to the table"to help develop"concrete solutions" to the challenges facing the City on urban wildlife. City Manager Atteberry stated the work session on January 9th would deal with the Natural Resources Wildlife Management Plan and this would include prairie dogs as well as other wildlife. Fort Collins had purchased over 30,000 acres of natural areas and that environmental stewardship was a community, Council and City organization priority. He stated the prairie dog issue was a difficult one. Councilmember Roy pointed out that item#34 relating to the budget would deal with two issues that were"sensitive to time"i.e., Dial-a-Ride and the demonstrated need for people to ride Dial-a-Ride to City Council meetings and get back home and the Youth Activity Center that was of interest to the younger population. This was the"community's budget" and some citizens would be "facing some degree of hardship"if the discussion on those issues was held late in the meeting. He would like the Council to discuss adjusting the order of agenda items to address that issue. 370 October 17, 2006 Councilmember Ohlson agreed that there was a need for some degree of compromise and for the meetings to be "fluid." Many people were present to address the zoning issue and that should be dealt with as scheduled,but the budget should take"much greater precedence"than the agenda item on hookah. Mayor Hutchinson asked Councilmembers for their preference. Councilmember Kastein asked if the order of agenda items was discussed by the Leadership Team. Mayor Hutchinson stated there were individuals present to address the first two discussion items and the budget item tended to be "more open-ended." He stated the agenda order could be adjusted if that was the majority view. Agenda Review City Manager Atteberry stated there were no changes to the published agenda. Mary Brophy, 1109 West Harmony Road, withdrew item#27 Resolution 2006-108 Expressing City Council's Opposition to Ballot Issue 38 in the November 7, 2006Election and Urging Residents of the City to Vote Against Such Measure from the Consent Calendar. CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the August 15. 2006 Regular Meeting and August 22 2006 Special Meeting. 7. Items Relating to the Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate Program. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2006, Continuing and Modifying a Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate Program for Fort Collins Manufacturers. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2006, Appropriating Prior Year Use Tax Carryover Reserves for the Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate Program. The Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate Program was intended to encourage reinvestment by local manufacturing firms in new manufacturing equipment. The goal of the Program is to maintain the local economic base by providing modest tax relief to manufacturing concerns located in Fort Collins. These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 3, 2006, continue this program. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No 153 2006 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in Various Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of Arororonriated Amounts Between Funds or Projects. The purpose of this annual"clean-up"ordinance is to combine dedicated revenues or reserves 371 October 17, 2006 that need to be appropriated before the end of the year to cover the related expenses that were not anticipated and, therefore, not included in the 2006 budget. The unanticipated revenue is primarily from fees, charges, rents, contributions and grants that have been paid to City departments to offset specific expenses. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 3, 2006. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No 154 2006 Apl2ronriating Unanticipated Revenue inStreet Oversizing Contributions-in-Aid in the Street Oversizina Fund for the Drake and Ziegler Road Improvements, Phase 2. Arterial street improvements are planned for Ziegler Road,from Environmental Drive south to Horsetooth Road. This Ordinance,which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 3,2006,appropriates contributions-in-aid-of-construction to allow engineering and bid documents to be prepared and construction of the structures and ditch relocation to be awarded prior to the 2007 construction season. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No 155 2006 Temporarily Suspendingthe Operation and Enforcement of the Land Use Code and Zoning_MW Regarding the Usage of the "Ricker Building" as an Emergency Daytime Severe Winter Weather Shelter for the Homeless. Local health and human service agencies have asked the City to assist in providing a facility to house a temporary emergency daytime shelter for the homeless in the event of severe winter weather. The facility will only be open Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on those days when the high daily temperature is forecast to reach a temperature, wind chill temperature, or wet bulb temperature of no more than 39 degrees Fahrenheit. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 3, 2006, allows for the use of the facility at 220 North Howes Street as an emergency severe weather shelter until April 30, 2007. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No 156 2006 Amending Section 4.17(B)(2)© of the Land Use Code to Add a Permitted Use to the R-D-R River Downtown Redevelopment Zone District. This Ordinance,unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 3,2006,amends the Land Use Code to add Health Clubs as a permitted use in the River Downtown Redevelopment Zone District. The new use is proposed as being subject to Administrative Review (Type One). 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No 157 2006 Amending the Zoning Man of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Front Range Second Rezoning. Ordinance No. 157, 2006, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 3, 2006, rezones 45 acres located along the west side of South College Avenue from Trilby Road to Skyway Drive. This Ordinance reverts the 45-acre subject area to C, Commercial zoning. 372 October 17, 2006 13. Second Reading of Ordinance No 158 2006 Amending the Zoning Man of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the New Dawn Fort Collins Rezoning. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 3, 2006, rezones 3.9 acres located at the southeast corner of Iowa Drive and Limon Drive, in the Rigden Farm development to MMN - Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. 14. Second Reading of Ordinance No 159 2006 Authorizing the Acceptance of a Donation of Real Estate from Everline LLC and Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue to the Natural Areas Fund. This Ordinance,unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 3, 2006, authorizes the acceptance of a donation of real estate from Everline, LLC, a subsidiary of the Everitt Companies. The parcel is located along the north shore of Fossil Creek Reservoir and abuts the Fossil Creek Reservoir shoreline. 15. Second Reading of Ordinance No 160 2006 Authorizing a Right-of-Way Easement and Temporary Construction Easements on City-Owned Property at Meadow Springs Ranch for Overland Pass Pipeline Company. LLC. Overland Pass Pipeline Company,LLC,has requested a right-of-way construction easement to construct a liquid natural gas pipeline through the Meadow Springs Ranch,owned by the City. This Ordinance,unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 3,2006,authorizes conveyance of the right-of-way easement and temporary construction easements. 16. Items Relating to the Multi jurisdictional Drug Task Force. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 162, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue from the Office of National Drug Control Policy in the General Fund for the Latimer County Drug Task Force B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 163, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue from the Bureau of Justice Assistance in the General Fund For the Larimer County Drug Task Force These Ordinances appropriate grant funds received by the Larimer County Drug Task Force from the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Bureau of Justice Assistance. These funds are to be used to fund the investigation of illegal narcotics activities in Larimer County. 17. First Reading of Ordinance No 164 2006 Adopting and Determining the Effective Date of the District-Precinct Map for the 2007 Regular Municipal Election. This Ordinance adopts the District-Precinct Map for the 2007 regular municipal election for the purposes of(1)determining the eligibility for District Council offices for the April 2007 election;(2)determining eligibility for any interim appointments to fill any District Council 373 October 17, 2006 vacancies which may occur after November 17, 2006; and (3) determining residency for voting in any special municipal election conducted after November 17, 2006. 18. First Reading of Ordinance No 165 2006 Establishing Local Provisions for the Conduct of Mail Ballot Elections. This Ordinance establishes local provisions for the conduct of mail ballot elections in Fort Collins and supersedes Title 1, Article 7.5 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, as well as any rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary of State regarding mail ballot elections. 19. Items Relating to the Arbor South Second Annexation and Zoning. A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 166, 2006,Annexing Property Known as the Arbor South Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 167,2006,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Arbor South Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. This is a request to annex and zone 1.83 acres located on the west side of South College Avenue, east of Fossil Boulevard, and north of West Fairway Lane. It is currently vacant, undeveloped property and is in the T — Tourist Zoning District in Latimer County. The requested zoning in the City of Fort Collins is C - Commercial. 20. First Reading of Ordinance No 168 2006 Vacating Portions of Right-of-way as Dedicated on the Plat of Provincetowne P.U.D.. Filing No. 2. This Ordinance vacates portions of right-of-way located in the Provincetowne,Filing Two that are no longer necessary. A temporary access,drainage and utility easement is retained. 21. Items Relating to the Provincetowne P.U.D. Filing Three Development. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 169, 2006, Declaring Certain City-Owned Property in Provincetowne P.U.D. As Road Right-Of-Way B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 170, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Perpetual Drainage Easement and Temporary Construction Easement for the Provincetowne P.U.D. Filing Three Development Project. The developer of Provincetowne P.U.D.Filing 2,KB Homes Inc.,wishes to modify two cul- de-sacs in its development to connect with new roads included in the new Third Filing of Provincetowne P.U.D.. This modification would require the designation of a portion of Outlot I of Filing 2 (future park site) as right-of-way. The developer also wishes to acquire a 30,771 square foot drainage easement through the future park site for the benefit of the development. 374 October 17, 2006 22. Items Relating to the 2007 Downtown Development Authority Budget. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 171, 2006, Appropriating Operating Funds and Approving the Budget of the Downtown Development Authority for the Fiscal Year Beginning January 1, 2007, and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Downtown Development Authority for 2007 at Five Mills. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 172,2006,Appropriating Revenue in the Downtown Development Authority Debt Service Fund for Payment of Debt Service for the Year 2007. The Downtown Development Authority Board of Directors (the 'Board") adopted its proposed budget for 2007 totaling$6,196,867 on September 7,2006. The Board determined the mill levy necessary to provide for payment of administrative costs incurred by the DDA at its regular meeting of September 7, 2006. Ordinance No. 171, 2006, appropriates the DDA operating funds and sets the mill levy. Ordinance No. 172,2006,appropriates funds for 2007 DDA debt service payments from the tax increment received by the City. 23. Items Relating to Utility Rates and Charges for 2007. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 173, 2006, Amending Chapter 26, Article III, Division 4 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Relating to User Rates and Charges for Water. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 174, 2006, Amending Chapter 26, Article IV, Division 4 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Relating to Wastewater Rates and Charges. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 175, 2006, Amending Chapter 26, Article VI, Division 4 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Relating to Electric Development Fees and Charges. D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 176,2006,Amending Chapter 26,Article I&XII of the Code of the City Of Fort Collins Relating to Utility Bills and Notices and Administrative Regulations for Billing and Collection. • Two of the Ordinances establish Utilities monthly water and wastewater rates for 2007 as follows: Increase Water 3 Wastewater 5 375 October 17, 2006 The water and wastewater increases will be"across the board"and do not vary by customer class. In total, a typical residential customer's bill, charges for electric, water, wastewater and stormwater will increase $1.41 in winter when water usage is low and $3.27 in the summer when water is used for irrigation. • Two Ordinances also make changes in development fees as follows: The second phase of the wastewater plant investment fees (PIFs) will be implemented January 1, 2007 to comply with Council's direction to phase such fees in over a three year period. Electric development fees and charges are reviewed and updated annually to capture the costs associated with providing capital improvements to new development. • Other changes addressed in the Ordinances are as follows: In response to customer demand for the convenience of online bill payments, staff is recommending a modification to the Code to allow users an option of electronic delivery of utility bills and notices. The water and wastewater Ordinances each include a new section of Code to expressly authorize the Utilities General Manger to enter into agreements to provide special services beyond those required for basic service. The new Code provision requires that a written agreement establishing charges which modify those in the Code be approved by the City Council pursuant to Section 6 of Article XII of the City Charter. Other minor housekeeping changes and clarifications are also included in the ordinances. 24. Resolution 2006-105 Adopting a Revenue Allocation Formula to Define the City of Fort Collins' Contribution to the Poudre Fire Authority_Budget for the Year 2007 for Operations and Maintenance. This Resolution establishes a Revenue Allocation Formula between the City of Fort Collins and the Poudre Fire Authority to contribute funding for maintenance and operating costs of Poudre Fire Authority. 25. Resolution 2006-106 Renaming Star Gazer Drive to Cosmos Lane. This is a request to rename a street within Willow Brook Subdivision, located north of Kechter Road and west of Strauss Cabin Road. The street name change request was initiated by the City's Engineering Department in collaboration with the property owner in order to avoid future confusion. The street name will be changed from Star Gazer Drive to Cosmos Lane. 376 October 17, 2006 26. Resolution 2006 107 Authorizing the Mayor to Execute a Revised Version of the Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and Latimer County Regarding Cooperation on Managing Urban Develonment Within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. In November 2005, the City Council approved Resolutions 2005-129 and 2005-130 to expand the Fort Collins Growth Management Area(GMA)boundary to include the former Fossil Creek Cooperative Planning Area(CPA). In addition to the new version of the map showing the recently approved GMA boundary amendment, staff believes there are several minor wording edits that are also necessary to the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). 27. Resolution 2006 108 Expressing Cily Council's Opposition to Ballot Issue 38 in the November 7 2006 Election and Urging Residents of the City to Vote Against Such Measure. This Resolution expresses CityCouncil's opposition to Amendment 38,which will eliminate local control over the initiative and referendum process. 28. Resolution 2006 109 Making Appointments to the Affordable Housing Board and the Human Relations Commission. Several vacancies exist on the Affordable Housing Board due to the resignations of Chris Crutcher,Donna Wetzler,Michelle Jacobs and Joe Hebert. Applications were solicited and Councilmember Kastein conducted interviews. Councilmember Kastein is recommending Jason Oldham, Rachel Davis, Robert Sullivan and Dan Byers to fill the vacancies. Several vacancies exist on the Human Relations Commission due to the resignations of Parker Preble, Lester Washington and Jeffery VanFleet. Applications were solicited and Councilmembers Roy and Brown conducted interviews. The Council interview team is recommending Karen Wong-Brown,Christina Matsushima and Lisa Poppaw-Schinnerer to fill the vacancies. ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 7. Items Relating to the Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate Program. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2006, Continuing and Modifying a Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate Program for Fort Collins Manufacturers. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2006, Appropriating Prior Year Use Tax Carryover Reserves for the Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate Program. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No 153 2006 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in Various Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts Between Funds or Projects. 377 October 17, 2006 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No 154 2006 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in Street Oversizing Contributions-in-Aid in the Street Oversizing Fund for the Drake and Ziegler Road Improvements Phase 2. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No 155 2006 Temporarily Suspending the Operation and Enforcement of the Land Use Code and Zoning Map Regarding the Usage of the "Ricker Building" as an Emergency Daytime Severe Winter Weather Shelter for the Homeless. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No 156 2006 Amending Section 4.17(B)(2)© of the Land Use Code to Add a Permitted Use to the R-D-R River Downtown Redevelopment Zone District. 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No 157 2006 Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Front Range Second Rezoning. 13. Second Reading of Ordinance No 158 2006 Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the New Dawn Fort Collins Rezoning. 14. Second Reading of Ordinance No 159 2006 Authorizing the Acceptance of a Donation of Real Estate from Everline LLC and Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue to the Natural Areas Fund. 15. Second Reading of Ordinance No 160 2006 Authorizing a Right-of-Way Easement and Temporary Construction Easements on City-Owned Property at Meadow Springs Ranch.for Overland Pass Pipeline Company, LLC. 32. Second Reading of Ordinance No 161 2006 Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Harmony and Shields Rezoning. 33. Second Reading of Ordinance No 122 2006 Amending Article III of Chapter 12 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Conform to the Colorado Clean Indoor Act.and to Clarify Certain Provisions. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 16. Items Relating to the Multi-jurisdictional Drug Task Force. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 162, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue from the Office ofNational Drug Control Policy in the General Fund for the Larimer County Drug Task Force 378 October 17, 2006 B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 163, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue from the Bureau of Justice Assistance in the General Fund For the Larimer County Drug Task Force 17. First Reading of Ordinance No 164 2006 Adopting and Determining the Effective Date of the District-Precinct Man for the 2007 Regular Municipal Election. 18. First Reading of Ordinance No 165 2006 Establishing Local Provisions for the Conduct of Mail Ballot Elections. 19. Items Relating to the Arbor South Second Annexation and Zoning. A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 166, 2006, Annexing Property Known as the Arbor South Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 167, 2006,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Arbor South Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. 20. First Reading of Ordinance No 168 2006 Vacating Portions of Right-of-way as Dedicated on the Plat of Provincetowne P.U.D.. Filing No. 2. 21. Items Relating to the Provincetowne P.U.D. Filing Three Development. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 169, 2006,Declaring Certain City-Owned Property in Provincetowne P.U.D. As Road Right-Of-Way B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 170, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Perpetual Drainage Easement and Temporary Construction Easement for the Provincetowne P.U.D. Filing Three Development Project. 22. Items Relating to the 2007 Downtown Development Authority Budget. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 171, 2006, Appropriating Operating Funds and Approving the Budget of the Downtown Development Authority for the Fiscal Year Beginning January 1, 2007, and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Downtown Development Authority for 2007 at Five Mills. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 172,2006,Appropriating Revenue in the Downtown Development Authority Debt Service Fund for Payment of Debt Service for the Year 2007. 379 October 17, 2006 23. Items Relating to Utility Rates and Charges for 2007. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 173, 2006, Amending Chapter 26, Article III, Division 4 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Relating to User Rates and Charges for Water. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 174, 2006, Amending Chapter 26, Article IV, Division 4 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Relating to Wastewater Rates and Charges. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 175, 2006, Amending Chapter 26, Article VI, Division 4 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Relating to Electric Development Fees and Charges. D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 176,2006,Amending Chapter 26,Article I&XII of the Code of the City Of Fort Collins Relating to Utility Bills and Notices and Administrative Regulations for Billing and Collection. 34. First Reading of Ordinance No 177 2006 Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance Relatiniz to the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2007• Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year Beginning January 1 2007 and Ending December 31 2007� and Fixing the Mill Lew for Fiscal Year 2007. Councilmember Kastein made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Manvel,to adopt and approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Consent Calendar Follow-up Councilmember Kastein spoke regarding item#23 Items Relating to Utility Rates and Charges for 2007 and requested information prior to Second Reading on cost containment efforts and prioritizing these fees compared with other fees. He would need this information before voting to approve these items on Second Reading. City Manager Atteberry stated staff would provide this information prior to Second Reading. He had heard from Councilmembers that they wanted to know anticipated fee increases for the next calendar year,the rationale for any fee increases, and if any efficiencies could be implemented to avoid a fee increase. The water fee increase was projected at the time of adoption of the 2006-2007 budget to be 5% for 2007. The"good news"was that the water rate increase had been lowered from 5%to 3%. Councilmember Reports Councilmember Weitkunat reported on the discussions of the Poudre Fire Authority Board of Directors regarding appropriations and expenditures. PFA would give an update to the City Council 380 October 17, 2006 on at least an annual basis. She stated PFA would be working with City staff to discuss biodiesel manufacturing and storage in residential neighborhoods. Councilmember Kastein reported on the discussions of the MPO relating to an Regional Transportation Authority that would create a taxing district for regional transportation improvements. Councilmember Ohlson was concerned that the MPO's public dollars would be used as a"conduit" to"launder public dollars"through the Northern Colorado Economic Development Corporation to the regional Chambers of Commerce to organize a campaign effort. Ballot measures should come through private groups rather than public dollars. He suggested there should be a Council discussion on this issue. Councilmember Kastein stated the NCEDC had not been targeted to lead the group and instead the lead group would be the Northern Colorado Legislative Alliance(NCLA). Mayor Hutchinson suggested that this item be placed on a future work session agenda. He asked Council's preference on agenda order. The consensus was to have the discussion on the budget first. Ordinance No. 177, 2006, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance Relating to the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2007; Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year Beginning January 1, 2007, and Ending December 31 2007 and Fixing the Mill Lew for Fiscal Year 2007 Adopted on First Reading. The following is the staff memorandum on this item. "FINANCL9L IMPACT This Ordinance amends the City Budget for fiscal year 2007 and represents the annual appropriation for fiscal year 2007 in the amount of$472,620,071. The Ordinance also sets the City mill levy at 9.797 mill, unchanged since 1991. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance amends the adopted 2007 Budget and sets the amount of$472,620,071 to be appropriated for fiscal year 2007. The Net City Budget, which excludes internal transfers between Cityfunds, is $379,328,212 for 2007. The Net City Budget, as amended, is allocated to: Ado ted 2007 I Amended 2007 Operations $322,633,068 $322,799,201 Debt Service 24,26 9,655 24,269,655 Capital 26,465,106 32,259,356 381 October 17, 2006 This Ordinance also sets the 2007 City mill levy at 9.797 mills, unchanged since 1991. BACKGROUND 1n November 2005, City Council adopted the 2006-2007 Biennial Budget and appropriated monies for expenditure in fiscal year 2006 State statutes and the City Charter both require an annual appropriation to cover expenses for the ensuing year(2007) based upon the adopted budget. The Second Reading of this ordinance must be completed before the last day of November and is currently scheduled to occur on November 21, 2006. The Appropriation Ordinance makes several changes to the adopted 2006-200 7 Budget. The major adjustments included in the ordinance are to balance the General Fund in light of the projected$5.8 Million revenue shortfall. The Appropriation Ordinance also addresses a variety of other changes which reflect relatively minor changes in other City Funds. Finally, some housekeeping changes are included in the ordinance to make adjustments to other f snds. A significant adjustment in the Sales Tax Fund is the addition of the revenue from the Building on Basics (BOB)sales tax program. When the 2006-2007 Budget was being considered by Council in 2005, the results ofthe November 2005 election were not yet known; therefore the receipt of revenue from Building on Basics program was not budgeted in the Sales and Use Tax Fund budget. These revenues are included in the amended 2007Budget and are therefore reflected in this Appropriation Ordinance. 2007 General Fund Gap: In the originally adopted 2006-2007 Biennial Budget, General Fund revenues for 2007 were projected on the assumption of implementing a proposed Transportation Maintenance Fee and sales taxes increasing by 4% over 2006 Based on the original$2.3 million gap that was to be covered by the Transportation Maintenance Fee(TMF)plus underperforming sales tax collections in the amount of$3.5 million, a$5.8 million shortfall in General Fund revenues was projected. Strategies to Address Funding 2007 General Fund Revenue Gap: As Council has discussed, there are three basic strategies to address the shortfall—seek operational efficiencies throughout the City, reduce expenditure and related services or increase resources to cover expenditures. There can also be some combination of these three approaches. Based on discussion and direction provided by Council during six work sessions, the amended General Fund 2007Budget includes a "combination"strategy. The recommended strategy includes service and expenditure cuts, organizational efficiencies and new revenues to address the projected $5.8 million 2007 shortfall. The following table (Table 1) describes the current f snding gap, the recommended reductions, other General Fund budget issues which must be addressed in 2007, and 382 October 17, 2006 the recommended new revenue package. At the October 10 Work Session, Council requested that two options to implement a Transportation Maintenance Fee(TMF)and Park Maintenance Fee(PMF)be presented at First Reading of the fee ordinances on November 7. The options (Alternatives 1 and 3) will be developed as two separate ordinances for Council's consideration. In addition, staff will provide information regarding the financial impacts of exempting private schools (k-12) and churches from the Transportation Maintenance Fee. The Appropriation Ordinance reflects Alternative 1, the City Manager's recommended budget. If Council chooses to alter the new revenue strategy when it considers the fee implementation ordinances on November 7, the Appropriation Ordinance can be amended on Second Reading to reflect that change. In accordance with Council direction at the October 10 Work Session, staff has made one modification to the City Manager's recommended service reductions. The reduction offer from the Senior Center was modified to eliminate the cut for the Senior Trips program. The impact of this change is $30,000. Recommendation Summary: The City Manager's recommended budget amendments include the following key items: Table 1 _ Recom- Running mendation Total (Revenue Shortfall $_ (5,800,0 $(5,800 000), - _. _. Cost Reductions L..., Reduce Employee Compensation $ 1,000,000 -- - - - .. -_ _w Infom�ation Technobgy Efficiencies/Consolidation $ 250,000 City Manager's Recommended Reductions $ 3,075,000 _ w $ 4 325,000 1 $(1,475 000) Addi[iona12007 Budget Issues: $ (2,107,000), _ - $ (3,582,000); New Revenue- Transportation Maintenance Fee $ 2 300,000 New Revenue--Parks Maintenance Fee $ 880,000 ;New Revenue--SW Annexation Taxes and Fees $ 437,000 - .. _. _ $� 3,617,000 BALANCED Overview of Service and Expenditure Reductions: The City Manager's recommended General Fund budget for 2007 includes $4.3 million in reductions to services and expenditures. These reductions represent significant changes in several services and significant cost cutting efforts to many other on-going services. $1,000,000 Projected Employee Compensation Increases: The 2007Budget included projected increases to employee compensation for 383 October 17, 2006 both Cost of Living increases and for merit/skill increases. This recommended reduction would limit salary increases to COLAs only, absent exceptional circumstances for particular employees. The available funds are projected to provide 2.3%cost of living increases for employees in 2007. $250,000 Information Technology Organizational Efficiencies: The City will undertake a consolidation oflnformation Technology Services to improve efficiency and the effectiveness ofthe City's technology resources. $3,075,000 Recommended Service and Expenditure Reductions: A summary of all recommended service and expenditure reductions in Attachment 1. Additional 2007 Budget Issues: In developing the 2007 General Fund Budget Recommendation and the 2007 Appropriations Ordinance, several issues must be addressed and adjustments made to the previously adopted 2007 Budget. These issues were not anticipated when the 2006-07 Budget was adopted. In previous years, revenues that exceeded projections would likely have been available to address these issues in the second year exceptions budget process. With the projected revenue shortfall for 2007, these additional budget issues add to the expected budget shortfall and should be addressed in the context of the overall General Fund budget. Staff recommends funding the following items in the 2007 General Fund Budget. $1,100,000 Additional Transfort Fixed Routes/Dial a Ride: The rapidly rising cost of providing Dial-a-Ride services throughout the Growth Management Area have created an increasingly unsustainable program. Staff has recommended a reduction of$600,000 in current Dial-a- Ride services, while also recommending an increase infixed route services. These two actions, in combination, will result in a significant change in the community's public transportation system and improve the long-term financial viability of the program. $250,000 Manufactures Use Tax Rebates: For the 2007 Amended Budget, the recommendation is to earmark$250,000 for Use Tax rebates for eligible local manufacturers. $150,000 Natural Gas Cost Increase: Growing costs for Natural Gas will not be accommodated under the 2007 budget funding levels and additional funds will be needed to cover these costs. This volatile cost was recently reevaluated and an additional $150,000 in fuel costs is projected for next year. $170,000 Employee Compensation Corrections: 384 October 17, 2006 Several adjustments to employee compensation are necessary in 2007 to correct pay inequities that resulted from freezing the pay plan in 2002. Issues include compression between some supervisors and their subordinate employees, new hire employees who are paid at a higher rate than frozen longer term employees, merit increases for some employees to bring them to at least 4%over the pay range minimum, and skill based pay adjustments for some employees are included in these corrections. $437,122 Southwest Annexation An enclave area ofapproximately 2.7square miles was recently annexed into the City. Because the resources needed to serve the entire enclave are limited at this point in time, the annexation is to take effect over a period of several years. Pending Council approval, the Phase One portion of the enclave will be recorded and take effect in November 2006. The City will be providing services to the Phase One area. While services, such as Golf, Electric and Stormwater, are directly funded by user fees, other services are funded by a combination of property taxes, sales taxes, and fees. Many of the City's services are currently used by enclave residents and do not trigger additional expenditures. Staff is recommending that all of the new revenue generated from the Phase One Southwest Annexation be allocated toward increasing Police Services. New Revenue Recommendation: Staff recommends that the 2007 General Fund budget be balance by implementing two new special services fees—Parks Maintenance Fee and Transportation Maintenance Fee,and by allocating new revenue from the Southwest Annexation toward Police Services. At the October 10 Work Session, City Council discussed several alternative combinations of new revenue from the TMF and PMF. Council asked for additional information regarding two of the options, Alternative 1 (weighted to TMF) and Alternatives 3 (balanced revenue between TMF and PMF). This Appropriation Ordinance was developed assuming the implementation of Alternative 1, with the majority of the new revenue coming from the TMF. Council will be asked to consider the adoption of the fee ordinances at its November 7 meeting. If Council decides to adopt the Alternative 3 calculations of the fees, the Appropriations Ordinance can be amended to reflect that decision prior to the Second Reading on November 21. Any changes would be reflected in the General Fund and Transportation Fund. Transportation Maintenance Fee Staff recommends that a Transportation Maintenance Fee(TMF)be implemented at the full amount possible with exemptions provided for Government and Public School parcels. The exemptions would eliminate approximately $300,000 in potential revenue. The proposal would also cover the projected$130,000 in administrative costs. These revenues match the assumed TMF revenue which was included in the adopted 2006-2007 Budget. 385 October 17, 2006 Park Maintenance Fee Staff recommends that the Park Maintenance Fee (PMF) be implemented at a level of$1 Million per year. After administrative costs, rebates and uncollectible delinquencies, the yield to the Parks Maintenance Program will equal approximately $880,000. These revenues will free-up an equal amount of General Fund revenues which are reallocated to other items in the City Manager's Recommended Budget. Southwest Annexation The largest General Fund impact of the Phase One annexation is the need to extend Police service to this area. General Fund revenues from the Phase One area are estimated to be $437,122 in 2007. The City is committing this new revenue from the Phase One area to go toward adding Police personnel for this new service area in Fort Collins. 2007 Budget Exceptions: Attachment 2 provides a summary of the 2007 Budget Exceptions which are included in the Appropriations Ordinance. These budget exceptions represent the significant changes to the 2007 Budget that Council has not yet reviewed as apart of the past budget work sessions. Each of these budget exceptions have an identified funding source. None of these exceptions will affect the overall balancing of the General Fund. Some minor housekeeping changes are included in the ordinance to make minor adjustments to other funds. " City Manager Atteberry stated this was the first formal consideration of the 2007 budget. This had been a difficult budget process and this budget would begin to set the City on a "new path for financial stability." Revenues had"flattened out" from double digit to single digit growth and the City had made significant progress in creating a more stable financial environment. This was not a one-year"budget crisis" for the City had been dealing with this issue since 2002. He hoped this was the "last of the most difficult budgets." The budget assumed very moderate revenue growth (between 1%and 2%). The appropriation ordinance would appropriate a total of$379 million and the total budget was $473 million when internal transfers were included. The expected revenue shortfall had been $2.3 million in 2007 in the General Fund and revenues had come in at a lower level that expected. Staff was also recommending the funding of additional items in spite of the reduced budget. The 2007 General Fund budget shortfall amounted to $5.8 million and the add-on budget items totaled$2.1 million. The"gap"was now$7.9 million. The cost and service reductions amounted to $3.6 million and that this included the Southwest Enclave Annexation costs and revenues. This budget anticipated new revenue of$3.6 million through a transportation maintenance fee and a parks maintenance fee. If approved,this would be a balanced budget. The City was in year 2 of a two-year budget cycle. An "extraordinary" amount of effort had been spent on the 2007 budget due to the shortfalls. He did not anticipate that such efforts would be needed for the second year of future budgets. Staff was asked at a work session to come back with approximately $8 million worth of budget cuts and a comparison showing budget cuts with no revenue increases. He stated the Council did not want to do across-the-board cuts. There had been six Council work sessions on the budget since February. Three main issues were addressed in developing the budget: 386 October 17, 2006 (1) ensuring maximum efficiency of the City organization in delivering services; (2) looking at service reductions and cuts or eliminating complete programs; and (3) looking at options for new revenue. He noted the Council and the public had detailed information on organizational efficiencies, service reductions and "stop doing" items, and new fee options. Transportation maintenance and parks maintenance fees were expected to generate about$3..2 million in revenue. First Reading of the ordinances establishing those fees was scheduled for November 7 and noted this budget was dependent on adoption of those ordinances. He was recommending funding of about $2.1 million for additional fixed route transit and Dial-a-Ride service on Harmony Road,Timberline Road and Prospect Road; the manufacturers' use tax rebate; dollars to offset increased natural gas prices;police services costs within the Southwest Annexation area; and compensation corrections. Dial-a-Ride funding was a"difficult item." The budget was proposing increased Transfort fixed route service and related Dial-a-Ride improvements to provide Dial-a-Ride service within three- quarters of a mile of the transit route to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Dial-a-Ride service would be reduced outside of the City and the ADA minimum standard would be met. Staff was also recommending the reduction ofDial-a-Ride service hours to equal the service hours of Transfort. He presented visual information showing the current and proposed Transfort fixed routes and Dial-a-Ride service area. He presented a comparison of current and proposed budgets for Transfort and Dial-a-Ride. He stated the City was concerned that a charge of$21 per one-way trip would not be enough for the City to continue to provide the same level of service. There would be a significant savings to the General Fund if the proposed budget was adopted. The projected savings and transit improvements in the City was"compelling." Staff was recommending approval on First Reading of the annual appropriation ordinance for the $323 million operating budget within a net City budget of$473 million. Debt service was $24 million and the capital budget was$32 million. The mill levy rate would be set at 9.797 mills, which did not represent an increase. The mill levy had been static since 1991. He appreciated the staff work that had been done on this budget and he recommended it to the Council "with pride." Mayor Hutchinson stated staff would prepare written answers to questions asked during citizen input for the Council and for posting on the City's website. He stated each audience participant would have four minutes to speak. Steve Pries, 1801 Homer Drive, supported funding for the Youth Activity Center. Toni Lueck, 2400 North Taft Hill Road, spoke in support of funding for Dial-a-Ride. Ashlie Lund, 2828 Silverplume Drive G-2, supported funding for the Youth Activity Center. Andrea Fotsch, 705 East Drake Road, supported funding for the Youth Activity Center. Michael Devereaux, 2150 Maid Marian Court, spoke in support of funding for Dial-a-Ride. Jackie Oddoms, Fort Collins resident, supported funding for Dial-a-Ride and presented a petition with 400 signatures. Maria Ledezma, CSU student, spoke in support of funding for Dial-a-Ride. 387 October 17, 2006 Erika Stewart, 700 East Drake Road F-5, supported funding for Dial-a-Ride. Shelbie Mestas, 127 North Meldrum Street#203, spoke in support of Dial-a-Ride funding. Tracy Mueller,Latimer County probation officer, 1020 Rolland Moore Drive,supported funding for Dial-a-Ride. Jeff Wright,,4225 Cape Cod Circle,Heart of the Rockies Christian Church pastor,spoke in support of funding for Dial-a-Ride and asked that the transportation maintenance fee not exclude the government and public schools while including private schools and churches. Nancy Wick, 1232 Juniper Court, spoke in favor of funding for Dial-a-Ride. Susan Williams, 400 Impala Circle, supported Dial-a-Ride funding. Paul Rosenszweig, 413 1/2 East Mulberry Street, spoke in favor of Dial-a-Ride funding. Clint Skutchan,719 Great Plains Court,commented on the budget difficulties resulting from"years of irresponsible spending." Decisions on cuts would be difficult in the short term but would mean more"consistency"in City services for the future. If cuts were not made to Dial-a-Ride at this time, they might be required in the future when even more people would be impacted. Budget decisions needed to be made for the long term good of the community. He suggested that people continue to work toward obtaining funding for services such as the Youth Activity Center and Dial-a-Ride from other sources such as corporate sponsors. Olive Morgan, DMA resident, City volunteer, supported funding for Dial-a-Ride. Vivian Armenderez, 820 Mergenser Drive Apt. 908, spoke in support of funding for Dial-a-Ride. Jenny Shock, 3604 Mt. Ouray Street, Wellington, supported funding for Dial-a-Ride. Cindy Reynolds, 3024 Conestoga Court, spoke in support of funding for Dial-a-Ride. Robert Morain, 4206 Monmouth Court, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, expressed concern that the budget presented to the Council depended on fees that had not yet been adopted. He stated the proposed fees would impact nonprofit organizations in the City. He suggested that there be more dialogue with the faith community and nonprofit organizations regarding how community needs could best be met. David McDanel, Disabled Resource Services, 424 Pine Street, supported funding for Dial-a-Ride and asked if the City would consider funding faith-based and nonprofit organizations such as Disabled Resource Services to help meet transit needs for the 210 people who would now be outside of the Dial-a-Ride service area. 388 October 17, 2006 Cheryl Distaso, 135 South Sunset Street, Center for Justice, Peace and Environment Coordinator, spoke in support of funding for Dial-a-Ride. Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb,supported funding for Dial-a-Ride and creation of a citizen task force to look at transportation options. Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, stated the revenue shortfall resulted from past actions, such as borrowing without the consent of the citizenry for the police building and the Soapstone Ranch. The"mortgage payment" on the new police building was $2.3 million per year and noted the voters actually voted against a sales tax to fund buildings. The operations and maintenance cost for that building would be$400,000 per year. He stated$2.7 million could have been spent on other things. He objected to new fees to cover expenditures without the consent of the voters. He commented that the Library District would be a"mistake"because there would be no direct voter input on who would run the library and spend $6 million in tax dollars. Shane Miller, 4325 Mill Creek Court, stated there were "tough choices" to be made and spoke in support of funding for Dial-a-Ride. ("Secretary's Note: Council took at recess at this point in the meeting.) Councilmember Brown asked if any faith-based or nonprofit organization had proposed providing paratransit service in place of Dial-a-Ride. City Manager Atteberry stated he was not aware that any such organization had contacted the City about paratransit services. Staff had talked with the Council about contacting nonprofit and faith-based organizations if Council made the decision to cut Dial-a-Ride. Councilmember Brown asked if staff would consider a task force and actively seek a partnership with faith-based and nonprofit organization using one-time City dollars to train people from such organizations as drivers. City Manager Atteberry stated that, at the last work session, the Council asked staff to make a formal request for the County's financial assistance for Dial-a-Ride service in unincorporated Larimer County and that this request had been made. Councilmember Brown stated it was "heartbreaking" to hear the stories of Dial-a-Ride customers and that this was a"tough decision"but the Council was looking for the"right solution." Councilmember Kastein asked that a"more serious effort"be made to find out who would"step to the table"to provide Dial-a-Ride service if the City made cuts. He suggested that the City convene a series of meetings to bring together out-of-City paratransit users and providers with the City's"data and knowledge"about the current system. He would like to be part of the discussion and he would like to see a"concerted effort" made to do this. Mayor Hutchinson stated several speakers spoke about the City being "selective" regarding "variations in need" and asked if it would be possible for the City to "pick out individuals" in the area for service while not providing service to others. Marlys Sitmer, Transfort/Dial-a-Ride Assistant General Manager, stated staff had looked into that issue and this would mean providing 389 October 17, 2006 service to one individual and not providing service to others. This would"difficult to justify" and the City had a responsibility and legal mandate to provide service who met the ADA requirements. Mayor Hutchinson stated there were "legal issues" relating to being selective about who to serve. Councilmember Ohlson asked staff to explain the"all or none scenario"i.e.,that the ADA standards must be met or"everyone"must be served. He commented that it would be more difficult to serve some City residents and not serve others than it would be to not serve County residents because the County government had responsibility with that. He asked if it was clear that the City could not make a decision to go beyond the ADA minimum requirements to serve all City residents. Sittner stated the legal mandate was to provide service within three-quarters of a mile of fixed transit routes to those eligible under the Americans with Disabilities Act without regard to the demand. The City had been providing service beyond that to those age 60 and over in a much larger service area. This put the City into a situation of providing service far beyond what was mandated and having to meet the mandated level. This meant that the City has had to try to meet all of the demand without regard to the budget. Councilmember Ohlson asked if the Council could decide to expand Dial-a-Ride to all residents within the City limits without going outside the City limits. Sittner stated the City could provide service to people living within the City limits and that this would mean that the full level of service would have to be maintained. The City would not be able to deny any trips to those protected under the ADA. Councilmember Ohlson asked if the City would have to provide the service to people outside of the City limits if it was provided to everyone in the City limits. Sitmer stated the Council could set the service area at the City limits as it has done for the Growth Management Area. The only group for which the City had a legal responsibility were the people living in the shaded area if their disabilities prevented them from using the fixed route system. If the City provided service to anyone in the City limits, this would be beyond what was mandated and the City must then meet all of the demand. Councilmember Ohlson asked if this meant that Dial-a-Ride hours would have to be expanded to meet the demand within the City limits i.e.,what would have to be provided to all people within the City limits that would not be provided under the current proposal. Sittner stated the ADA mandated services must be provided. If the service area was at the City limits the service hours could be set the same. The services provided would depend on what the City was willing and able to pay for and could be provided as long as the City met the mandated level of service. The City had not been able to keep up with the overall level of demand because service was being provided far beyond the mandated level. This resulted in Dial-a-Ride far exceeding the budget in many years. Councilmember Manvel asked if the"gold"must be taken off of the"gold-plated system"by cutting the"extras"before anything could be cut for people in the mandated area. He noted that one speaker suggested providing limited service beyond the mandated area with the understanding that this limited service could be cut back due to budgetary constraints. He asked if that could be done. Sittner stated this was in some ways what was being done now. She stated that when there were capacity issues trips would be denied to those not protected by the ADA. There was nothing in the 390 October 17, 2006 recommended budget to allow for the extra service outside of what was mandated by the ADA. Councilmember Ohlson asked about sales and use tax projections for the 2007 budget. Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager,stated the projection was 21/2 to 3%growth in sales tax over 2006 and a use tax ceiling of$8.2 million. Councilmember Ohlson commented that this had not been changed even though the City would not "hit"those figures in 2006. He asked if the new sales tax projection was based on the revised 2006 collections. Jones replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Ohlson asked if the City simply chose not to adjust the use tax ceiling. Jones stated staff looked at the use tax for the last two years and was projecting that the City would hit the$8.2 million. She stated she could bring back additional information prior to Second Reading. Councilmember Ohlson noted that none of the Councilmembers got"one penny"for any project he or she"believed in"in this budget i.e., there were no add-ins to any programs. He asked about the use of one-time dollars as a"bridge" for Dial-a-Ride pending the summit that would be convened to sustain Dial-a-Ride until a long term solution could be identified. He asked if one-time monies could be used without"running afoul' of federal regulations. City Manager Atteberry stated staff could prepare information about available one-time funds prior to Second Reading. About$800,000 would be needed to continue Dial-a-Ride at the current level and one-time dollars were available but it would be difficult to "bridge the gap" with those one-time dollars. Councilmember Ohlson stated he did not mean "filling the gap"but instead meant addressing the greatest needs as an interim solution. City Manager Atteberry stated staff would look at the options. If the Ordinance was adopted on First Reading,this would provide clear direction to staff to proceed with working on the "summit." He urged nonprofits and faith-based organizations who were interested in participating to contact the City. Staff would take a look at the use of one-time money to address some of the needs. Councilmember Kastein asked if the 210 people who would be left out by the Dial-a-Ride changes were disabled. Sittner stated this number included elderly/nondisabled,elderly/disabled and under 60 disabled. She stated about 100 of the 210 had not yet used Dial-a-Ride in 2006. Councilmember Kastein asked for data about who would be left out if paratransit was not provided along the new fixed routes. Sitmer stated there were 145 individuals who lived within the area who would now be included. Councilmember Kastein stated he would like to know the number of disabled individuals who would no longer have Dial-a-Ride service and how many rides that would equal. He commented that the City was now providing a service beyond what was provided by any other City in the country.People had come to depend on that service and had no options to get anywhere. there were only two months left to"find another way." He supported the idea of looking for"temporary money"to fund the gap to provide more time for solutions to be found. He would prefer to focus on disabled citizens who would lose the service. 391 October 17, 2006 Councilmember Manvel asked for clarification regarding the dollars needed to maintain the status quo for Dial-a-Ride($800,000) and the number of people who would be using the service. Sitmer stated there was a difference between the number of trips that would be beyond the ADA mandate and the number of people living outside of the service area who would no longer be eligible. Councilmember Manvel stated it was a high priority for people to be able to get to the doctor or their jobs. Councilmember Weitkunat stated staff had provided information about the exponential growth in Dial-a-Ride demand this year and asked that staff present information to explain the current situation. She also asked what would happen in 2007 with demand, if changes were not made. Sittner stated in 2003, the number of Dial-a-Ride trips provided was 73,607 and there had been significant growth each year with 93,000 trips projected in 2006. Staff had no reason to believe the demand would ever level off because of the aging population and growing community. Staff anticipated that,if the service levels were not changed at this point,by the year 2011 there would be 125,000 trips. Councilmember Weitkunat asked about increased costs. Sittner stated the City had been able to maintain the cost per trip and the demand was driving the problem. She presented information regarding the operating budget compared with operating expenses and stated the problem was that the program could not keep up with demand. Each year there was a larger gap between what was budgeted and what was spent to meet the increased demand. Councilmember Weitkunat asked for clarification that the City was not cutting Dial-a-Ride out of the budget. Sittner stated Dial-a-Ride would continue to exist and,in 2007,with the program scaled back to meet the ADA requirements,the$2 million budget would be reduced to $1.1 million. She stated $355,000 was being added to the budget to serve the area around the new fixed routes so the Dial-a-Ride budget would amount to about $1.5 million. Councilmember Weitkunat stated it was important for the community to understand that the City was not getting rid of Dial-a-Ride and there was still a considerable cost involved. Councilmember Roy asked staff to describe the meetings and discussions with the County with regard to County assistance with this problem. City Manager Atteberry stated the Mayor and staff met with the Office on Aging as requested by County Commissioner Gibson and that he had spoken with the County Manager. Councilmember Roy stated it was important that the County take its role "seriously" as the "lead governance authority"for some of these citizens. It was important for the County to understand the "urgency"of this matter. He asked if other discussions with the County were planned. CityManager Atteberry stated he would speak again with the County Manager and he understood that the County was considering withdrawing its$25,000 contribution to the high performing Foxtrot route between Fort Collins and Loveland. This funding was included in the County's recommended budget but it was at"high risk." He would do everything he could to advocate increased funding for Dial-a-Ride to the County although he was concerned that such funding would not receive County support. He 392 October]7, 2006 would stress the urgency of the timing on this when he spoke again with the County Manager. Councilmember Roy stated there would be time between First and Second Readings of this Ordinance for such discussions. He hoped the County would become a`real'participant in the Dial- a-Ride discussions. Councilmember Weitkunat stated speakers talked about finding private dollars to support the YAC to lower the amount needed in the City budget. She was interested in knowing what level of City funding would still be needed if private dollars could be found. City Manager Atteberry stated about $600,000 was needed to keep the YAC operating for 2007. He had met several times with General Growth Properties, the owner of the YAC building, and they had committed to lowering the rent significantly from $346,000 to about $146,000 for 2007. He stated GGP could not commit to an ongoing lease agreement and this needed to be done on an annual basis. With the$200,000 rental reduction about $400,000 in ongoing expenses would be incurred. He had met with several nonprofits and foundations in the community and at this point there was not a"willingness"to fund some of the costs. Marty Heffernan,CLRS Director,stated that even with the reduced lease amount there were operational and staffing costs that could not be offset with the revenues that could be produced. The revenues amounted to about $160,000 and the expenses were in the range of $600,000 to $700,000 range. A new 50,000 square foot recreation center (the Northside center) would be opening and it would need the full-time staff from the YAC. Councilmember W eitkunat noted that people who spoke in support of the YAC indicated they would be willing to seek other revenues. It appeared they would need to look for about $400,000. City Manager Atteberry replied in the affirmative and stated it was important to note that$400,000 would keep the YAC open for one year. The gymnasium at the YAC would be kept open for small elementary school children for after school drop-in and youth and adult league play. General Growth Properties would keep restrooms open for the gymnasium activities. Councilmember Kastein asked why the City did not use more open space money for trail capital so that more Conservation Trust Fund money could be spent on trail maintenance instead of using the General Fund for that purpose. Heffernan stated the Conservation Trust Fund money came from lottery dollars and that some,but not all, of those funds could be used for maintenance. There was no definite amount that could be spent for maintenance but the City was"pushing the limit'at this point. He stated $440,000 of Conservation Trust Fund money had been shifted from trail construction to trail or park maintenance. An additional $125,000 would now be shifted to from construction to maintenance. More Conservation Trust Fund money was available and this would offset the shift of money from construction to maintenance to some degree. He stated $250,000 natural resource dollars had already been transferred to help with trail construction. Byrne stated staff was trying to "strike a balance" between construction and maintenance and staff had been advised that natural area funds should not be used for trail acquisition,construction or maintenance if not directly associated with natural areas purchased with natural areas funds. It was possible to use natural areas funds to connect existing natural areas. 393 October 17, 2006 Councilmember Kastein asked if the Council could decide to allocate to the maximum extent possible open space money for trail construction and if there was a "firm limit" on the use of Conservation Trust Fund money. He stated$100,000 could make a big difference for some of the programs being eliminated. Heffernan stated he would like to talk with the State Auditor to determine if there was a"target" for those types of expenses. Councilmember Kastein stated he would like to see that kind of analysis. Heffernan stated this information should be readily obtainable. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance No. 177, 2006 on First Reading. Councilmember Ohlson stated he would like to see the information requested by Councilmember Kastein on the use of Conservation Trust Fund dollars for trails. Trails were part of the natural areas funding measures. He would still like to see some kind of recreational facility in the south part of town and would like to explore using one-time dollars to keep some operations at the Youth Activity Center while other funding options were being pursued. He would also like information on the services provided by the Boys and Girls Clubs before Second Reading of the Ordinance. He questioned whether recreation center services were being duplicated by public and private nonprofit organizations and asked if the City could work with the Boys and Girls Clubs. Councilmember Roy stated there were two months for public, nonprofit and faith-based organizations to come together to determine how to fill the Dial-a-Ride funding gap and that a "real"success would depend on a"tremendous amount of focus and outreach." He would support the motion. He would like to find a way for the City to be a partner in the Youth Activity Center and it was important for the County and other organizations to work together to "craft" something for Dial-a-Ride before Second Reading of the Ordinance. This had been an open, thorough and "transparent" budget process and he hoped that before Second Reading positive efforts could be made to "even more positively" impact the budget. Councilmember Ohlson stated the budget crisis was an opportunity for the City organization to make "systemic change." Budget adjustments had to be made quickly because adjustments had not been made over the last decade. The overall picture was "positive"because tough choices were finally being made within the organization to save millions of dollars in the long run. This would mean more money for the programs that mattered to the citizenry. Different pots of money for community improvements were governed by different laws and transfers from capital to O&M were limited. He hoped the Dial-a-Ride summit that had been discussed would become a "working group." He encouraged those who spoke about Dial-a-Ride to talk to the County Commissioners about paying its fair share since all City residents were County residents. There was a need to examine and reform the City's pension plans and health care plans. He did not want to"balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable"people i.e.,the seniors,disabled,youth, etc. The City needed a"handle on some of the bigger ticket items"that the organization had previously been"incapable and unwilling to tackle." 394 October 17, 2006 Councilmember Kastein stated the budget process and prioritization was important. About half of the budget was for"sacrosanct"public safety programs. About $4 million was cut from the other half of the budget(about$50 million). This included the employee compensation"hit"of about$1 million. Services and capital requiring services were added when times were good and thought was not given to what would happen if the funding stream"dried up." Hard choices now had to be made. He objected to taking on an O&M responsibility in this budget for three new Transfort routes amounting to$1.1 million. It was not wise to add that responsibility in this budget and commented that this was a"sledgehammer approach"to solving the transit problem. He would prefer to look at other options for Dial-a-Ride funding. He would not support this Ordinance on First Reading and before Second Reading he would like to see data he had requested regarding the number of disabled people who would lose Dial-a-Ride service and the money needed to fill the gap on a short term basis. Councilmember Manvel stated much"fine tuning"had been done and many difficult decisions were being made. He would like to see some fixes to the problems created by Dial-a-Ride cuts and more work on what could be done at the YAC with fewer dollars. It was desirable to make the City less dependent on unreliable sales tax revenue and to have a more "diversified"revenue stream. Councilmember Weitkunat stated people who spoke about City budgets were supporting their interests and some requests could be accommodated in previous budgets. This budget was different in that the groups who spoke asked the Council not to "take their money." This was a difficult budget and Council had made an effort to be open about what needed to be done over the last year and a half. The decisions to be made were"painful"but in the long run the City services would be more readily available based on outcomes and performance. She supported the direction that was being taken and noted the City needed to continue to work with other funding partners. Councilmember Brown stated he was interested in what would happen with the Dial-a-Ride task force. He would not support the motion and would consider changing his vote on Second Reading if things would change. Mayor Hutchinson stated this was a "painful process" that also provided an "opportunity" to establish"systemic changes"in City government. There would be an ongoing efficiency program to make City services more cost effective. Budgeting for Outcomes would continue to look for savings by reducing unnecessary services. The new fees were necessary to set up stable funding sources for parks and transportation maintenance. He stated he would support the motion. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Hutchinson,Manvel, Ohlson,Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Brown and Kastein. THE MOTION CARRIED. 395 October 17, 2006 Ordinance No. 161, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Harmony and Shields Rezoning Adopted on Second Readine. The following is the staff memorandum on this item. ,EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, adopted on First Reading on October 3, 2006, by a vote of 4-3 (Nays: Manvel, Ohlson, Roy) rezones a 58 acre parcel located on the west side of South Shields Street, north of Harmony Road. The rezone would essentially "switch" portions of the area zoned NC, Neighborhood Commercial,presently located in between the proposed Troutman Parkway extension and Wake Robin Lane, with portions of the area zoned Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood district. The resulting zone districts would include an NC-zoned parcel at the northwest corner of Harmony and Shields with the balance of the site zoned M-M-N, Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. The attached Ordinance has been amended to accurately reflect the basis for City Council's findings." City Manager Atteberry stated staff would be available to answer any questions. Mayor Hutchinson commented this was the Second Reading of the Ordinance. He asked for civil behavior and courtesy during the audience presentations. He stated sound videos would not be allowed but PowerPoint presentations would be allowed. There were criteria regarding what the Council could consider. This was not a rehearing and asked the participants to focus on anything new. He stated each audience participant would have three minutes to speak. City Manager Attebeny asked if the Council wanted to consider the smoking ordinance after this item if the meeting went later than 10:30 p.m. Mayor Hutchinson stated he understood that the Council wanted to consider the hookah ordinance. Councilmember Ohlson stated he would not support another postponement of the hookah item. An unidentified member of the audience asked that Council allow sound videos to be presented. Mayor Hutchinson stated the Council was asking participants to abide by the same rules as the Council and noted that "edited" videos were not used. Council viewed DVDs "off-line" and"not in a selective way in a meeting." Council was interested in the citizens' opinions of the information. The unidentified member of the audience stated there was no other"public written record of these statements" and the sound videos were"critically important in expressing"viewpoints. Councilmember Roy stated the issue that had been brought up would be considered by the Council at a retreat and he was willing to discuss this in terms of"speech is speech." He stated he would be happy to discuss this issue now. 396 October 17, 2006 Mayor Hutchinson asked if the Council wanted to discuss the hookah item after this item. The consensus was that the meeting would be extended to allow the hookah item to be discussed. Mayor Hutchinson stated any audience"commentary"was welcome and it was not appropriate to use video sound recordings. He asked if the applicant's representatives wanted to speak at the same time. City Manager Atteberry stated the applicant was present and the Mayor could ask the applicant and his representatives to speak first or at the end. Mayor Hutchinson stated he wanted to give"due consideration"to the groups who wanted to speak together. He stated he understood that there were four or five such groups. Mary Byrne,resident and residential mortgage underwriter, stated the proposal was not the highest and best use for the property, it would not generate sufficient revenue to cover City services to the proposed development,there were existing commercial services available to support local needs,and this could effectively reduce tax revenue from other commercially developed areas. The proposed development may negatively impact local residential values and would reduce tax revenues. Eric Kronwall, 1119 Monticello Court, stated the issues that came up for a similar development in his area were resolved in a way that made the development an asset to the neighborhood. This rezoning would have long term benefits to the Fort Collins community. Geoffrey Butler, 4617 Regency Drive, stated he purchased his home with the expectation that the area across from the property would be developed in accordance with Medium Density Residential zoning. The proposed development would have a negative impact to his property values and quality of life. Consistency was important in such decisions and similar services were already available to the area. He asked that Council not "sacrifice" the interests of City residents for out-of-town business interests. Gary Moody, 1206 Mariposa Court,stated the figure of 500 feet had persisted during the discussions on this development. The proposal would move the southeast corner 570 feet closer to Harmony Road and the southwest corner 1,033 feet(2 blocks). The minimum buffer for Westbury was 807 feet. This was a"much larger change" than had been conveyed to the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Council. He presented a map showing the proposed zoning down 500 feet and stated Westbury would enjoy a 530 foot buffer. This proposal completely eliminated the buffer for the Westbury neighborhood. He stated that at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting on September 21,member Fries stated: "We are not putting a sporting goods store in there. It is a grocery store and it is 500 feet difference." He stated NC zoning would permit 24-hour gas stations. This site had been compared to the Rigden Farm center. Both were adjacent to single-family housing. Neighbors west of Rigden Farm could access the center safely via two signalized intersections and a signal at Westbury was not possible. The Rigden Farm neighborhood had a 330 foot wide drainage providing a buffer and such a buffer was not available at Westbury. He asked that the Council deny the rezoning. 397 October 17, 2006 Janie Caradec, 1207 Mariposa Court, stated Cameron Gloss had stated there would be a standard street tree placement along the street and showed how this looked at Rigden Farm. She showed visual information presenting what the Westbury neighborhood would see if this rezoning passed. There was a 330 foot buffer between the Rigden Farm center and the neighbors and such a buffer was not available for Westbury. She stated Mr. Gloss had assured the Council that planning rules would ensure the protection of Westbury neighbors and those rules did not appear to have given the Rigden Farm neighbors much protection. Westbury neighbors preferred and counted on the buffering effect of the current zoning. She stated Mr. Gloss had testified that buildings could be set back from Harmony Road for additional buffering. She questioned whether the developer would sacrifice enough of the property to give Westbury a 330 foot buffer. She noted that Councilmember Kastein had asked how much worse the impacts of the development would be if the property was rezoned. Westbury would lose up to two blocks of buffering, there was no recent evidence of effective buffering and the developer would seek to provide minimal buffering. The rezoning was "all about providing the developer his desires." There would be no safe and convenient access for Westbury. Two weeks ago Council heard a presentation "designed to minimize the effect of the rezoning" and Council was denied a "complete picture." Staff had not given an objective presentation regarding the rezoning. She asked that Council demand more information from the City staff before making a decision. Mark Shadowen,4318 Mill Creek Court,stated he lived directly behind the proposed development. He stated Mr. Gloss had noted in April that, in 1997, the City reviewed the zoning of the property and decided the mid-block NC zoning was in the correct location. The City evaluated zoning city- wide in 1997 and made a decision that the NC zoning was in the correct location. On October 3,Mr. Gloss stated in response to a question from Councilmember Weitkunat that,when the 1997 CityPlan adoption occurred,staff looked at the location of the NC districts and determined they could continue to work, although the issue was not reviewed in great detail and there was no dialogue regarding whether the NC zone should move to the corner. He stated Mr.Gloss testified that in 1997 staff did not think that the zoning of the property was a"big concern." He stated it was now a"big concern." He stated Mr. Gloss responded to a question from Councilmember Ohlson by saying that staff did not give the matter that much attention for any specific property. He opposed this rezoning. Joan Heiman,4330 Mill Creek Court,stated in 1997,City staff believed the zoning for this property was correct and did not look at this property in detail. The residents of the area bought their homes while "trusting" the City's plans. The staffs "change of mind" on this was a "big concern for residents." Property values would be negatively impacted because of City staff's"second thoughts about their 1997 planning." Staff showed"indecision"about what constituted changed conditions. She stated, in response to a question from Councilmember Manvel, Mr. Gloss had stated construction of housing that was already part of an adopted plan and part of an approved subdivision would be"changing conditions." Bill Gargen,4366 Westbrooke Court,stated staff had again changed its"posture"on this issue. The agenda material indicated the proposed rezoning was warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property because 1,000 additional dwelling units have been constructed within the four square miles that are to be served by the neighborhood center since the original zoning was imposed in 1981. Staff had changed its position on changed 398 October 17, 2006 conditions. He stated Councilmember Weitkunat had stated nothing had changed since 1981,that this development was planned and predictable, and the only change was to "switch one end to the other." This was a"major switch"to the neighborhood because homes were purchased adjacent to an MMN zone and this would no longer be an MMN zone. John Williams,4331 Mill Creek Court, stated Councilmember Weitkunat noted the City wanted to increase sales tax revenues through development at this intersection in order to improve transportation in the area. He questioned whether the neighborhood homeowners should be "assessed a de facto tax to pay for a quicker improvement"to this intersection. The mid-block center would be built and the streets would be improved with"a little patience." He asked that the Council consider the following quote of chair Lingle from the September 21, 2006 Planning and Zoning Board meeting: "Part of the struggle with that is that when it is not conditioned on a specific site development plan Mr.Markel could go away next week and we would have arezoning and Structure Plan amendment we would have to live with — with whoever might come foreword then with a development plan. That's not your problem, that's just the way it is." Rise Moody, 1206 Mariposa Court,stated no letter of intent had been submitted by Safeway and that Safeway had only stated it was"potentially interested"in locating a store on the corner. There was no objective basis for this change in zoning. She asked the Council to consider the uncertainty of what the applicant had proposed. The neighborhood supported a mid-block center and did not want to be"stuck"and"punished"with an unnecessary zoning change. A neighborhood growing out as planned did not represent a valid change. She asked that the City not make the neighborhood live with a permanent zoning change triggered by a tentative expression of interest by a national grocery chain. Neil Heiman, 4330 Mill Creek Court, stated the Councilmembers were "judges" on the rezoning decision. He summarized the opinion of a"legal authority"who was briefed on the details of this issue. The legal authority suggested that each Councilmember(judge) state for the record that he or she understood the use of the "and/or conditional" that was in the draft Ordinance. The legal authority strongly recommended that the Council make clear(1)whether they have concluded the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and(2)regardless of the answer to(1)whether they have concluded that the proposal is warranted by changed conditions. The legal authority had the opinion that the"and/or conditional"as spelled out in the draft Ordinance required at a minimum that the proposal be warranted by changed conditions. The legal authority strongly recommended that the Council "carefully interpret" the legal meaning of the "and/or conditional" by asking questions of the City Attorney and each other. He requested that the Council not approve the proposal unless it concluded that the proposal was both consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and warranted by changed conditions. He stated two weeks ago Councilmembers Manvel, Kastein, Ohlson, and Roy publically attested that in their opinions no changed conditions existed. Lisa West, 1437 Regency Court, stated her property values would be affected by the rezoning. The character of the neighborhood would be affected by a shopping center on the corner. She objected to having to drive through a commercial center to get to her home. She also objected to the reintroduction of an"essentially unchanged proposal"only six months after the proposal was turned down. Those who have spoken in opposition to the rezoning had not expressed opposition to a mid- ' 399 October 17, 2006 block shopping center. There were repeated comments during the process that the neighborhood needed and"should want" a shopping center in the neighborhood. There were five grocery stores within two miles. Many were"attracted"to the neighborhood because there was no grocery store. The speakers who would follow her would explain in detail why they opposed the"poorly conceived rezoning." Lee Romero, 1420 Nunn Creek Court, asked the Council to vote for the Fort Collins citizens rather than out-of-town developers. His group would address the agenda item summary to address the issue point by point. The proposal would impact neighborhood property values and compromise neighborhood and City assets. Council rejected"essentially the same request"earlier this year and expressed its rationale for denial: (1) predictability, (2)potential impacts on surrounding property values, and (3) economic factors not appropriate grounds for land use planning decisions. The applicants submitted a revised request on July 13, 2006 that was "essentially the same" as the previously rejected plan except for extending the NC zone by expansion of.6 acre. Jane Gordon, 4617 Regency Drive, stated the Council's expressed rationale for denial was not refuted. The applicant's request did not meet mandatory requirements for quasi-judicial rezonings and was in greater conflict with additional considerations. The applicant's request and justification stated:"A letter is provided from Safeway to express their interest in the corner location." There was no evidence that Safeway would require the corner location. Even if there was such evidence economic factors were not appropriate grounds for land use planning decisions. Safeway was seeking to secure corner exposure by writing a letter insisting upon it at no risk or cost. The applicant stated(page 5 of the agenda item summary)that:"This request is in the best interest of the neighborhood in Fort Collins." The developer would get more square feet with corner exposure and the supermarket chain would increase market share bybeing more visiblebut that Fort Collins would "exchange better zoning for worse zoning to create short term benefits for the developer, not necessarily the residents of Fort Collins." She stated "worse zoning" was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and did not promote and maintain existing public welfare. The rezoning was inferior based upon the following criteria. She stated the applicant stated neighborhood centers were typically located at the corner of two arterials. The neighborhood's position was that such neighborhood centers were either built before City Plan or that City staff ignored City Plan's directive regarding the ideal layout of a neighborhood center. The Land Use Code reads:"Land use boundaries and density changes in the Neighborhood Commercial District shall occur at mid-block locations to the maximum extent feasible rather than at streets so that similar buildings face each other." Sarah Johnson, 3909 Westfield Court, stated City Plan provided: "Pattern of streets and blocks. Multiple connecting streets in a residential district should knit the neighborhoods together,not form barriers. Streets, bikeways and walkways must form a unifying network that provides convenient routes to destinations within the district without forcing trips onto arterial streets. Connecting streets should be directly to or converge upon neighborhood commercial centers or a community commercial district." She stated the applicant stated:"The zoning shift will provide a more compact urban design." This neighborhood was not urban because of numerous oversized lots, horse properties and the proximity of the Cathy Fromme Prairie. The ideal plan for efficient access was described in City Plan. The residents concerned with preserving neighborhood character or sense 400 October 17, 2006 ofplace were"overwhelmingly opposed"to moving the commercial zoning. The applicant indicated the rezoning would move commercial development from the backyards of low density residential homes into the front yards of low density residential homes. Rezoning increased or created conflicts with the specific intent of the Land Use Code and City Plan by placing density and use changes on corners rather than mid-block,encouraging the use of arterials and reducing convergence of collector streets. The opponents had concerns regarding transportation. She stated the applicant provided a memorandum from Delich Associates to highlight general traffic concerns and the proposed zoning shift. She stated Delich was hired by the applicant,rendering the conclusions"meaningless." She stated paragraph 3 of the Delich memo stated: "Cut-through traffic from the west is the intent of the noncommercial zoning in both zonings, presumably some on bikes and walking." The memo did not address north,northwest or northeast cut-through traffic exiting through the west neighborhood via Regency and Seneca due to the right-in,right-out design limiting northbound access to Shields. Nancy Gescheidt, 1502 Windcreek Court, president of the Mountain Ridge Homeowners Association, stated paragraph 4 of the Delich memo ignored the issue of northbound traffic using Seneca and Regency to avoid lefthand turns created by right-in and right-out design, which the current zoning would mitigate. Paragraph 5 of the Delich memo analyzed right-in and right-out effects on Westbury and ignored Seneca and Regency past two schools. Paragraph 6 of the Delich memo stated internal recirculation would allow northbound access to Shields Street and this was "speculative." Paragraph 7 of the Delich memo omitted consideration of the central traffic and safety issue of moving the commercial center to the corner i.e., excessive north, northwest and northeast bound traffic on Seneca and Regency in front of two schools and a neighborhood. There was no reliable transportation data to support the zoning shift. The comer of two arterials was rarely considered to be the best location for a neighborhood gathering place. She stated Land Use Code 4.19(D)(1)provided: Land use boundaries and density changes in the Neighborhood Commercial District shall occur at mid-block locations to the maximum extent feasible." There was no data to support the contention that supermarkets need "encouragement" or contentions regarding sustainability. Higher net rents could result in more business failures or higher vacancy rates. The zoning shift would move Commercial zoning away from some single-family homes and towards others. The ideal transition was provided by current zoning. Land Use Code 4.19(D)(1)provided that the existing zoning was ideal for the neighborhood commercial center. The current zoning would also be more compatible with existing environmental issues. Barbara Carson,4442 Craig Drive, spoke regarding economic development in Fort Collins and the negative impact of rezoning this neighborhood center. The rezoning would not result in "real business development"because there would be no actual net increase in revenue to the City and there would be no net increase in jobs. Shoppers would be "shifted" from existing markets to this location. The proposed rezoning would be suitable if the idea was to build something besides a neighborhood center at all i.e,. a large commercial or regional center. This proposal was presented as the relocation of a neighborhood center. The argument had been made that there was more visibility for shoppers if the center was on the corner. Everyone in the neighborhood would know the location of their neighborhood center. It seemed the idea was to draw in commuters and others not from the local neighborhood and that this was not the"function"of a neighborhood center. The proposed rezoning would benefit only the financial interests of external entities,not the Council's constituents. The land speculator who owned the property and wanted the rezoning and the 401 October 17, 2006 neighborhood homeowners all bought their properties based on the existing zoning and may"suffer a change in predictability." A California land speculator, a national commercial site developer, a national supermarket chain,and a Boulder property developer would benefit from the rezoning. She asked the Council to vote on behalf of Fort Collins residents instead of"external interests." Ken Manning, 1219 Mariposa Court, stated he would refute the argument that a grocery store had not been built in the area in question because of the current zoning. It was not the"zoning's fault that the land had been stagnant" for decades. A store had not been built because the surrounding population and traffic patterns had not been substantial enough to warrant the store beingbuilt given the current level of market coverage by existing supermarkets. He stated Cameron Gloss and the agenda material had indicated that each store in Fort Collins served a four square mile area. On the south side were three Safeway stores, two existing and one planned King Soopers stores, and an Albertson's. A grocery store had not been built in the current NC location because of the high density of existing grocery stores in close proximity to the site. The necessary density of residential housing and associated traffic was just now approaching levels to support a grocery store at the current NC location. The only objective information that had been provided to substantiate this rezoning was based on one single traffic count done on Tuesday, May 23 and showed 24,000 at a time CSU and Front Range Community College were not in session. The count was an "understatement of what happens on a typical day." Traffic counts were higher to the north and counts would increase if Troutman was built through. Melanie Manning, 1219 Mariposa Court, stated there was no evidence in the staff report of public support for the rezoning at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing. At the October 3 Council meeting only eight people other than the applicant spoke in favor of the rezoning and five of those individuals were realtors and one was a mortgage broker. The neighborhood had a"huge stake"in this matter and she asked why the neighborhood's objections to the rezoning had received so little consideration from the City staff and some Councilmembers. The affected neighbors would welcome a grocery store in the current zoning and were not opposed to development of this property. The current zoning was "not broken" and did not need to be fixed. The signal light would further increase traffic and there were many grocery retailers that would fit within the neighborhood center as currently planned. She asked that the Council not"cater to the desires of the first developer to show interest in the property"and that the Council"demand a balanced presentation from City staff' instead of one that was so "obviously biased in favor of the applicant." She asked for patience and stated the residential development in the area had reached the critical mass to support a grocery store and the retailers would come. A"true"neighborhood center would have minimal impact on existing neighborhoods and still serve both new and established residents conveniently. She asked the Council to be a"voice" for the residents instead of a voice for out-of-state developers. An unidentified Westbrooke resident stated neighbors did not oppose development and wanted to keep the current zoning. She stated she and many of her neighbors would not have purchased their homes if the proposed zoning had been in place. She asked that the City be preserved with "predictability" to its homeowners and taxpayers and that the current zoning be retained. The California owner purchased the property in 1991 with the current zoning and chose to hold on to the property while land prices increased. This land had not been for sale for long. Neighborhood concerns were expressed six months ago and Councilmembers voted against the rezoning. She 402 October 17, 2006 stated, in response to a question from Councilmember Manvel two weeks ago about changes in the neighborhood in the last six months, Cameron Gloss stated: "I don't think there are any significant changes in the neighborhood." Since nothing had changed in the neighborhood in the last six months since the City Council voted against the rezoning it was right that the Council again vote no on the rezoning. Consumers went to grocery stores because of the products and sales provided,not because of a corner location. If the land was not rezoned Mr. Markel would find another market for the current location. If Mr. Markel walked away from this, another developer would take his place to develop this"prime location." She asked that Council vote no on the rezoning. Karen Miller,4325 Mill Creek Court, stated Section 4.19(D)(1) addressed the intention of the mid- block placement for neighborhood centers. The owner purchased the property in 1992 . The previous owner who submitted the 1981 proposal never went forward with it. The City purchased the wetland in 2001 at a cost of over$370,000 and it was unclear what the City anticipated would abut the wetland but it was likely the City relied on the current zoning. Predictability should be an issue for the City as well. The owner had retained the property for the last 14 years and Safeway may be the first interested party. Safeway wanted the corner with no valid justification. The assertion that the property had not been developed because there was"something wrong with the zoning"was "misleading and incorrect." It was irrelevant that changes had occurred since 1981 since no "unanticipated changes or growth" had occurred. She questioned whether denial of another application at the current location could be justified "in favor of the corner." The neighbors supported development at the current location within the prescribed guidelines. Worse zoning should not be exchanged for better zoning to serve economic interests of corporations. Kathy Gargan, 4366 Westbrooke Court, stated retaining the current zoning was warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. Adjacent landowners purchased property valued by the real estate market based partly upon its distance from planned commercial use. Retaining the current zoning would provide predictability and avoid"casual reallocation of private property values." A greater number of nearby households and higher population density would support NC at a mid-block location. A customer base provided by the library and Front Range Community College would support NC at a mid-block location. The City stormwater retention pond and wetland recreational and educational asset developed in recent years was vulnerable to light, noise, dust, vibration and other commercial disturbances commensurate with a 24/7 supermarket. Those risks would be minimized by a corner-to-corner rather than adjacent location. Development had left intact an "attractive view corridor" of transitional foothills, Horsetooth Rock, and Rocky Mountain ridgeline. This asset could be preserved through careful development layout and setbacks to conserve existing open space aesthetics characterizing this area. She asked that the Council deny the rezoning. Joanna Leeke,4612 Mariposa Court, stated the changed conditions in the surrounding area did not warrant this rezoning. The availability of properties to locate a supermarket changed every year and this did not warrant a rezoning. Safeway always had a chance to go to other places and this did not warrant a rezoning. There was no evidence the grocery store needed to be more accessible now than it needed to be five to 10 years ago when this zoning was first put into place. There was no evidence that a grocery store set back from the corner and visually buffered from both arterials would be superior to a mid-block location that the neighborhood preferred. There was no evidence a zoning 403 October 17, 2006 shift was required to successfully anchor this neighborhood center or that Safeway was the only potential supermarket for this location. There was evidence of successful mid-block supermarkets in other locations in Fort Collins and there were other quality tenants for this mid-block location. The changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding the site did not support the rezoning. Shane Miller, 4325 Mill Creek Court, stated he had no economic interest in the outcome. Before voting at the last meeting, four Councilmembers commented they did not see evidence of changes that warranted a rezoning. Councilmember Kastein went back to the Comprehensive Plan and asked what "and/or" meant. He stated the City Attorney stated it meant "either/or" and then corrected himself to say that it meant "either one or both or any combination." Mr. Miller stated this interpretation could have been clear if the language was"or"which was clearly defined in the Land Use Code 1.49(C)(2). The word "or" was not used in the provision in question. He stated "either/or"was incorrect and would not make sense in this context because it would mean one or the other but could not be taken simultaneously. "And/or"was logically restrictive and made sense. If the Comprehensive Plan was met and rezoning was warranted by changed conditions,rezoning may occur(the"and"). He stated if the Comprehensive Plan is not met,but it is warranted by changed conditions rezoning may be approved(the"or"). There were additional considerations to determine whether a rezoning should be allowed. Consistency with City Plan by itself was "insufficient criteria"for rezoning and consistency with City Plan and changed conditions,or changed conditions, must exist. If the Council did not find that there were changed conditions warranting the rezoning, then the rezoning"must be denied." Michael Markel, applicant, 5723 Arapahoe Avenue, Boulder, stated there had been testimony regarding why the rezoning would meet the City Plan and goals and visions of the Comprehensive Plan. The neighborhood conditions had changed,there had been a dramatic increase in residential housing,there had been dramatic growth in the Community College adjacent to this rezoning,there had been major road improvements planned, "convincing and strong evidence" had been heard regarding why a comer location was important(traffic counts, visibility, etc.), and there had been testimony by a"foremost authority on neighborhood centers"(Mr. Snowden representing Regency Centers). This was not a change in use and it was "fine tuning" of the zoning. This would not decrease property values and that successful mixed use developments increased property values. He would like to continue to meet with the neighbors to talk about site planning issues and noted that many of the neighborhood comments related to site planning issues. He would submit a"good plan" to the City that would be "pedestrian oriented, mixed use, walkable, vibrant and successful." He asked the Council to vote for the rezoning. Eric Nichols, 1845 Kedron Circle, Remax Alliance, stated the neighborhoods developed by Mr. Markel were"top notch."There were concerns expressed about"value lost'if this center was moved to the corner and this was "nonsense." There would be no impact on the value whatsoever. A properly designed mixed use center surrounded by MMN would increase the values. If the commercial was moved to the comer it would be surrounded by MMN,including the open space to the west. Those who lived in Regency and Westbrooke would be looking at high density housing (MMN) with a minimum of 12 dwelling units per acre that would create a buffer. Three homes to the south backing to Harmony Road were market-adjusted down because of that. The commercial 404 October 17, 2006 center on the other side would have no impact on their value whatsoever. There were"no services" in the southwest part of the City even though that large area had just been annexed. To obtain services it was necessary to go to Drake and Taft or to cross the railroad tracks. This neighborhood center would be designed to service the southwest part of the City and not just the four or five surrounding blocks. Joe Delich, 3902 Scotsmoore Drive, Delich Associates, stated moving the zoning to the corner would take advantage of the improvements being implemented by the City. It would also cut down on the cut-through traffic on Seneca and Silvergate. It was anticipated with regard to the traffic to the north that a street would go through the MMN zone from Wakerobin to Troutman to the signal to give the commercial area access to a left turn to go north. Todd Spiller, 5307 Fairway Six Drive, real estate broker, stated he expected to work with the developer on the marketing aspects of the project. The impact of Harmony Road was established and the three or four homes along that were buffered. There were no services to support the neighborhood. Most people in Westbury would not have a visual line of sight to this development. The impact would be "neutral" and "probably positive" because there would now be services to offset the traffic that had been and would continue to be an issue. This would not be Rigden Farm. There would be an opportunity to create structures along the road(commercial). If this zoning did not go through,they would be high density residential. This development could look"just as good" as the center at Taft and Drake. Only three or four homes on Harmony would be impacted"in any case." Moving the zoning to the corner would provide more separation for the homes to the west. This was the beginning of a long planning process in which the public would continue to have input. Jim Wetzler,6645 Majestic Drive,realtor,stated the argument that realtors would support something that would mean diminished property values "doesn't figure" since realtors did better when the property values were up. The realtor's point of view was that property values would improve and traffic flow would improve at the commercial corner as a result of the development. When the intersection became"functional"the Westbury and Senecaresidents would not have the cut-through traffic. Retail success would be much more likely on the corner than at mid-block where access was difficult. Retail success was a"sorely needed asset"in the community. There were no services in this area. He had been told by appraisers the negative impact on that whole area was from Harmony Road traffic rather than the commercial area, and the property values would be improved in the southwest part of town. Street improvements would "improve everything" and property values would not suffer. ("Secretary's Note: The Council took a recess at this point in the meeting.) Mayor Hutchinson thanked the audience for its civility and the efforts put into the presentations. Councilmember Weitkunat commented that the public presentations were "well organized and logical and clear." She noted the Council was considering the rezoning and there was a lot of information given about the specific site. She asked staff to differentiate between the action on the rezoning and what would happen during the development review process. She asked what was relevant to the discussion on the rezoning and what would be relevant during the next phase of 405 October 17, 2006 discussions. Gloss stated if the property was rezoned the applicant could go forward with a neighborhood center for this site. The applicant would be required to submit a detailed development plan that would include a traffic impact analysis relating to all modes of transportation; highlight what public improvements would be required or triggered by this project; and meet site design standards relating to building placement, habitat buffer standards, storm drainage, landscaping, architecture, lighting, signage. The development plan would either go to an administrative public hearing or the Planning and Zoning Board depending on the type of use proposed. A grocery store of 45,000 square feet would go to an administrative hearing and a supermarket would go to the Planning and Zoning Board for review. Councilmember Weitkunat noted this was not on the table for Council consideration at this time. Gloss stated was correct. Councilmember Weitkunat commented that the Council was looking at the rezoning and map amendment rather than the specifics of the site. Gloss stated that was correct. Councilmember Weitkunat noted that two criteria for consideration were consistency with City Plan (the Comprehensive Plan)and/or the change in conditions. She requested clarification of the words "and/or." City Attorney Roy stated Section 2.9.4(H)(2)of the Land Use Code provided as follows: "Any amendment to the Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning of 640 acres of land or less shall be recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board or approved by the City Council only if the proposed amendment is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and/or warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property." He stated in his opinion, that meant the proposed rezoning either had to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan or warranted by changed conditions, or both. Using the word "or" instead of"and/or" could perhaps have achieved the same meaning. The words "and/or" appeared in the sixth WHEREAS clause of the Ordinance and that the two justifications were not separated. He suggested inserting it between 1 and 2 and on page 2 in the paragraph that stated ". . . which is just south . . . ." changing that to read". . . in the immediate vicinity of. . . ." Relative to the findings there had been some question about what Council had to find in order to support its decision in a quasi-judicial proceeding. In his view there needed to be some competent evidence in the record to support either or both of those justifications that were offered in the Ordinance. As long as the majority of Council believed that either or both existed that would be sufficient for the determination. It was not necessary for all to agree this was the right outcome for the same reasons. He stated the Council by majority vote needed to determine that either or both of the conditions had been met. Councilmember Kastein asked if it was the City Attorney's opinion that if four Councilmembers decided to adopt the Ordinance, and two believed that the first of the two criteria was met and two believed that the second of the two criteria was met,that this would be"valid." City Attorney Roy stated it was his opinion that this would be valid. Councilmember Kastein stated one speaker spoke about the 500 foot distance issue i.e., what the change would really mean. He noted staff had done some work to measure and found that the east end would be 570 feet closer under the proposed zoning and the west end would be 1,100 feet closer 406 October 17, 2006 under the proposed zoning. He asked staff to speak to that issue. Gloss stated the numbers given by the public were correct. He pointed out on a map the differences in distances with the proposed zoning. Councilmember Kastein asked if the 570 feet suggested by one speaker included 500 feet plus 70 feet. Gloss stated the 70 feet was public right-of-way and pointed this out on a map. Councilmember Kastein noted another speaker referenced a buffer that would be "erased" if the rezoning was approved and showed pictures of the buffer at Rigden Farm. Gloss pointed out the referenced space on a map and stated there was a detention pond as well. There was a greater separation at Rigden Farm. He pointed out the existing and proposed neighborhood center locations. Councilmember Kastein stated some speakers referred to an existing buffer with the current zoning designation and asked if this was a MMN parcel. Gloss replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Kastein asked if that parcel developed under the current zoning whether the green space buffer would no longer exist and a MMN use would take its place. Gloss replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Kastein asked about the uses allowed in the MMN zone. Gloss outlined the uses permitted in the MMN zone district. Councilmember Kastein noted that Harmony and Shields was the "worst intersection" in the City as far as accidents. He stated this was a concern as were the traffic problems from Seneca to the railroad tracks. A tax initiative had been approved that would address these and other traffic problems. It was his understanding that the funding was in place to improve Harmony and Shields but there was testimony that the City was counting on development on that corner to cause the intersection improvements. He asked staff to address that issue. Gloss stated this development did not trigger the need for intersection improvements. The City was designing the capital improvements for that intersection and would be presenting design options to the public. The project would be proceeding fairly soon. Councilmember Kastein asked if the cost of the project was known. City Manager Atteberry stated the project would begin at Harmony and College and go west to Seneca and would be funded by the Building on Basics tax. He would provide information on the project cost when he had that available. Councilmember Kastein asked if the intersection improvements would occur with or without a development in this NC district. City Manager Atteberry replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Roy asked about the net gain in tax dollars for the proposed development at the comer. Gloss stated staff had not received that analysis but preliminary analysis indicated there would not be"significant net new revenue" that would be generated. 407 October 17, 2006 Councilmember Ohlson stated the agenda material indicated the proposed rezoning was warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property by reason of a number of facts, including the addition of over 1,000 dwelling units within the four square miles served by the neighborhood center. He asked if"neighborhood"was defined in smaller terms for other purposes such as neighborhood plans. Gloss stated a"traditional neighborhood"was about a one square mile area i.e., a five minute walk from the center to the edge. This had been the "template"in the United States for about 45 years. He stated staff was saying that a neighborhood center served up to four neighborhoods under the City Plan template. Councilmember Ohlson asked if the changed conditions should not be discussed within the one square mile neighborhood. Gloss stated that would be one approach. He had provided copies of an e-mail received from Dr. Laura Jenson at Front Range Community College. He was interested in information about the changed conditions associated with the College from 1981 to the present. The enrollment numbers reflected in the agenda item summary were based on testimony from Jim Butzig of FRCC at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing. He asked for additional information regarding changes at FRCC. The results were"startling." There had been more than a 100-fold increase from 1988 to the present. In 1988 the enrollment for the Larimer campus was 70 and in 2006 the enrollment was 7,569. This was a significant change in conditions relative to FRCC. He had talked with Poudre School District to understand the chronology of events and the history of school construction in this area. PSD did not anticipate in 1981 that either the Johnson Elementary School or the Webber Junior High School would be constructed in this area. He also talked with the Library Director about the Harmony Branch Library and found that it was not contemplated in 1981. He stated Craig Foreman of the Parks Department confirmed that the Westfield Park was not anticipated in 1981. From the staff's perspective, in addition to the residential changes that were noted, there were clearly public facilities that had changed significantly since the original zoning. Councilmember Ohlson stated he wanted consistency in the use of the term "neighborhood." He questioned how many of the changes referenced by Mr. Gloss were within the one-mile neighborhood. The Ordinance had language that read ". . . and warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property." This language did not talk about the area the development would serve. He stated"neighborhood"should consistently be used to mean a one square mile neighborhood. Gloss stated there had been some residential development within the one square mile area and that all of the public facilities mentioned were within one mile of the site. Councilmember Manvel noted the rules said"justified by changes in the neighborhood." There were changes in the neighborhood. These changes and "new demand" seemed to work toward the conclusion that a mid-block commercial center should work. The issue was how the corner or mid- block locations would work with the public facilities. It was not sufficient to say there were changes and it was necessary to decide how each change worked toward justifying the corner location. Gloss agreed and stated the biggest change in close proximity was Front Range Community College,which was diagonally across the intersection from the proposed site. There had been significant public testimony about the potential impacts to the two schools and the park based on cut-through traffic. There had also been testimony from the applicant's traffic consultant and the City's Traffic Engineer that a corner location would reduce impact to those facilities. There would be positive traffic impacts and the highest intensity use would support the neighborhood center. 408 October 17, 2006 Councilmember Manvel asked if it could be argued that this would put two high intensity uses right on the corner and cause a traffic problem. Gloss stated public improvements such as the Harmony and Shields intersection project would take all of this into account. The traffic flow would accommodate traffic movement from FRCC and the neighborhoods better than was currently the case. There would be a better intersection design and staff was looking at several different design options. All of the options would improve the traffic circulation even with FRCC and the neighborhood center anchoring the corner location. Councilmember Roy stated it was unknown whether there would be two high intensity uses at the intersection because there was only a letter indicating that it might be a good spot for a grocery store. The NC zoning would allow a variety of permitted uses, including a night club, tavern, drive-in restaurant,or convenience store. The development proposal could be far different than the one that was being discussed and some of the allowed uses could be more "impactful." Councilmember Weidmat made amotion,seconded by Councilmember Brown,to adopt Ordinance No. 161, 2006 on Second Reading, based on the two criteria for rezoning, including that it is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan,particularly the principles of MMN-2 and MMN-3 parts 1 and 2, and it is warranted by a change in conditions in the area since 1981 (three public schools,a neighborhood park,a public library,and the increase in Front Range Community College enrollment). Councilmember Kastein offered a friendly amendment to change the word "and" to "and/or" between the two findings in the motion. City Attorney Roy suggested that Councilmember Weitkunat's intent be clarified to determine if that would be a friendly amendment. A friendly amendment under the rules of procedure was one that did not require a formal motion,a second and a vote, and which would be acceptable to the parties that made and seconded the motion. Councilmembers Weitkunat and Brown accepted the friendly amendment. Councilmember Ohlson stated everyone knew this property would develop. The change to City Plan involved much discussion about "predictability" and a revolt against the Land Development Guidance System which provided that"anything could go anywhere with proper mitigation." The neighborhoods and citizens wanted predictability and more certainty for everyone. The City's "credibility was at stake." It would"break faith"with City Plan to change zoning when people made their"biggest investment"in lifestyle and money based on the existing zoning. This should not"flip on a dime"because the rezoning would work better in someone's"overall economic scheme to the detriment of hundreds of families." This rezoning was"not the right thing to do" and he was more opposed on Second Reading than he was on First Reading. He stated this was a"bad precedent." Councilmember Kastein stated it was a"close call"for him. City Plan policies provided that the City would continue to ensure that neighbors would be advised of any changes and would be requested to comment;that the stated preferences of neighbors would be considered in determining acceptable intensity and character of in-fill and redevelopment; and that the interests of neighbors would be balanced with community-wide interests. Those policies stated"neighbors matter" and their input would be heard. This was not"black and white" or"either/or"but was a"balance." 409 October 17, 2006 Councilmember Roy stated there were two assets that the community might receive: the aesthetics of a "magnificent development" and economic gain for the community. He stated Mr. Gloss indicated that there would be no significant new tax revenues generated for the City. There was only a letter to indicate interest in locating a grocery store at this site and the aesthetics could turn out to be a night club, tavern or 24/7 convenience store with 12 pumps. There was no "compelling community-wide benefit" to balance the"real concerns of this particular neighborhood." Councilmember Weitkunat stated the Council, community and Planning and Zoning Board had "struggled"with what to do when something changed. Predictability was important and what would happen was predictable "99% of the time." She stated 1% of the time change was "possible, required or needed." There were processes in the system to allow changes to be made based on certain rules and criteria i.e., an appeal process, a repeal process, a modification process, and a rezoning process. When City Plan was done,the Structure Plan Map and Zoning Map were the"best guess"that could be made at the time and some areas were not given much thought. When change was taking place in a neighborhood it became a"paramount issue."She stated"things change"and there was a process to deal with that. There was a process to rezone,provided the application met the criteria. She truly believed the area had experienced an "incredible change." There had been changes in residential and institutions. The concept of the neighborhood center as a small store serving the neighborhood did not work and that things were"different"now. Council needed to be open to rezonings provided they were consistent with City Plan and/or there were changed conditions. Councilmember Ohlson stated if the rezoning passed he hoped that there would be a"high bar"for the development design. A "people friendly gathering place"might not materialize. He objected to the rules that allowed a rezoning request to be brought back in any time shorter than 12 months. There needed to be a change to the rules. Bringing back a rezoning request that had been denied could be used as a tactic to"wear down neighborhoods." He had never before seen such staff"effort and passion"to "sell a project." He hoped to see the same"effort and passion" and"redoubling of effort"when staff opposed a project. He wanted to see staff"bring the same effort to everything they do" including recommending denial or protecting something. Councilmember Roy stated allowing rezonings to be broughtback soon after denial could also"wear down the City Council." It was"remarkable"that everyone recognized that this site was zoned for a supermarket and that development was inevitable and"welcomed"by many residents. The short period of time between the two proposals may have had the"desired effect of changing the direction of Council." The development would be allowed in that"changing"area and he hoped it would not be a"strip mall." This would be a change that would affect people who had"done their homework" before buying their homes. He would oppose the motion. Councilmember Kastein stated this was not as"simple as residents versus out-of-town developers" or making a decision based on how many people spoke for or against the rezoning. Council needed to consider both parties fairly in accordance with the Code. Council needed to evaluate the potential of"one party for progress against another party's potential for harm." He disagreed that the harm that would come from this change was "significantly different" than the harm from a mixed use medium density neighborhood at that corner with potential retail development. He agreed this was 410 October 17, 2006 an opportunity for neighbors to provide input on development plans that would be proposed. The City had high standards for development. He did not agree there had been changed conditions warranting this rezoning. He did agree the rezoning was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He would support the motion. Councilmember Manvel hoped there would be "no damage to the neighborhood." It was difficult for him to support a change unless there was a"compelling reason"to make the change. He hoped the City Plan principles of building people-friendly,walkable and bikable communities not focused on arterial streets would not be abandoned. He did not see any examples in City Plan of neighborhood commercial centers that were anywhere except in mid-block. Mayor Hutchinson thanked the citizens who spoke as part of the respectful dialogue. He was influenced by the "remarkable changes" that had taken place in the area. He also believed the principles of City Plan were met and that he would support the motion. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Manvel, Ohlson and Roy. THE MOTION CARRIED. City Manager Atteberry stated the cost for improvements to Harmony Road from Seneca to College Avenue would be in the range of$8 to $9 million and the completion date was the end of 2008. Meeting Extended Councilmember Manvel made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Roy,to suspend the rules and extend the meeting past midnight if necessary to complete the agenda. Councilmember Kastein stated he would not support the motion to extend the meeting that late because the public would not be able to listen. Councilmember Manvel stated he would usually agree but did not believe there was a "gripping public interest' in the agenda items that would be heard late in the meeting. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Kastein. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 122, 2006, Amending Article III of Chapter 12 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Conform to the Colorado Clean Indoor Act, and to Clarify Certain Provisions Option A Adopted As Amended on Second Reading. The following is the staff memorandum on this item. 411 October 17, 2006 "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Ordinance was previously presented to Council for Second Reading on September 5th and September 19th. Staff has developed three versions of the Ordinance, which are being presented for Council consideration, based on input from the Council. Option A deals primarily with public health and is the most restrictive of the options. It would"grandfather"current tobacco businesses including their smoking lounges, but would limit future retail tobacco establishments to those that are primarily engaged in the sale of tobacco products. Lounge areas in those new establishments would be limited to a size that would be suitable for sampling of the products for sale, but not for use as lounge areas. Option B proposes a "level playing field"for all tobacco businesses including existing and future businesses. Option Bl also offers a "level playing field" but adds size limitations on smoking establishments and on smoking areas within those establishments. BACKGROUND Certain exceptions to the smoking restrictions found in the City Code are inconsistent with the requirements of the Colorado Clean Indoor Act, which was enacted in 2006 All versions of the Ordinance presented eliminate those exceptions. In addition, all versions of the Ordinance presented amend the restriction on placement of ashtrays in nonsmoking areas to allow ashtrays in the 20 foot exterior perimeter of a nonsmoking area where physical constraints make placement of ashtrays difficult. All versions of the Ordinance presented also add to the City Code additional provisions regarding private nursing home rooms. Finally, all versions of the Ordinance require that a "retail tobacco business"have on-site revenues ofnon-tobacco-related items ofno more than 8%of total revenues, not operate under a liquor or other license for sale of non-tobacco products, obtain a certificate of occupancy for operation as a retail tobacco business,prevent minors from entering the premises of the business, and post required signs. In response to Council discussion at the Council meeting on September 19, 2006, three versions of the Ordinance are being brought to Council for consideration: • Option A This option is essentially the version that Council considered on second reading at its last meeting, with some modifications to clarify that the retail tobacco business exception provides for smoking as a means of sampling tobacco products for sale. Given this more restrictive approach, this option would in essence prohibit future tobacco lounges. The policy justification for this restriction is that, because tobacco lounges encourage people (especially young people)to take up smoking, they are disfavored,while retail tobacco stores primarily provide a product to existing smokers. Under this option,future retail tobacco establishments would be able to have only a relatively small smoking area for sampling of the tobacco products. This option would: a. "grandfather" existing smoking lounges b. limit f ture "retail tobacco businesses" to retail tobacco stores that primarily sell tobacco products for off-site consumption 412 October 17, 2006 C. limit the total maximum size offuture retail tobacco establishments to 2,500 square feet(rather than the previously proposed 5,000 square feet) d. limit the amount of the total f oor area allowed for a smoking lounge to a maximum of one-third e. clarify that smoking is allowed primarily for sampling of tobacco products that are offered for sale f. only prohibit the existing smoking lounges from expanding their smoking areas (otherparts ofthe establishment could be enlarged without losing "grandfathering') • Option B This option would allow both existing and future tobacco lounges. This is based on the premise that the intent of the smoking ordinance is not to protect people who smoke nor to discourage people from smoking. With that premise in mind, Option B exempts from the smoking prohibition retail establishments that are primarily utilized for the promotion of tobacco products and accessories (i.e., tobacco lounges as lounges) if they meet the requirements regarding revenues, licensing, certificates ofoccupancy, exclusion of minors, and signage. Option B: a. does not limit the size of the business b. does not limit the amount offoor space allowed for smoking • Option BI This is the same as option B but it also imposes two size limitations on future smoking establishments. Option BI: a. limits the total maximum size offuture retail tobacco establishments to 2,500 square feet b. limits the amount of area that could be devoted to smoking to 700 square feet (as opposed to a percentage offoor area — this could leave open the possibility of a small business being able to allow smoking in the entire establishment) The following requirements apply to any "retail tobacco business" under all versions of the Ordinance presented: 1. No more than eight percent (89yo) of the total on-site revenues can be from the sale of non- tobacco related products. 2. The business shall not operate under a liquor license or other license. 3. The business must be constructed and operated in order to prevent smoke from entering any smoke free area, including physically separated with independent ventilation. 4. The business must obtain a "Certificate of Occupancy"from the Building Official allowing such smoking on the premises. 5. A violation of any of the conditions is the responsibility of the business owner and shall be grounds for revocation of the certificate of occupancy. 413 October 17, 2006 6. Persons under eighteen (18) shall not be permitted on the premises. 7. Signs stating that "persons under the age of 18 are not permitted" as well as "Surgeon General's Warning: Smoking Can Cause Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, and May Complicate Pregnancy"must be posted in a conspicuous position clearly visible upon entry." City Manager Atteberry stated staff would be available to answer questions. Janna West-Kowalski, 2756 Pleasant Valley Road, read a statement on behalf of colleague Nancy Grove, Director of Latimer County's Tobacco Education and Prevention Program, regarding the harmful effects of secondhand smoke and the "new wave of deception" of hookah bars, tobacco lounges and flavored tobacco. Darlene Huang, 3324 Terrywood Road, former restaurant employee, asked the Council to uphold the integrity of the Fort Collins smoke-free Ordinance and the new State law to equally protect all workers from exposure to secondhand smoke. Mark Williams, co-owner of Algiers, 120 1/2 West Laurel Street, expressed concern about Option A of the Ordinance and stated it was"ambiguous"and could be"interpreted in different ways." He spoke in favor of Option B-I and stated it would be"easy to understand." Charles Klamm, 775 West Lake Street, co-owner of Algiers, 120 1/2 West Laurel Street, stated smoking was harmful and that the hookah were"100%firsthand smoke"for those people who chose to smoke. He asked that "three little places where people choose to do this to themselves" be allowed to stay in business. He asked that the playing field be kept level and opposed Option A as written. Shane Miller, 4325 Mill Creek Court, stated that, if the intent was to protect employees and the general public from breathing secondhand smoke and to allow people to smoke and buy and test tobacco products, it seemed appropriate to allow a smoking lounge with no employee services. He stated this would not be"impossible although it might be expensive." The burden should be on the tobacco shop to maintain the air quality outside of the smoking room and bear the cost of establishing compliance. This would allow businesses to conduct business with some"liberty"while protecting the public interest. Averil Strand, 1811 Rainbow Drive, president of the Health District of Northern Latimer County, stated the Board of Directors of the Health District unanimously voted to support indoor smoking policies that would allow no exemptions for any establishments. The current smoke-free ordinance established a level playing field for businesses and protected the public health. No public policy should make it easier or in any way encourage youth to begin smoking. She asked the Council to enact an indoor smoking policy that did not allow exemptions for established business and strongly opposed any policy that would allow more of these types of businesses to establish themselves in Fort Collins. Aria Khosravi, 2808 Ringneck Drive, co-owner of Narghile Nights, 621 South College Avenue, 414 October 17, 2006 stated the size limitation was his main concern. He stated establishments like his throughout the State were still being allowed to operate and open. Dr. Adrienne LeBailly, Director of the Larimer County Department of Health and Environment, stated the extension of the definition of a retail tobacco shop to include hookah bars and smoking lounges was a"distortion"ofthe intent of the original Ordinance. Hookah bars and smoking lounges were not the same as retail tobacco shops. A worker in a tobacco shop might be exposed to a small amount of tobacco smoke during a work shift but it would not compare with the amount of secondhand smoke in a hookah bar. Hookah tobacco smoke had 100 times the tar, four times the nicotine, 11 times the carbon monoxide, two to five times the amounts of certain carcinogens, and significantly higher amounts of heavy metals than cigarette smoke. There would be much more extensive employee exposure to extensive amounts of smoke in a hookah bar compared to a retail tobacco shop. There could be an unintended consequence of Council's policy decision i.e., contributing to the addiction of a new generation of young people. She asked that Council limit,to the greatest extent possible, the proliferation of hookah bars and smoking lounges in Fort Collins. Deirdre Sullivan stated she represented several citizen advocates in opposition to exemptions to the smoke-free law who had to leave because of the late hour: Susana Meindez, 215 Chestnut Street; Bill Bertschy,former Councilmember;Judy Rennick,nurse and breast cancer survivor; and Dr.Pat Aluise Young, supporter of the smoke-free law. She stated hookah bars were social venues that exposed patrons and workers to secondhand smoke and violated the integrity of the"well-supported" smoke-free law. She asked the Council to consider the intent of the smoke-free law to protect citizens and workers to secondhand smoke,exempting only retail tobacco shops and not exempting smoking lounges. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Option A of Ordinance No. 122, 2006 on Second Reading with amendments to change the word"primarily"to "only" in (b) and to delete(d) and (e) of the agenda item summary. City Attorney Roy requested clarification of the motion. Councilmember Roy explained his intent and pointed out wording in the agenda item summary. City Attorney Roy asked for time for staff to review the proposed amendments before a vote since this was Second Reading of the Ordinance. Councilmember Roy stated one issue that had been discussed was how to treat the existing three businesses fairly while being proscriptive about making it possible for new businesses to have smoking allowed. He believed that Councilmembers did not want to see a proliferation of more smoking lounges. The simplest way to achieve that intent was to make the changes to Option A and grandfather the three existing businesses. City Attorney Roy stated the agenda item summary addressed the concepts and requested clarification of Councilmember Roy's intent with regard to Option A of the Ordinance. He asked if the intent was to change the wording in the definition of"retail tobacco business"in Section 2 to read:"Retail tobacco business shall mean an establishment utilized primarily SOLELY for the retail 415 October 17, 2006 sale of tobacco products and accessories." Councilmember Roy stated that was his intent. City Attorney Roy asked if the intent was that no other kinds of products would be sold. Councilmember Roy stated his point was that tobacco products could be sold but there would be no on-site consumption of the tobacco products. Councilmember Manvel suggested the following wording: "Retail tobacco business shall mean an establishment utilized primarily for the retail sale of tobacco products and accessories SOLELY FOR OFF-SITE USE." Councilmember Roy stated his intent was to change the word"primarily"to "solely"in(b) and to eliminate (d) and (e) as listed in the agenda item summary. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the intent was to create a grandfathering option. Councilmember Roy stated that was his intent. Mayor Hutchinson asked if the intent was to grandfather the existing smoking lounges. City Attorney Roy asked if the intent was that future businesses would just allow sales and no sampling or smoking areas. Councilmember Roy stated that was his intent. City Attorney Roy stated if the motion passed, a break was needed to determine the amendments to be made to the Ordinance itself. A number of changes would need to be made to the Ordinance to accomplish the intent. Councilmember Kastein asked if Councilmember Roy intended that there be a limit to the size. Councilmember Roy stated he was not concerned about a size limit. Councilmember Ohlson stated he was supportive of the motion. Smoking lounges were not the same as retail tobacco stores. It was "not their fault'they went through the system and were allowed to open. The motion offered a reasonable compromise to allow the existing businesses to continue and not allow any more of such businesses. Councilmember Kastein stated he would not support the motion. This was a"firsthand smoke issue" and employees should know that there would be tobacco smoke at a tobacco store. There were a limited number of such establishments. Councilmember Manvel stated hookah bar employees would spend hours each day in the secondhand smoke and the issue was "health damage," whether or not the person chose to work in that environment. He would not support allowing that. 416 October 17, 2006 Mayor Hutchinson stated Option A before the amendments reflected a reasonable approach because it would prohibit future tobacco lounges and grandfather the existing lounges. He stated he would not support Option A as amended. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Manvel, Ohlson and Roy. Nays: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein and Weitkunat. THE MOTION FAILED TO PASS. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt Ordinance No. 122,2006(Option A)with 20%in place of the one-third of area allowed for seating area and lounge. Councilmember Ohlson asked if the intent was to allow new smoking lounges. Mayor Hutchinson stated he understood they would be allowed with restrictions. He asked for clarification that this, in essence, would prohibit future tobacco lounges but would allow for sampling areas. City Attorney Roy stated staff s interpretation was that the existing establishments could have lounges and new ones would have areas that would only be large enough to accommodate the sampling of products. City Manager Atteberry stated it was not staff s intent to allow additional establishments. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to sunset the grandfathering provision after three years. Councilmember Ohlson asked if this meant that the existing lounges would have to follow all of the requirements, including the size requirement. Councilmember Manvel stated that was his intent. Mayor Hutchinson asked if that would prohibit future sampling areas. City Attorney Roy replied in the negative and stated he understood the motion was that smoking lounges would be allowed for three years and after three years there would be establishments that would be adequate for sampling only. Councilmember Manvel stated there was data gathered by City staff that the percentages of area used for smoking at the present time were 29%, 39-44% and 23%. For at least two of the three establishments it might be possible to operate on this basis. Allowing the existing businesses to operate for three more years was"legitimate"and the argument from the health community that Fort Collins did not really want the lounges was "compelling." There would be a transition period and the businesses might be able to continue business under the restrictions at the end of the three years. Councilmember Brown asked if there would be a vote at the end of three years to decide if the community wanted more hookah bars or not. 417 October 17, 2006 Councilmember Manvel stated if there was a sunset provision, the grandfathering would go away after three years and all of the establishments would have to conform to the 20%requirement if that passed. Councilmember Brown stated the 20% requirement would put one of the establishments out of business and asked if that was the intent. Councilmember Manvel stated he did not intend to put anyone out of business and was trying to make a level playing field for all businesses instead of allowing some businesses to do forever what nobody else would be able to do. Councilmember Kastein stated a level playing field would allow the existinguses to continue to exist and to allow future ones the same opportunity. He did not believe it was necessary to grandfather the existing businesses. Smoking was not an illegal activity and these businesses had "firsthand smoke." Councilmember Roy stated he was a strong proponent of grandfathering the three existing businesses. He would not support the motion to amend. Mayor Hutchinson requested the motion to amend be read. City Attorney Roy suggested the amendment would make a change on page 4 of Option A in the fourth line of Section 4 to specify that the existing businesses may continue to operate as retail tobacco businesses provided they meet the requirements of the Ordinance for a three-year period ending midnight October 27, 2009. The vote on the motion to amend was as follows:Yeas:Councilmembers Manvel and Ohlson. Nays: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Roy and Weitkunat. THE MOTION TO AMEND FAILED TO PASS. City Attorney Roy noted for the record that two words were stricken in this version of the Ordinance that should still be in the Ordinance. The vote on the main motion to adopt Option A as amended to change the one-third requirement to 20% was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Brown, Kastein and Roy. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 2006-108 Expressing City Council's Opposition to Ballot Issue 38 in the November 7, 2006 Election and Urging Residents of the City to Vote Asainst Such Measure, Adopted. The following is the staff memorandum on this item. 418 October 17, 2006 "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Resolution expresses City Council's opposition to Amendment 38, which will eliminate local control over the initiative and referendum process. BACKGROUND Amendment 38 is a proposed amendment to the State Constitution that will be on the November 7, 2006 election ballot. This initiative, if approved, will dramatically change the initiative and referendum process in Fort Collins and throughout the State. Amendment 38 would apply to the City and all levels of government, expanding the citizen petition process to include such elected bodies as special districts and authorities. It would weaken representative government in Colorado by making it much easier for a small number of citizens to place initiatives on the ballot and block ordinances and statutes from taking effect. It would also remove local control over the form of petition and the petition process. Amendment 38 would significantly lower the number of signatures needed to place a citizen initiative on the ballot. The Fort Collins City Clerk's Office estimates Amendment 38 would reduce the number of signatures required to place an ordinance on the ballot in Fort Collins to approximately 2,108 signatures(based on current registered voters and the number of votes castfor Secretary of State in 2002). The current signature requirement for placing an item on the November ballot is 4,725. It would also require the City to allow petitioning at all exits to any City building that is open to the public. In addition,Amendment 38 would supercede Fort Collins'signature requirements for City Charter amendments. It would reduce the number of signatures required for Charter amendments to approximately 2,108 signatures. The current signature requirement to place a Charter amendment on the November ballot is approximately 9,100 signatures. ter Amendment 38 would also extend the effective date of ordinances to 91 days y after post-passage publication to allow more time for the ordinances to be referred to the voters. Ordinances in Fort Collins currently become effective 10 days after second reading. This additional delay would impede the ability of the Council to respond quickly to pressing needs of the City. Ordinances exempted from the referendum process would be limited to twelve emergency ordinances per year. If a petition referring an ordinance to the voters was filed, the ordinance would be suspended until an election was held, and the election could not be held until the following November. If a referendum petition was filed in the three months prior to a November election, the ordinance could not be voted on until November of the following year. The Amendment would severely limit public access to information about ballot measures in a number of ways. First, it would prohibit the inclusion of a summary of the measure from appearing on the petition. Second, the petition proponents could control the number ofwords opponents could use in the "blue book"information sent to voters. Third, it would prohibit the expenditure of any 419 October 17, 2006 local government resources to even discuss petitions once they had been filed- banning stafffrom even answering questions from citizens about the measure. Finally,the potentialforpersonal liabilityfor government officials and employees underAmendment 38 is truly frightening. If a City Councilmember or employee was charged with improperly using City resources to discuss a ballot measure, the Amendment would prohibit the City from paying for the defense of that person or providing any reimbursement even if he or she was ultimately found to have done nothing wrong! If there was a violation, the Councilmember or employee would be personally liable, as would the City itself,for the payment of a minimum fine of$3,000. " City Manager Atteberry stated this item was pulled from the Consent Calendar by a citizen and that staff would be available to answer questions. Mayor Hutchinson stated each audience participant would have four minutes to speak. Mark Brophy, 1109 West Harmony Road, Libertarian Party candidate for House District 53, spoke in opposition to the Resolution and stated people must be given the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Mary Brophy, 1109 West Harmony Road, opposed the Resolution. Shane Miller, 4325 Mill Creek Court, requested clarification on the wording of the Resolution. Councilmember Kastein asked about the chance for penalties if City employees even discussed ballot issues and whether the City could reimburse for expenses if the employee in question was found innocent. City Attorney Roy stated he understood that governments would be prohibited from covering defense costs for employees who were charged with a violation of that prohibition against using government resources to discuss a ballot measure,whether or not the employee was found to have violated the provision. Councilmember Kastein asked if the City would normally reimburse an employee for costs for a crime committed while doing City business. City Attorney Roy stated this would be in the"civil context' with no possibility of incarceration. The Governmental Immunity Act authorized and required governments to indemnify employees who were sued civilly for acts or omissions that occurred in the course of their employment and the performance of their duties unless the conduct was willful and wanton. Councilmember Manvel encouraged everyone to read this law before voting for it. It would"extend beyond all reasonable bounds"the power to petition. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution 2006-108. Councilmember Manvel stated it was a complicated,lengthy and"over the top"law and some of the reforms that might be needed should not go in the Constitution. 420 October 17, 2006 Councilmember Weitkunat stated the measure would mean that Ordinances would not take effect until 91 days after passage. This delay would impede the ability of Council to respond quickly to the needs of the community. Council would be able to exempt only 12 Ordinances each year from this requirement. There would also be delays because votes on Ordinances must occur at a November election. Councilmember Ohlson stated he would vote against the motion because there was"some good"in the measure as related to referendum, initiative and recall. It was "indefensible" that the State Legislature acted by declaring emergency legislation on most bills. There were more and more special districts that had no accountability and many governmental entities had no referendum. He would vote against the measure at the ballot box and hoped that it would come back in some more "reasonable" form in the future. Councilmember Kastein stated petition circulators would not be required to state the ballot proposal on the petition and the only requirement would be a ballot number. This would contribute to more "misinformation." The information submitted for the"blue book"by proponents must be included verbatim while the information submitted by the opponents would be edited and summarized. This would create an "unlevel playing field." Councilmember Roy stated this effort would "muck up the ability to have coherent governance." It would delay Ordinances going into effect and impair the ability of the Council to respond quickly to the needs of the City. He urged citizens to vote against Amendment 38. Mayor Hutchinson stated procedures were in place to allow for citizen initiatives on City election ballots and the system worked well as a"safety valve." Amendment 38 would make the initiative the"method to govem"and would stall and inhibit the representative form of government. He urged citizens to vote against the Amendment in November. The vote on the motion was as follows:Yeas: Councilmembers Hutchinson,Kastein,Manvel,Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Brown and Ohlson. THE MOTION CARRIED. Adjournment Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adjourn the meeting to October 24,2006 at 6:00 p.m.for a possible Executive Session. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 12:50 a.m. on Wednesday, October 18, 2006. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 421 October 24, 2006 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council-Manager Form of Government Adjourned Meeting- 6:00 p.m. An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday,October 24, 2006, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy, and Weitkunat. Staff Members Present: Attebeny, Krajicek, Roy. Executive Session Authorized Mayor Pro Tern Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adjourn into executive session under Section 2-3l(a)(2)of the City Code for the purpose of meeting with the City Attorney to discuss potential litigation. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy, and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. ("Secretary's Note: Council adjourned into Executive Session at 6:00 p.m. and reconvened following the Executive Session at 6:48 p.m.) Adjournment At the conclusion of the Executive Session, the meeting adjourned at 6:48 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 422 November 7, 2006 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council-Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting- 6:00 p.m. A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, November 7, 2006, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the following Councilmembers:Brown,Hutchinson,Kastein,Manvel,Ohlson,Roy and Weitkunat. Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy. Citizen Participation The following individuals spoke in favor of funding for Dial-a-Ride: Sarah Allmon, 1200 East Stuart Street#38. Jenny Shock, 3604 Mt. Ouray Street, Wellington. Frank Morisano, 1120 Wabash Street#3-102. Shelbie Mestas, 127 North Meldrum Street#203. Michael Devereaux, 2150 Maid Marian Court. Jackie Adams, 1625 East Stuart Street#F31. Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb. Susan Williams, 400 Impala Circle. Vivian Armenderez, 820 Mergenser Drive Apt. 908. Debbie Jones, 216 North College Avenue. The following individual opposed fumigation of prairie dogs on natural areas: Kellie Cremer, 1225 West Prospect Road. Citizen Participation Follow-up Mayor Hutchinson thanked those who spoke during Citizen Participation. He commented that none of the Councilmembers wanted to cut Dial-a-Ride funding. The proposal was to reduce Dial-a-Ride service to minimum ADA standards. Providing Dial-a-Service beyond that minimum level was too expensive for Fort Collins and 65 other cities that had been surveyed. The City was looking at other options and would facilitate a summit on the matter. He urged the public to participate in the discussions that were being organized. Councilmember Ohlson stated Dial-a-Ride funding was a "gut wrenching" issue for all seven Councilmembers. The majority believed the status quo for funding could no longer continue. The City was looking at ways to maintain a quality program with fewer City dollars. He commented the 423 November 7, 2006 matter was complicated by federal regulations. He asked that the public talk to other governmental entities as well because"it was not the City's job to provide services to County residents who do not live inside the City." He noted the County needed to take responsibility for its citizens. Options were being explored to find a temporary and long term solution for those City residents who had basic medical needs. There was an issue that some City residents would not receive Dial-a-Ride service if the program was cut back to minimum ADA standards. This was a"complicated"issue. Councilmember Brown stated the City was pulling together a team to look at Dial-a-Ride funding options and that a summit would eventually be organized. He asked those who wanted to participate in the discussions to contact the City. Councilmember Kastein stated he would like to know the schedule for upcoming meetings on the Dial-a-Ride issue and at what point Councilmembers could participate. He saw the City's role as "facilitating the discussion" to work on short term and long term solutions. He would like to see information on extending Dial-a-Ride everywhere within the City limits. City Manager Atteberry stated he hoped to provide a detailed memorandum to the Council in the next Thursday packet about the forthcoming community-wide dialogue on the Dial-a-Ride issue. Mayor Hutchinson asked staff to talk about contact information. Don Bachman, Interim Transportation Services Director, asked those who were interested in being part of the undertaking to contact the City. The next meeting would probably be scheduled the week after Thanksgiving. City Manager Atteberry stated there was a"good news"item to report. Steve Budner, Recreation Administration, announced that Kathy Turner, Golden Corral Restaurant, was presenting a check from a fund raiser done by the restaurant for the Recreation Division Scholarship Program. Ms. Turner stated$314 was raised during the fund raiser and that there would be another event in August. She thanked the Councilmembers who participated as "celebrity servers." Mayor Hutchinson thanked the Golden Corral for the fund raising effort. Agenda Review City Manager Atteberry stated item#21 Resolution 2006-109 Providing a Process for Implementing City Fee Increases would be pulled from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion. CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the September 5 2006 Regular Meeting. 7. Items Relating to the Multi-iurisdictional Drug Task Force. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 162, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue from the Bureau of Justice Assistance in the General Fund For the Larimer County Drug Task Force. 424 November 7, 2006 B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 163, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue from the Office ofNational Drug Control Policy in the General Fund for the Larimer County Drug Task Force. These Ordinances,unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 17,2006, appropriate grant funds received by the Larimer County Drug Task Force from the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Bureau of Justice Assistance. These funds are to be used to fund the investigation of illegal narcotics activities in Larimer County. 8. Second Reading_of Ordinance No 164 2006 Adopting and Determining the Effective Date of the District-Precinct Map for the 2007 Regular Municipal Election. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 17, 2006, adopts the District-Precinct Map for the 2007 regular municipal election for the purposes of (1) determining the eligibility for District Council offices for the April 2007 election; (2) determining eligibility for any interim appointments to fill any District Council vacancies which may occur after November 17,2006; and(3)determining residency for voting in any special municipal election conducted after November 17, 2006. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No 165 2006 Establishing Local Provisions for the Conduct of Mail Ballot Elections. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 17, 2006, establishes local provisions for the conduct of mail ballot elections in Fort Collins and supersedes Title 1, Article 7.5 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, as well as any rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary of State regarding mail ballot elections. 10. Items Relating to the Arbor South Second Annexation and Zoning. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 166, 2006, Annexing Property Known as the Arbor South Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 167,2006,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Arbor South Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. These Ordinances,which were unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 17,2006, annex and zone 1.83 acres located on the west side of South College Avenue, east of Fossil Boulevard,and north of West Fairway Lane. It is currently vacant,undeveloped property and is in the T—Tourist Zoning District in Larimer County. The requested zoning in the City of Fort Collins is C - Commercial. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No 168 2006 Vacating Portions of Right-of-way as Dedicated on the Plat of Provincetowne P.U.D.. Filing No. 2. 425 November 7, 2006 This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 17, 2006, vacates portions of right-of-way located in the Provincetowne, Filing Two that are no longer necessary. A temporary access, drainage and utility easement is retained. 12. Items Relating to the Provincetowne P.U.D. Filing Three Development. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 169, 2006, Declaring Certain City-Owned Property in Provincetowne P.U.D. As Road Right-Of-Way B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 170, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Perpetual Drainage Easement and Temporary Construction Easement for the Provincetowne P.U.D. Filing Three Development Project. The developer of Provincetowne P.U.D.Filing 2,KB Homes Inc.,wishes to modify two cul- de-sacs in its development to connect with new roads included in the new Third Filing of Provincetowne P.U.D.. This modification would require the designation of a portion of Outlot I of Filing 2 (future park site) as right-of-way. The developer also wishes to acquire a 30,771 square foot drainage easement through the future park site for the benefit of the development. These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 17, 2006, designate the right-of-way and authorize conveyance of the drainage easement and temporary construction easement. 13. Items Relating to the 2007 Downtown Development Authority Budget. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 171, 2006, Appropriating Operating Funds and Approving the Budget of the Downtown Development Authority for the Fiscal Year Beginning January 1, 2007, and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Downtown Development Authority for 2007 at Five Mills. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 172, 2006, Appropriating Revenue in the Downtown Development Authority Debt Service Fund for Payment of Debt Service for the Year 2007. The Downtown Development Authority Board of Directors (the 'Board") adopted its proposed budget for 2007 totaling$6,196,867 on September 7,2006. The Board determined the mill levy necessary to provide for payment of administrative costs incurred by the DDA at its regular meeting of September 7, 2006. Ordinance No. 171, 2006, appropriates the DDA operating funds and sets the mill levy. Ordinance No. 172,2006,appropriates funds for 2007 DDA debt service payments from the tax increment received by the City. Both Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 17, 2006. 14. Items Relating to Utility Rates and Charges for 2007. 426 November 7, 2006 A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 173, 2006, Amending Chapter 26, Article III, Division 4 of the City Code Relating to User Rates and Charges for Water. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 174, 2006, Amending Chapter 26, Article IV, Division 4 of the City Code Relating to Wastewater Rates and Charges. C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 175, 2006, Amending Chapter 26, Article VI, Division 4 of the City Code Relating to Electric Development Fees and Charges. D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 176,2006,Amending Chapter 26,Article I&XII of the City Code Relating to Utility Bills and Notices and Administrative Regulations for Billing and Collection. Ordinance No. 173,2006 establishes Utilities monthly water rates for 2007. Ordinance No. 174, 2006 establishes Utilities monthly wastewater rates for 2007 and the second phase of the wastewater plant investment fees(PIFs)to be implemented January 1,2007. Ordinance No. 175,2006,updates electric development fees and charges to capture the costs associated with providing capital improvements to new development. Ordinance No. 176, 2006, modifies City Code to allow users an option of electronic delivery of utility bills and notices. These Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 17, 2006. 15. First Reading of Ordinance No 178 2006 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund to Develop the I-25 and State Hi lg iway 392 Interchange Improvement Plan, On September 7,2006,the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization("MPO") awarded the City a grant of$25,420 to develop the 1-25/SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan. The Plan is identified in the 2006-2007 Work Program for the Advance Planning Department and$50,000 was allocated in the budget to represent the City's share in the joint project. The MPO money was awarded after the project budget was allocated, so this Ordinance is needed to appropriate the unanticipated additional amount of$25,420. 16. First Reading_of Ordinance No 179 2006 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Recreation Fund to be Used for the Youth Pottery Program. On August 15, 2006, Council adopted Resolution 2006-081 authorizing the City Manager to enter into a grant agreement with the Colorado Council on the Arts for funding for the Youth Pottery Program. The City Recreation Division was recently awarded a matching grant from the Colorado Council on the Arts in the amount of$7,030. This amount represents the difference between expenses directly attributed to the Youth Pottery Program and program revenues during the fiscal year,July 1, 2006 through June 30,2007. The Colorado Council on the Arts requires that the City Council appropriate these funds. This request is to appropriate the amount of $7,030 to support this program in 2006/2007 and authorize the transfer of appropriations totaling $3,515, from the Recreation Fund 2006 operating budget to grant project budget, 427 November 7, 2006 representing the required 2006 matching dollars. Grant matching funds for 2007 ($3,515) are included in the Recreation Fund 2007 budget. 17. First Reading of Ordinance No 180 2006 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Wastewater Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Within the Wastewater Fund to be Used for Odor Control Measures at the Drake Water Reclamation Facility. Additional project dollars ($1,200,000) are needed to fund odor control due to significant increased costs in materials. The Wastewater Fund recently transferred land valued at $2,000,000 to the General Fund in exchange for property used in the operations of the various utilities. $800,000 of the property transferred to the Wastewater Utility is used in the operations of the Water Utility. The Water Utility will pay the Wastewater Utility$800,000 for the property. The Wastewater Utility will also transfer $400,000 from budgeted contingency funds to capital project for odor control. 18. First Reading of Ordinance No 181 2006 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue and Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for the Restorative Justice Program and Authorizing the Transfer of Matching Funds Previously Appropriated in the Police Services Operating Budget to the Grant Project. A grant in the amount of$30,635 has been received from the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice(DCJ)for salaries associated with the continued operation of the Restorative Justice Program. Restorative Justice is an alternative method of holding a youth offender accountable by facilitating a meeting with the young offender,the victim and members of the community to determine the harm done by the crime, and what should be done to repair the harm. By learning to understand the impact of their actions on the victim and community, criminal justice officials are optimistic repeat offenses by these youth will be reduced. A $10,212 cash match is required and will be met by appropriating previously collected proj ect income (client fees) from users of this program in the amount of $6,212 and $4,000 of already appropriated funds designated for Restorative Justice in the Police Services budget. The grant period is from October 18, 2006 to June 30, 2007. 19. First Reading of Ordinance No 182 2006 Authorizing and Approving the Issuance and Sale of Not to Exceed $20 000 000 Pollution Control Refunding Revenue Bonds (Anheuser-Busch Proiect) Series 2006 of the City of Fort Collins. Colorado. to Refund Certain Bonds of the City of Fort Collins Colorado Issued to Refinance Certain Water Pollution Control Facilities Sewage Facilities and Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: the Execution and Delivery of an Indenture of Trust to Secure Said Bonds: the Execution and Delivery of a Loan Agreement Between Anheuser-Busch Companies Inc. and the City of Fort Collins Colorado Providing for the Repayment of the Loan of the Proceeds of Said Bonds: the Execution and Delivery of a Tax Regulatory Agreement Bond Purchase Agreement Official Statement and Said Bonds in Connection Therewith:and Providing for Certain Other Matters in Connection with the Delivery of the Bonds. In 1984,the City issued $35,000,000 of pollution control revenue bonds for the Anheuser- 428 November 7, 2006 Busch Companies, Inc. (the"Company"). In 1986, the bonds were reissued in the amount of$20,000,000. The first call date for the 1986 bonds was September 4, 1996. The bonds were used to finance the costs of acquiring, constructing,installing and equipping pollution control facilities, sewage facilities, and solid waste disposal facilities to be owned by the Company or one of its subsidiary companies. Because of the change in interest rates, the Company would like to refinance the outstanding bonds to attain debt service savings. The 1986 bonds carry an interest rate of 7.375%. The refinanced rate of interest is expected to be around 6.5%. The proposed refinancing will extend the maturity of the bonds from 2014 to 2036. 20. First Reading of Ordinance No 183 2006 Amending the City Code to Increase the Capital Improvement Expansion Fee Street Oversizing Fee and Neighborhood Parkland Fee to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services. This Ordinance increases the fee schedules for the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees and Neighborhood Parkland Fee by the estimated 2006 changes in the Denver-Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price Index ("CPI"). Costs in the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees ("CIEF") Study and the fee schedule for the Neighborhood Parkland Fees were calculated using costs from 1995. The fees were last adjusted in 2005. This Ordinance increases the CIEF and the Neighborhood Parkland Fees by the estimated 2006 increase in the CPI of 3.75%,and the Street Oversizing fees by 4.23%, which reflects the projected increase reported in the Engineering News Record. 21. Resolution 2006-109 Providing a Process for Implementing City Fee Increases. City Councilmembers have requested that staff develop a proposed process for reviewing future increases to a variety of fees currently imposed by the City. This Resolution provides direction to staff about an evaluation process and articulates City Council's goal of evaluating the impact of fees on the community. The City Manager commits to a fee review process which will compare City fees to those of other communities in the region. 22. Resolution 2006 110 Approving the Purchase of a Sensys Networks In-Pavement Vehicle Detection System. The Traffic Operations Department has obtained federal funding to develop a travelers web page. The web page will provide real-time information about traffic congestion to assist drivers in planning for and selecting alternative routes. To determine congestion conditions, vehicle detection will be installed along major corridors to collect count and speed information. Sensys is the only manufacturer of wireless in-pavement vehicle detectors with data collection software. 23. Resolution 2006-112 Responding to the Motion for Reconsideration of Ordinance No. 137 2006 Relating to the Southwest Enclave Annexation. 429 November 7, 2006 Following the City Council's adoption of an ordinance annexing the Southwest Enclave,the Citizens Against Forced Annexation ("CAFA") filed a motion for reconsideration of that ordinance with the City. This Resolution responds to the grounds stated in the motion, and adoption of the Resolution would deny the motion. 24. Routine Easement. Easement for construction and maintenance of public utilities from FC Timberline Development,LLC,to underground electric system,located at 4502 JFK Parkway. Monetary consideration: $5000. ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 7. Items Relating to the Multi-jurisdictional Drug Task Force. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 162, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue from the Bureau of Justice Assistance in the General Fund For the Latimer County Drug Task Force. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 163, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue from the Office ofNational Drug Control Policy in the General Fund for the Larimer County Drug Task Force. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 164,2006,Adopting,and Determining the Effective Date of, the District-Precinct Map for the 2007 Regular Municipal Election. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 165,2006,Establishing Local Provisions for the Conduct of Mail Ballot Elections. 10. Items Relating to the Arbor South Second Annexation and Zoning. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 166, 2006, Annexing Property Known as the Arbor South Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 167,2006,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Arbor South Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 168, 2006, Vacating Portions of Right-of-way as Dedicated on the Plat of Provincetowne P.U.D., Filing No. 2. 12. Items Relating to the Provincetowne P.U.D. Filing Three Development. 430 November 7, 2006 A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 169, 2006, Declaring Certain City-Owned Property in Provincetowne P.U.D. As Road Right-Of-Way B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 170, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Perpetual Drainage Easement and Temporary Construction Easement for the Provincetowne P.U.D. Filing Three Development Project. 13. Items Relating to the 2007 Downtown Development Authority Budget. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 171, 2006, Appropriating Operating Funds and Approving the Budget of the Downtown Development Authority for the Fiscal Year Beginning January 1, 2007, and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Downtown Development Authority for 2007 at Five Mills. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 172, 2006, Appropriating Revenue in the Downtown Development Authority Debt Service Fund for Payment of Debt Service for the Year 2007. 14. Items Relating to Utility Rates and Charges for 2007. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 173, 2006, Amending Chapter 26, Article III, Division 4 of the City Code Relating to User Rates and Charges for Water. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 174, 2006, Amending Chapter 26, Article IV, Division 4 of the City Code Relating to Wastewater Rates and Charges. C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 175, 2006, Amending Chapter 26, Article VI, Division 4 of the City Code Relating to Electric Development Fees and Charges. D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 176,2006,Amending Chapter 26,Article I&XII of the City Code Relating to Utility Bills and Notices and Administrative Regulations for Billing and Collection. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 178, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund to Develop the I-25 and State Highway 392 Interchange Improvement Plan. 16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 179, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Recreation Fund to be Used for the Youth Pottery Program. 17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 180, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Wastewater Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Within the Wastewater Fund to be Used for Odor Control Measures at the Drake Water Reclamation Facility. 431 November 7, 2006 18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 181,2006,Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue and Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for the Restorative Justice Program and Authorizing the Transfer of Matching Funds Previously Appropriated in the Police Services Operating Budget to the Grant Project. 19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 182,2006,Authorizing and Approving the Issuance and Sale of Not to Exceed $20,000,000 Pollution Control Refunding Revenue Bonds (Anheuser-Busch Project) Series 2006 of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, to Refund Certain Bonds of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Issued to Refinance Certain Water Pollution Control Facilities, Sewage Facilities and Solid Waste Disposal Facilities; the Execution and Delivery of an Indenture of Trust to Secure Said Bonds; the Execution and Delivery of a Loan Agreement Between Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. and the City of Fort Collins, Colorado Providing for the Repayment of the Loan of the Proceeds of Said Bonds; the Execution and Delivery of a Tax Regulatory Agreement, Bond Purchase Agreement,Official Statement and Said Bonds in Connection Therewith; and Providing for Certain Other Matters in Connection with the Delivery of the Bonds. 20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 183, 2006,Amending the City Code to Increase the Capital Improvement Expansion Fee, Street Oversizing Fee and Neighborhood Parkland Fee to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services. 29. Items Relating to the Adoption of a Transportation Maintenance Fee and a Community Park Maintenance Fee. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 184, 2006, Amending Chapter 7.5 of the City Code to Establish a Transportation Maintenance Fee. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 185,2006, Amending Chapter 7.5 of the City Code to Establish a Community Park Maintenance Fee. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt and approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. The vote on the motion was as follows:Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson,Kastein,Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Consent Calendar Follow-up Councilmember Ohlson spoke regarding item #17 First Reading of Ordinance No. 180, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Wastewater Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Within the Wastewater Fund to be Used for Odor Control Measures at the Drake Water Reclamation Facility and noted that he had asked the City Manager for further information prior to Second Reading on development close to the treatment plant and the scale of one-time and ongoing dollars needed to deal with odor complaints. He requested that on Second Reading this item be placed on the discussion agenda rather than the Consent Calendar. 432 November 7, 2006 Councilmember Kastein asked that item#20 First Reading of Ordinance No. 183, 2006,Amending the City Code to Increase the Capital Improvement Expansion Fee, Street Oversizing Fee and Neighborhood Parkland Fee to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services be placed on the discussion agenda on Second Reading for additional discussion on collection of the parkland fee. He spoke regarding item #22 Resolution 2006-110 Approving the Purchase of a Sensys Networks In-Pavement Vehicle Detection System and noted that this was CMAQ grant. There was more than $1 million available per year to the City for transportation improvement projects showing some benefit to air quality. He suggested that the City needed a strategy on how CMAQ dollars should be used. Mayor Hutchinson suggested a work session to discuss the parkland fees. Councilmember Ohlson agreed a work session should be held to go along with the Parks Master Plan update. There needed to be a"serious look and justification" for the parks policies. He believed a majority of the Council wanted to look at this fee issue and whether 17 new parks should be opened in the next 20 years. City Manager Atteberry stated he understood a majority of the Council favored looking at this issue. He had discussed this with staff and agreed that the appropriate place to look at the matter was during the Parks Master Plan update. Councilmember Reports Councilmember Kastein reported on MPO discussions relating to a coalition to work on the RTA. Staff Reports City Manager Atteberry reported on the activities sponsored by the CSU/City liaison program and the neighborhood partnership pilot program designed to build community partnerships between students and non-students and create a positive neighborhood environment. He also reported that three City staff members (Melissa Emerson, Rich Kopp, Robin Macdonald) participated in and helped organize a "town/gown" program at the American Association of Code Enforcement Conference. Public Hearing and Resolution 2006-111 Approving the Programs and Projects That Will Receive Funds From the Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnership (HOME) Grants and the City's Affordable Housing Fund, Adopted. The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "FINANCIAL IMPACT The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and Home Investment Partnership (HOME)Program provide Federal funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to the City of Fort Collins which can be allocated to housing and community development 433 November 7, 2006 related programs and projects, thereby, reducing the demand on the City's General Fund Budget to address such needs. City funds for this item have been appropriated as part of the Affordable Housing Fund in December 2005. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Resolution will complete the fall cycle of the competitive process for allocating City financial resources to affordable housing programs/projects and community development activities. BACKGROUND This Resolution establishes which programs and projects will receive funding with CDBG and HOME funds for the FY 2006 Program year, which started on October 1, 2006, including the use of Carry-over CDBG Entitlement Grant funds,funds from the FY 2006 HOME Grant,funds from the HOME Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO)Set Aside and funds from the City's Affordable Housing Fund. The CDBG Commission presents a list of recommendations as to which programs and projects should receive funding. The following table summarizes the amount and sources of available funds: AMOUNT SOURCE $483,687 FY 2006 HOME Grant 96,813 HOME CHDO Funds 105,787 CDBG Carry-over Funds 133,000 Affordable Housin Fund $819 287 Total Funding Available HOME Community Housing Development Organization(CHDO)set asidefunds represent aportion ofthe HOME grant earmarkedfor CHDO agencies. CDBG Carry-over Funds represent theportion of the FY 2006 CDBG Entitlement Grant that were not allocated during the spring cycle of the competitive process. The CDBG Commission presents recommendations as to which programs and projects should receive funding from the available funding sources presented above. The following tables present the allocations recommended by the Commission to the City Council within each major category: Affordable Housing Applicant Funding Commission's Unfunded Project/Program Request Recommendation Balance HO-1 Neighbor-to-Neighbor $80,080 $80,080 $0 —Rehabilitation of Coachlight and Conifer Properties HO-2 Fort Collins Housing $127,952 $0 $127,952 Corporation — Linden House Rehabilitation 434 November 7, 2006 HO-3 Fort Collins Housing $350,000 $163,500 $186,500 Corporation — Stadium Apartments Acquisition and Rehabilitation HO-4 CARE Housing — $300,000 $300,000 $0 Acquisition o Land HO-5 City of Fort Collins — $250,000 $250,000 $0 Home Bu er Assistance All funding recommendations in the Affordable Housing category are in the form Of a "Due on Sale Loan + 5%Simple Interest. " Public Facility Applicant Funding Commission's Unfunded Pro'ect/Pro ram Re uest Recommendation Balance PF-1 Crossroads Safehouse— $12,475 $12,475 $0 Facility Improvement All funding recommendations in the Public Facilities category are in the form of a "Due on Sale Loan + 5%Simple Interest. " A summary of the Commission's funding recommendations by category is presented in the following table: Recommended Funding % of Total Cate a $793,580 1 98.5% I Alloritable Housin 12,475 1 1.5% 1 Public Facilities $806.055 1 100.0% 1 Total The CDBG Commission has recommended that$806,055 (98.4%) of the available funding amount of$819,287 be allocated leaving a balance of only$13,232. The Commission recommends that all of the funds from all sources be utilized except for the$13,232 from the FY2006 CDBG Entitlement Grant. The $13,232 will be carried over and will be available for allocation in the 2007 spring cycle of the competitive process. Recommended Funding % of Total I Category $806,505 98.4% Allocated to Programs and Projects 13,232 1.6% Carry-over to 2007 Spring Cycle $819,287 100.0% 1 Total Funds Available City Manager Atteberry introduced the agenda item. Ken Waido, Chief Planner, stated in the fall cycle, there was slightly over $819,000 available, including funds from two federal programs(CDBG and HOME programs)and the City's affordable housing funds. The City received six proposals for the funds totally more than $1.1 million. Typically there were more funding requests than dollars to allocate. The review process included 435 November 7, 2006 the Affordable Housing Board and the CDBG Commission. The Commission recommended the allocation of slightly more than $806,000 and 98.5% was recommended to support affordable housingprojects while 1.5%(slightly more than$12,000)was recommended to go to apublic facility proposal. The recommendation was that 98.4% of the available money be allocated and the remaining $13,232 be carried over to the spring cycle in 2007. Councilmember Roy asked about the Linden House rehabilitation project and noted there was a request for a little over $125,000. He asked staff to characterize the nature of the repairs and maintenance that was being deferred and the general condition the housing at that location. Waido stated there would be interior upgrades to repair normal wear and tear for the existing single room occupancy units. Bob Browning, CDBG Commission chair, stated the improvements included upgrading windows for energy purposes and generally making the individual rooms more inhabitable. The Housing Authority indicated it would go ahead and maintain the rental of these units and would come back for funds in the future. Councilmember Roy asked when the last major rehabilitation was done on that particular property. Waido stated it had been a while. Councilmember Roy stated this property had"served its purpose very well'for many years"without controversy." He understood all of the projects were"worthy"and not everything could be funded. He believed this was a"strong housing unit'that had received quite a bit of funding in the past. He expressed concern that the property continue to be maintained at"more than a basic level of service." Councilmember Ohlson asked if the Linden House was privately owned. Waido replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Ohlson asked if much money had been put into that property in the past. It appeared to be owned free and clear and the property owner was unwilling to maintain it. He questioned why the City should step in unless the property owner would invest some money to fix it up. He asked if public money had been put into this property in the past. Waido stated CDBG had put$100,000 to $200,000 into this in the past. Councilmember Ohlson stated he "appreciated the caution" in using public funds for this private property and if public funds would be put toward this in the future, the property owner should put in 3 to 1 in funds. He expressed a concern that the benefit could go to the property owner rather than the residents since they did not have leases. Mr. Browning stated the CDBG Commission was concerned about the lack of owner participation in helping with the rehab or in reducing rents in return for the public subsidy. If the funding was approved for the project a condition would be that residents would have leases. Councilmember Roy asked if there was a lease for the upper floor. Mr. Browning stated he did not believe that there was a current lease. Councilmember Kastein made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Manvel,to adopt Resolution 2006-111. 436 November 7, 2006 Councilmember Kastein thanked the CDBG Commission for its hard work. Mayor Hutchinson added his appreciation for the hard work done by the Commission. Councilmember Roy stated he would like to know if the City had a lease at that particular property since the agenda material indicated that there was such a lease. Councilmember Weitkunat thanked the CDBG Commission for its work on this difficult task within a program that was constantly in "transition." Councilmember Manvel expressed thanks to the CDBG Commission and those who worked to provide affordable housing in Fort Collins. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Hutchinson requested that the Council consider pulled Consent Calendar item#21 Resolution 2006-109 Providing a Process for Implementing City Fee Increases before the discussion agenda because of its relevance to a discussion agenda item. The consensus was in favor of changing the agenda order to consider item#21 next. Resolution 2006-109 Providing a Process for Implementing City Fee Increases Adopted as Amended. The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City Councilmembers have requested that staff develop a proposed process for reviewing future increases to a variety offees currently imposed by the City. This Resolution provides direction to staff about an evaluation process and articulates City Council's goal of evaluating the impact offees on the community. The City Manager commits to a fee review process which will compare Cityfees to those of other communities in the region. BACKGROUND The City of Fort Collins imposes fees on a variety of activities within the community. The fees are imposed for a variety of purposes including development impact fees, capital expansion fees, user fees and permitfees. The level of these fees is set to cover the cost of specific City services including the cost of providing municipal infrastructure, City services and administrative costs of City services. These fees are reviewed occasionally for appropriateness and the continued need for these fees. 437 November 7, 2006 Generally, the City Code defines how these fees are calculated and updated. The Resolution outlines several actions that the City will undertake to achieve these goals: 1. Except as may be otherwise specifically provided in the City Code, each fee imposed by the City will be reviewed by City staff no less frequently than every twenty-four (24) months, which review shall occur in conjunction with the preparation of the City's biennial budget. 2. The overall purpose of the review shall be to evaluate whether the amount of each fee appropriately covers the costs actually incurred by the City in providing the infrastructure or services funded by the fee without unduly burdening the fee payer. 3. Staff shall also ensure, as apart of the review, that appropriate efforts have been made by the City to control any escalating costs that might cause fees to increase by improving efficiencies and work methods. 4. Based upon such review, the City Manager will recommend to the City Council any changes in fee amounts that the City Manager may deem appropriate, taking into consideration the amount offees imposed by other Front Range cities for similar purposes. " City Manager Atteberry stated this Resolution was intended to be responsive to requests from Council since this Council had taken office,that there be no"surprises"relating to fees. Council had indicated that substantial fee increases were not"palatable"when there had not been a fee increase for many years. The Resolution would create some accountability by directing the City Manager to review fees in a"scheduled ways"consistent with the budget process and comparable to fees set by other regional entities. There would be a commitment to a regular review of fees and sufficient information would be presented to facilitate an understanding of what was"driving"the fee increase and whether efficiencies or improvements could be undertaken within the organization to avoid the fee increase. The Resolution would commit the staff to the new process for the long term. He suggested an addition to the last WHEREAS clause to read: "WHEREAS,the amount of these fees should also be in fine m TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION fees charged by other Front Range cities for similar purposes to help evaluate whether the City fees are reasonable." City fees could actually be significantly lower or higher than fees set by others in the region and there should be a good explanation if that was the case. Councilmember Kastein stated the cost control data that would be provided was important because it was"too easy"just to increase fees. It was important to have information that the organization in that particular area was tracking costs and that the fee increase in noway reflected that a"department was out of control." He asked if the cost control data would be provided at the start of the budget cycle and/or at the time the fee increase was proposed to the Council. City Manager Atteberry stated he believed that it would be useful to present the cost control data at both times. He anticipated presenting information on likely fee increases or decreases for the following year at the beginning of the budget process. There would be a more detailed analysis as the fee increase or decrease was brought forward. There was a "rare" possibility for unanticipated cost increases that were not discussed at the beginning of the budget cycle. 438 November 7, 2006 Councilmember Kastein stated he would like Council to receive a"list"of"snapshot(best guess)" of all fees that would be considered in the next year or two. It was necessary for the Council to have a picture of all of the potential fees to prioritize and make a decision on any new fee. City Manager Atteberry stated he expected this to happen "to the greatest extent possible." It was difficult to anticipate fees two years out in all cases. Mayor Hutchinson asked if the Resolution clearly reflected this intent. City Manager Atteberry stated he believed staff clearly understood the Council's intent. He noted there were fees set by Council and fees set administratively. Councilmember Roy noted there were recent fee discussions involving the School Districts. He asked if this Resolution would cover fees collected by the City for other parties. City Attorney Roy stated he believed that such fees were covered by the Resolution because it talked about fees established in the City Code. Councilmember Kastein suggested language to direct that some kind of fee schedule and cost control data report be prepared and published by staff. City Manager Atteberry suggested that thought be given to the purpose of the report. He expressed a concern that people would interpret the report as the City's"policy"and there could be issues if a fee was not set as outlined in the report. He stated the report should not be considered to be"legally binding." Councilmember Kastein stated the report could include that caveat. Mayor Hutchinson asked if such a report would be published in the budget. City Manager Atteberry stated rates would be published in the budget and he was not sure about fees. The Resolution could be postponed to allow time to clarify out those details or that new language could be written at this time. Councilmember Weitkunat asked about the intent. She stated the Resolution had been brought forward to provide a process to look at fees. She did not see a need to address the"technicalities" of how that would occur. She saw this as a budget tool and something that would be taken to the Council Finance Committee to work its way through the system. It might be preferable to leave the "details"and the"depth"to the Committee. There was a need for some kind of"list"of fees to"get everybody on the same page." Mayor Hutchinson stated he agreed with Councilmember Weitkunat that the intent of the Resolution was to set the"parameters" or"policy" for the process. Councilmember Roy noted that much of the discussion had been about fees that had not been reviewed in seven or eight years. The intent was that fee changes be brought forward in a timely manner. Councilmember Manvel suggested adding a phrase to Section 4 to say that". . . the City Manager will report the results of such review to the City Council and recommend . . . ." 439 November 7, 2006 Councilmember Kastein stated that would reflect his intent. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy,to adopt Resolution 2006-109. Councilmember Manvel offered a friendly amendment to Section 4 to say". . .that the City Manager will report the results of such review to the City Council and recommend . . . ." Councilmembers Weitkunat and Roy accepted the friendly amendment. Councilmember Manvel stated he wanted to ensure the Council did not receive a lot of information that it did not want i.e.,the administrative fees. He believed this was taken care of by the language that provided the process would relate to fees established by the City Code and language that provided the staff would"evaluate the amount of each fee, except as otherwise provided in the City Code." City Attorney Roy stated the first language referenced by Councilmember Manvel explained that the process would not relate to fees that were set administratively. The purpose of the second phrase was different because some fees set by the Code required an annual review and update. In cases where the Code did not specify a periodic review,this Resolution would establish a review at least every two years. Mayor Hutchinson stated this was a"significant'item. Council had been very interested in the fee issue for a long time because fees had an impact on the economic health of the City. The fees should be kept to a minimum and this Resolution would lay the groundwork for a policy that had never been addressed by the Council. The vote on the motion as amended by the friendly amendment was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays:None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Items Relating to the Adoption of a Transportation Maintenance Fee and a Community Park Maintenance Fee Adopted on First Reading. The following is staff s memorandum on this item. 11FINANCL4L IMPACT These Ordinances propose a Transportation Maintenance Fee (TMF) and a Community Park Maintenance Fee (CPMF). The total net revenue from the new special services fees will equal approximately $3.14 million per year. The IMF revenue will be allocated to the Pavement Management Program and the CPMF revenue will be allocated to the maintenance of community parks. 440 November 7, 2006 Residential Fee Revenue Total Revenue Revenue Weighting TMF I CPMF Total TMF * CPMF Option A: $ $1.44 $2.97 $1,260,90 $ 879,864 $ Weighted to TMF 1.53 0 3,140,764 Option B: $1,449,70 $1,686,72 $ Balanced 1.01 $2.67 $3.68 2 2 3,136,424 MF/CPMF *TMFratesfor non-residentialproperties are set byformula. The CPMF would not apply to non-residential properties. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OPTIONA: Revenue Weighted to TMF 1. First Reading of Ordinance No. 184, 2006, Amending Chapter 7.5 of the City Code to Establish a Transportation Maintenance Fee. (Option A) AND First Reading of Ordinance No. 185, 2006, Amending Chapter 7.5 of the City Code to Establish a Community Park Maintenance Fee. (Option A) OPTION B:Equal Revenue from TMF and CPMF 2. First Reading of Ordinance No. 184, 2006, Amending Chapter 7.5 of the City Code to Establish a Transportation Maintenance Fee. (Option B) AND First Reading of Ordinance No. 185, 2006, Amending Chapter 7.5 of the City Code to Establish a Community Park Maintenance Fee. (Option B) At the October 10, 2006 Work Session, City Council directed staff to prepare two alternatives for the proposed Transportation Maintenance Fee (TMF) and Community Park Maintenance Fee (CPMF). Option A would weight the fee revenue toward the TMF, while Option B would equally divide the revenue between the TMF and CPMF. For each option(A and B), a TMF ordinance and a CMPF ordinance are presented. The Option A ordinances or the Option B ordinances should be adopted as a set. In summary, the two options would generate the same amount of new revenue, approximately$3.14 million per year in 2007. Option A weights the fee revenue toward the TMF 441 November 7, 2006 • $2,260,900 (7291o) from TMF • $ 879,864 (28%)from CPMF • Residentialpays 54% ($1,696,013) • Non-residential pays 46% ($1,444,751 Option B equalizes the fee revenue between TMF and CPMF • $1,449,702 (46%)from TMF • $1,686,722 (54%)from CPMF • Residential pays 70% ($2,195,497) • Non-residential pays 30% ($940,927) Both options generate approximately the same amount of total revenue. Staffrecommends adoption of Option B, which would establish two new fees with equal revenue from each fee. This option would mitigate some of the impact on businesses which would have been created under Option A. Each of the fees is based on recovering a portion of the cost of the respective programs. The total cost of the Pavement Management Program is over$9 million ($5.5 million is funded through the Building on Basics Street Maintenance Sales Tax), and the total cost of maintaining the City's community parks is $2.6 million. These figures represent the maximum amount that could be charged through a special service fee. Neither of the proposed options exceeds the costs. BACKGROUND Special Service Fees The proposed TMF and CPMF are "special service fees. " Such fees have been increasingly used by Colorado municipalities over the last couple of decades as a means ofproviding supplementary funding for particular government services. In order to establish a legitimate special service fee, several court-established tests must be met in formulating the fee and expending the proceeds from the fee. Essentially, a special service fee is distinguished from a tax in that it: (1) is imposed on persons or property to defray the costs of a particular governmental service rather than the general expenses ofgovernment; (2) the amount generated by fee must be reasonably related to the overall costs ofproviding the service funded by the fee; (3) the methodology used to determine the amount paid by individual fee payers must have a rational basis;and(4)revenues generated by thefee must be segregated and used only for the purposes for which the fee is imposed. Both the TMF and CPMF have been prepared by City staff with these criteria in mind. Neither fee would generate revenues in excess of the cost of maintaining City streets and parks, and a substantial portion of those costs will continue to be borne by other revenue sources. Community Park Maintenance Fee The implementation ofthe CPMF would support maintenance ofthe City's communitypark system. The fee will be imposed on all residential dwelling units as defined in the attached ordinance. A flat 442 November 7, 2006 fee of$1.44 (Option A) or$2.67(Option B)per dwelling unit will be added to monthly utility bills beginning in 2007. The fee will be used in conjunction with General Fund resources to fund all aspects of maintaining community parks. Maintenance includes, but is not limited to maintenance of all landscaped areas, facilities and infrastructure, administration, and minor capital improvements as needed to keep the park facilities in safe and usable condition for the general public. Under Option A, the CPMF contribution toward the maintenance of the City's community park system would result in net savings to the General Fund, after utility billing costs, rebates and bad debts, of 88$ 0.000. The fee of$1.44 per month or$17.28 per year would appear on City utility bills produced after January 1, 2007. Under Option B, the net savings to the General Fund from enacting the CPMF would be$1,686.722 after utility billing costs, rebates and bad debts. The fee of$2.67 per month or$32.04 per year will appear on City utility bills produced after January 1, 2007. Under either scenario, the fee would be adjusted annually for inflation based on the Denver—Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price Index and as directed by City Council. The fee would reduce the need for General Fund support in the park system and provide a possible funding source for future maintenance of new parks. Transportation Maintenance Fee The establishment of a TMF would support maintaining city streets, bike lanes, medians(excluding landscaping),and City maintainedsidewalks. Maintenance includes such workas keepingpavement surfaces in good condition, performing seal coats as needed, repairing potholes and cracks, repaving and other work to keep our transportation system safe. The fee would be applied to all non-exempt properties within the city limits, including residential properties and non-residentialproperties. Thefee would be aflat dollar amountfor each residential dwelling unit, based on trip generation data for residential uses. A flat fee of$1.53 (Option A) or $1.01 (Option B)per dwelling unit will be added to monthly utility bills. Non-residential properties would be assessed the fee based on various categories of use and the trip generation characteristics of those categories. Under Option A, the TMF contribution toward the maintenance of the City's street system would result in a net savings to the General Fund, after utility billing costs, rebates and bad debts, of $2,260,900. The fee of$1.53 per month or $18.36 per year per residential dwelling unit would appear on City utility bills produced afterJanuary 1,2007.Non-residential fees would be calculated based on a formula which includes trip generation data by land use type and acreage. Under Option B, the net savings to the General Fund from enacting the TMF would be$1,449,702, after utility billing costs, rebates and bad debts. The fee of$1.01 per month or$12.12 per year per residential dwelling unit would appear on City utility bills produced after January 1, 2007. Non- 443 November 7, 2006 residential fees would be calculated based on a formula which includes trip generation data by land use type and acreage. Under either scenario, the fee would be adjusted annually for inflation based on the Denver—Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price Index and as directed by City Council. The fee would reduce the need for General Fund support of the street system. This funding would be in addition to the voter approved Building on Basics Street Maintenance Sales and Use Tax and revenue from state gas taxes and street cut fees. The total cost of the street maintenance program in 2007 is projected to be over$9 million. Rebates A rebate program would be established to offset the impact of the new fees on low-income residents. Residents would have to meet qualifications previously established through the rebate program for sales tax on food as well as the new State immigration requirements. One rebate check would be issued per dwelling unit for both fees and the grocery tax rebate. The rebate would be up to 100% of the total fee paid. The rebate for both fees in 2007 would range from $35.64 to $41.16 per low- income household, depending on the alternative approved by Council. Rebates would be made to qualified residents in 2008 for fees paid in 2007. Exemptions Staffrecommends that the TMF exempt all property owned and occupied by government entities and public schools. Though both generate a significant number of trips per day, charging a fee to these entities would only serve to shift public money from one type ofgovernment to another and would diminish the public revenues available to them to carry out their public purposes. No new net increase in funds available for public services would be achieved. Council has asked staff to also provide data and an option to provide exemptions from the TMFfor places of worship and private schools (K-12). EXEMPTION COSTS Transportation Maintenance Fee Property Category Option A: Revenue Option B: Weighted to TMF Balanced Revenue Government $112,558 $74,369 Public Schools $190,557 $125,904 Sub-total $303,115 $200,273 Places of worship $82,981 $54,827 Private Schools $7,686 $5,078 Grand Total $393,782 $260,178 Staff recommends exempting government and public school properties for a total exemption of 444 November 7, 2006 $303,115 for Option A or$200,273 for Option B. Staffdoes not recommend providing an exemption for places of worship or private schools. In case Councilmembers wish to include exemptions for places of worship and private schools, alternative TMF ordinances for Option A and Option B have been included within the two TMF ordinances. Options A-1 and B-1 would provide exemptions for places of worship and private schools. Ifthese additional exemptions were approved by the Council, TMF annual revenues would be reduced by$90,667 under Option A and by$59,905 under Option B. "Places of worship"and "private schools"are defined in the Ordinance. " City Manager Atteberry stated the two fees would support two important services: street and parks maintenance. The adoption of the two fees was part of an overall strategy that had been developed over the past eight months with Council's input to address the anticipated 2007 budget shortfall of $5.8 million. The gap that was originally anticipated was$2.3 million and the remainder of the gap was the result of underperforming sales tax revenues estimated to be about $3.5 million in 2007. This gap would get larger as a result of some enhancements to fixed route and Dial-a-Ride services. The gap that would need to be filled was about$7.9 million. The three primary themes of the budget were to look at service efficiencies,to review with the Council levels of services and any reductions or elimination of services, and to look at additional new revenue. Staff was asking that Council consider on First Reading a transportation maintenance fee and a parks maintenance fee to generate new revenue. The new revenues were special service fees that would help defray the cost of two services provided by the City i.e., community park maintenance and street maintenance. This was a"predictable and stable revenue source"for those services. Revenue sources needed to be diverse, less dependent on sales and use tax, and predictable and reliable. The two fees would meet those criteria. One of the primary questions for the Council was which of the two options presented for each of the two different fees Council preferred. Option A was"weighted"to the TMF and Option B would mean a"balance"between the TMF and PMF. The second question was what exemptions the Council preferred: (1) governmental agencies, (2) public schools, (3) places of worship, or(4) private schools. There had been previous lengthy discussions about each of those options. Ann Tumquist, City Manager's Office, thanked the project team members for their work on this package. The discussion was based on the assumption that the 2007 budget would need$3.1 million in additional revenue to be balanced. On October 10, Council gave staff direction to prepare two options for implementing a transportation maintenance fee and a parks maintenance fee. Either of the two options would result in revenue of about$3.1 million. Option A would weight the revenue towards the transportation maintenance fee (the original option) and Option B was presented to Council at the October 10 work session and would have more of a balance between the two fees. The two packages were "paired" and Council would need to adopt both Ordinances from either Option A or Option B. A decision matrix had been created to facilitate the decision. She asked that Council first choose either Option A or Option B and then discuss the exemptions for the selected option. The transportation maintenance fee would apply to both residential and non-residential properties throughout the City. Residential fees would be a flat rate per dwelling unit and non- residential fees would be calculated based on a formula using trip generation data and the acreage of parcels that would have the assigned fee. nder either option the TMF would pay for a portion of the cost ofmaintaining the street system and the fees would be apportioned relative to the impact that 445 November 7, 2006 each different land use would have on the street system. The community park maintenance fee was similar but would apply only to residential properties. It would cover a portion of the cost of maintaining the City's community parks and would use a formula that allocated the cost equally to all dwelling units across the City. Under Option A fees were apportioned as follows: 54%residential and 46% non-residential. Under Option B fees were apportioned as follows: 70%residential and 30% non-residential. Under Option A the total for both fees for residential properties would be $2.97 per month and under Option A the total of the two fees would be $2.68 per month for residential properties. Non-residential rates would be determined by a calculation based on land use type and acreage. Different land uses would have different costs based on the traffic generated by the land use. Council asked staff to include rebates for low income residents in the proposal. The same system as the one used for the sales tax rebates would be used and people would only to have to apply once for their rebate. The rebates would be up to 100% of the residential TMF and PMF. Council also asked that some exemptions be included in the Ordinances. Staff was recommending exempting government properties and public schools from the transportation maintenance fee. She noted the park maintenance fee did not cover non-residential properties and there were therefore no exemptions. The rationale for exempting government properties,including public schools,was that staff believed that assessing those fees to those properties would be transferring tax dollars between different levels of government rather than increasing the resources available for the community's public services. The other exemptions discussed were places of worship and private schools. The range of cost for exempting places of worship would be$58,000 to$83,000 per year and$5,000 and $8,000 per year for exempting private schools. Staff was prepared to discuss the revenue implications of the exemptions. She asked Council to first look at Option A or B and then look at the exemptions. Jeff Wright,pastor of Heart of the Rockies Christian Church, stated staff was recommending that places of worship and private schools not be exempted from the transportation maintenance fee. The fee would place a burden on communities of faith,which had historically been exempted from taxes in the United States because they provide a broad range of services to their communities. He argued that the services provided would"far offset"the need to assess the transportation maintenance fee. The fee would greatly impact the budgets for places of worship. Faith communities administered a broad range of community projects, provided meeting space for non-profit and other community organizations, and provided a source of attractive open spaces. Each individual church"worked to help shape this community in positive ways." The private schools played an important role in the community and should not be put at a disadvantage by having to pay the fee. He asked the Council to vote to exempt places of worship and private schools from the TMF. Councilmember Ohlson stated before Second Reading,he would like more detail on why small retail places would pay almost as much as high traffic retail ($50 compared to $119) and so much more than commercial ($15). Mayor Hutchinson stated those amounts were"representative"and there would be a wide variation. Councilmember Ohlson stated he understood the fee would be tied to traffic generation. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she understood the TMF assessment would be based on type of 446 November 7, 2006 business, trip generation and size. Mark Jackson, Transportation Planning Manager, stated there were different types of retail and that retail as a category generated more trips than commercial. He stated"commercial"included everything that was not retail,industrial or institutional. The qualifier in the formula was based on acreage. Mayor Hutchinson asked about the range of fees for small retail stores compared to large retail. Turnquist stated Attachment 1 in the agenda item summary indicated that a small facility such as an Old Town restaurant would fall in the retail category and pay$118 per year in TMF. A Wal-Mart would fall under high traffic retail and would pay a much higher TMF because of trip generation and the larger site. These were examples of fees. City Manager Atteberry stated a large lot(five acre) church would pay about$78 per month($940 per year)and a small lot church would pay about$7.84 per month ($94 per year). Turnquist stated the small lot churches were typically downtown. Mayor Hutchinson stated the following process would be followed: to decide whether to consider Option A or Option B, to make a motion to adopt an Ordinance, to consider amendments (exemptions) and to vote on the Ordinance as amended. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to consider the Option B package to provide for equal transportation and parks maintenance fees. City Attorney Roy stated adoption of the motion would not result in adoption of the Ordinance. Mayor Hutchinson stated the motion was to identify the package to be discussed. Councilmember Ohlson stated he would not support the motion because he preferred Option A. Mayor Hutchinson stated this would determine the"path"rather than the merits of the path that was to be discussed. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Manvel, Ohlson and Roy. THE MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Hutchinson stated the discussion would focus on Option B and the next motion should be to adopt the Ordinance so that the exemptions could be discussed. City Attorney Roy stated this would be a motion to adopt Option B of Ordinance No. 184, 2006 relating to the TMF with whatever exemptions the maker of the motion wanted to include. If the motion received a second and if there were amendments(exemptions or otherwise)those should be considered in order before a final vote was taken on the motion to adopt the Ordinance. Councilmember Kastein asked for staff s recommendation on making up the dollar amount if an exemption was included for places of worship and private schools. City Manager Atteber y stated staff had discussed this. Turnquist stated if Council adopted Option B the fees could be increased slightly to recover an additional amount of money without exceeding the program cost. This would 447 November 7, 2006 mean increasing the residential TMF by about 15¢ per dwelling unit to cover the cost of the additional exemptions. Staff would have to come back with the exact dollar amount on Second Reading. If Council adopted Option A any adjustments would have to be done in the parks maintenance fee rather than the transportation maintenance fee. Councilmember Manvel stated Council had received information in the "read before" packet showing that adding the additional exemptions would add 5¢ extra in TMF per month. Turnquist stated this would also increase the fees for the non-residential properties as well. Councilmember Kastein asked if the definitions for "place of worship" and "private school" correlated with State law. City Attorney Roy stated staff wrote the definitions and noted the State law would go further than he understood the Council wanted to go. Two provisions of Article X of the State Constitution created exemptions from taxes and the Council was not bound to those same exemptions. There was an exemption for governmental entities, which was similar to what was included in the fee Ordinance, and there was another exemption for property used for religious or charitable purposes. Under the City Ordinance the exemption for places of worship was not characterized as property used for religious purposes, which would be a broader definition. If Council wanted to broaden the definition the staff needed to clearly understand Council's intent i.e., whether to include church-sponsored schools as well as places of worship, other kinds of church- related or religious activities, etc. The definition in the Ordinance was limited to properties where the central purpose was the place of worship itself. Council needed to decide if that definition was broad enough. Councilmember Kastein stated the definitions in the Ordinance "seemed broad as they are." He asked what would distinguish a"place of worship"from an individual's house being used as a"place of worship" and what would distinguish a"private school" from an individual's house being used for home schooling. City Attorney Roy stated if someone was using a house as a temporary"place of worship" and the house was primarily used as a residence and occasionally used as a"place of worship"it would not qualify for the exemption. The same would be true of a house used as a home school. (**Secretary's Note: The Council took a recess at this point in the meeting.) Mayor Hutchinson stated the Council had decided by majority vote of the Council to consider and vote on Option B. He stated he would entertain a motion to adopt the Ordinance and noted the Council would not vote on the motion until it had considered any amendments. The motion to adopt the Ordinance could contain amendments relating to exemptions or any other amendments. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance No. 184,2006(Option B)on First Reading to establish a Transportation Maintenance Fee with government exemptions. City Attorney Roy requested clarification on the motion. Councilmember Weitkunat stated her intent was to adopt Option B with government exemptions only. 448 November 7, 2006 Mayor Hutchinson asked that the Council proceed to considering amendments. Councilmember Brown asked for clarification on the process for considering amendments. Mayor Hutchinson stated he would entertain amendments to change the exemptions and noted the motion on the floor was Option B with government exemptions. Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to amend the main motion to include exemptions for places of worship and private schools (Option B-1) and to raise the additional money by adjusting the fees for institutions that were not exempt from TMF. The vote on the motion to amend the main motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein and Ohlson. Nays: Councilmembers Manvel, Roy and Weitkunat. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Ohlson asked for clarification that there would be discussion on the parks maintenance fee. City Attorney Roy replied the parks fee had not yet been put on the table for discussion. Mayor Hutchinson noted Option B was abalance between the community parks maintenance fee and the transportation maintenance fee. Councilmember Brown made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to amend the main motion to direct the City Manager to present to the City Council on or before the last day of August preceding each budget term a report summarizing anticipated financial impact of discontinuing the fees imposed under this Ordinance and that within 30 days of receiving such report the City Council shall decide by majority vote whether the City Manager and City Attorney should prepare for Council's formal consideration an Ordinance repealing this Ordinance and terminating such fees. Councilmember Ohlson stated he did not understand the need for this because any Council could undo any fee at any time. It was an "unnecessary burden" to bring the matter back for a new discussion when in reality any Council could choose to do that through proper process. He would not support the motion. Councilmember Brown stated he made the motion because he believed there needed to be accountability to the voters. The fees were "supposed to fix a budget crisis" and the motion to amend should be adopted to "prove to the voters we are serious" that the fees were a"last resort." Future Councils should remember that"fees should not go on to the end of time." He questioned whether a City fee had ever been terminated. He wanted this to be looked at every two years to preserve accountability to the voters. Councilmember Roy stated there were no funding mechanisms for transportation and parks maintenance without these fees. He believed that Councilmember Brown's concern had already been addressed. 449 November 7, 2006 Councilmember Weitkunat stated this fee would help "fix this budget" and would help"fix future budgets." Mechanisms needed to be in place to maintain streets and parks because of"dwindling" sales tax dollars. The City needed to diversify its methods of receiving dollars and that fees were a legitimate way to do that. Every Council had the option to eliminate fees and this was a good means of"checks and balances." The fee review would bring the matter of fees to the forefront. Councilmember Manvel stated a diversification of the City's income was a positive step because the City had been too dependent on sales tax. If the City had"extra money"the Council could decide what source of income should go away. The"financial crisis"had resulted in"better government." He hoped that any time fees were not necessary the Council would remove the fees. Councilmember Kastein supported the motion to amend. It was a"small thing"to ask for a report in a couple of years to allow the Council to determine if the fee should be continued. There were "lots of problems"with the fee because City residents would be the ones paying. A sales tax meant that everyone paid. It was legitimate to demand accountability for this new fee. Councilmember Brown stated the Resolution on the fee review process had nothing to do with "eliminating fees"and related more to a"heads up"about fee increases. This Council would change in April and he did not want to see "business as usual." If a fee was imposed, the Council's job should be to eliminate those fees when the City was able to do so. Mayor Hutchinson stated he agreed that there needed to be accountability and fee reviews. Resolution 2006-109 set a Council policy relating to fee reviews. He believed that accountability would be part of the budget process and that the Council could at any time change or eliminate fees. The vote on the motion to amend the main motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown and Kastein. Nays: Councilmembers Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. THE MOTION FAILED TO PASS. The vote on the main motion as amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Ohlson and Roy. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance No. 185, 2006 (Option B)on First Reading to establish a community park maintenance fee. Councilmember Kastein stated he would likely not support the fee. It was important that everyone be on the "same page" about the budget as a whole. If that was not the case the budget as a whole needed to be evaluated. It was important that the Council unanimously support the imposition of the fees. He was not expecting the 5-2 vote on the last motion. 450 November 7, 2006 Councilmember Ohlson stated there were two readings and that the "point of record"would be on Second Reading. It had been unclear to him when there would be a discussion about the 60/40 split and he would have preferred that over the 70/30 split. There would be a balance between the TMF and the PMF but there would not be a balance between the residential and business fees. The discussion of the two options (A and B) was complicated with the exemptions. His preference would have been weighted toward the residential and away from the business and a 60/40 split. He understood the point that the Council should stay"united"on this. The likelihood of him voting yes on the Second Reading of the TMF was"high." Using a figure such as'$1.06" did not"build trust in government" and that fees should be"rounded at least to a quarter." He asked that staff look at an"appropriate and legal way"to round the fees. Before Second Reading of the parks fee he would like to have information on a"parks fee"rather than a"community or neighborhood parks fee." He would vote in favor of the motion that was on the table. Councilmember Manvel stated there would be changes due to inflation yearly and after a year the figure would no longer be"round"if there was a 7.1%increase. He agreed with the idea that there would be a"parks fee" instead of"community parks fee" if that was possible. The imposition of fees was difficult for all of the Councilmembers and it would be a "stretch" to have a unanimous decision. The Councilmembers may support a fee but not the particular choices made regarding options, exemptions or the"split." He noted there were many options and it would be difficult to get a majority vote on the "final product." Unanimity may not be possible on this issue. Councilmember Weitkunat stated there had been ongoing discussions about what the parks maintenance fee would address and it had been focused on community parks long ago. She expressed concern that this was being brought up again. There had been difficulties with the "details"even though there was support for the fee. There was no mechanism in place to generate revenue to cover parks maintenance even though it required"massive"amounts of revenue from the General Fund. A parks maintenance fee and transportation maintenance fee would provide a beginning to solve some of the revenue problems. There would be another opportunity to work on the problem at the time of discussion of assessing new parks coming on line. There were an "incredible" number of parks in the community that had an "incredible cost." Everyone in the community used the parks if only for"aesthetic reasons." It was important to move forward. She was not as concerned with a"disparity in the vote"because the reasons for voting against the fee were"very different than a lack of support." Mayor Hutchinson asked Councilmember Ohlson to clarify the information he would like to have before Second Reading. Councilmember Ohlson stated he would vote against this on First Reading and wanted some information that could help change his vote on Second Reading. He was not willing to vote yes because it was a "stretch" for him on some of the details and the 70/30 split for residential and business. He would like to call it a "parks fee" for "simplicity" and he did not think this would change anything about the fee. Mayor Hutchinson stated he thought that was a "legitimate question" to have answered before Second Reading. City Attorney Roy stated staff needed direction on whether to bring forward two options on Second Reading. 451 November 7, 2006 Mayor Hutchinson suggested that staff provide a memo before Second Reading to clarify the issues. City Attorney Roy stated he would appreciate an opportunity to have fonnal direction from the Council on what should come forward on Second Reading. A change in the title of the fee would mean a rewriting of the Ordinance. He needed direction on whether to bring forward a"community parks fee"or a"parks fee" Ordinance or two options. Mayor Hutchinson stated the vote would determine whether there was a Second Reading on the community parks fee. City Attorney Roy stated the policy was that if two Councilmembers wanted an option to be prepared that staff was to bring forward that option. Even if the majority vote was in favor of a"community parks fee" on First Reading two Councilmembers could request that an option be brought back on Second Reading for a"parks fee." Two Councilmembers had expressed an interest in the second option. Councilmember Weitkunat asked staff to clarify the difference between community parks and neighborhood parks and why the Ordinance specifically referred to "community parks." Marty Heffernan,CLRS Director, stated staff s opinion was that using the general term"parks fee"would provide some benefit because the funding could then be used for any type of parks maintenance. The focus was on"community parks"because it was easier to understand that the benefit of those parks was"widespread." There was a uniform distribution of neighborhood parks in the community i.e., about one per square mile. Both types of parks would benefit everyone in the community fairly uniformly. Mayor Hutchinson noted two Councilmembers were interested in the option of calling it a"parks fee." There was therefore sufficient Council interest to bring that back as an option for Council consideration on Second Reading. Councilmember Roy stated he appreciated Councilmember Kastein's concern about other Councilmembers'votes. It was important that Councilmembers be able to agree and disagree. There were fundamental issues with the TMF and the"last second add-ons"that were considered and it was "legitimate"to have concerns about those sorts of issues. It was most important for Councilmembers to vote in accordance with their beliefs on the Ordinance on First Reading. Councilmember Kastein stated his understanding was that before Second Reading"a lot of things could happen" including decisions to "not support either of these fees." He may want to suggest something different depending on the election results on the library district. There were still some "big picture"issues that could change before Second Reading. He would expect"unanimity"on the fees on Second Reading and if that were not possible a "completely different route" needed to be found. Councilmember Manvel stated the "huge windfall" the City was expected to have if the library district passed would be"down the road." The City would have a financial problem next year with or without a library district. Mayor Hutchinson stated the Leadership Team had begun discussions on the approach to be taken if the library district passed. It would be at least three months after January 1 before those monies 452 November 7, 2006 would not be needed for library transition. The Council should take time to look very carefully at all possible options and that a work session had been tentatively scheduled for discussions. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Roy. THE MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Hutchinson pointed out the enactment of fees was a "truly last resort" to balance the City budget and before the fees were considered efficiencies were found to make City government more cost effective in providing the same services. It was not a"gleeful thing"to have to enact new fees. Adjournment Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adjourn the meeting to November 14,2006 at 6:00 p.m. to conduct the annual performance reviews for the City Manager,City Attorney and Municipal Judge. Yeas:Councilmembers Brown,Hutchinson,Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 453 November 14,2006 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council-Manager Form of Government Adjourned Meeting- 6:00 p.m. An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday,November 14,2006,at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy. Executive Session Authorized Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adjourn into Executive Session under Subsection 2-3l(a)(1)(a) of the City Code for the purpose of conducting the annual performance reviews of the City Manager, Municipal Judge, and City Attorney, and to discuss their proposed compensation and benefits. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 454