Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 03/06/2007 - CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE N ITEM NUMBER: 6 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: March 6, 2007 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Wanda Krajicek SUBJECT Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the November 21 and the December 5,2006 Regular Meetings and the Adjourned Meeting of November 28, 2006. November 21, 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 21, 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 accepted the presentation of funds for the Inspiration Playground from ACT and the Colorado Eagles. Mayor Hutchinson accepted a special presentation of a model of Streetcar#21 to the City from the Fort Collins Municipal Railway Society. Agenda Review City Manager Atteberry announced Item #22, Items Relating to the Northwest Subarea Plan was rescheduled to December 5, 2006. Councilmember Kastein requested Item #18 Resolution 2006-119 Adopting the City's 2007 Legislative Policy Agenda, be pulled. CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Second 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 This Ordinance,unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 7,2006,appropriates a grant from the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization ("MPO") in the amount of $25,420. This grant is to develop the I-25/SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan. 7. Second Readine of Ordinance No. 179, 2006 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Recreation Fund to be Used for the Youth Pottery Program The City Recreation Division was recently awarded a matching grant from the Colorado 1 November 21, 2006 Council on the Arts in the amount of$7,030. This Ordinance,unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 7, 2006, appropriates $7,030 to support the Youth Pottery Program in 2006/2007 and authorizes the transfer of appropriations totaling $3,515 from the Recreation Fund 2006 operating budget to grant project budget, representing the required 2006 matching dollars. Grant matching funds for 2007 ($3,515) are included in the Recreation Fund 2007 budget. 8. Second 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. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 7, 2006, appropriates the grant money. 9. Postponement of Second 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 to December 5. 2006 In 1984, the City issued $35,000,000 of pollution control revenue bonds for the Anheuser- 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. Ordinance No. 182, 2006, authorizing and approving the issuance and sale of the bonds,was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 7,2006. Bond counsel for Anheuser-Busch has requested this postponement in order to have additional time to finalize the documents associated with this refinancing and to schedule closing dates. 2 November 21, 2006 10. First Reading of Ordinance No 186 2006 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Proiects Fund - Inspiration Playground Capital Project to Be Used for Design and Construction of a Fully Accessible Playground for All Children at Spring Canyon Community Park. This totally accessible playground will ensure that children of all abilities will be able to play side-by-side. No child will be left out at this playground. The playground will have a rubberized surface for accessibility, enhanced play equipment that allows children to play together throughout the playground with unique sensory and audio features. The water splash park will be barrier-free for the enjoyment of all children. The community fund raising effort includes$250,000 in matching money from the Colorado Eagles, a$200,000 Great Outdoors Colorado grant, and numerous donations from citizens, businesses and community organizations. 11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 187,2006,Designating 133-137 South College Avenue(the North Half of the Colorado Building) as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Ci , Code. The owner of the property, Ida Siegel, through her son Ed Siegel, as attorney-in-fact, is initiating this request for Local Landmark designation for 133-137 South College Avenue, the north half of the Colorado Building. The building has individual significance to Fort Collins under Landmark Preservation Standards (1), (2), and(3). 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 188, 2006 Authorizing the Acceptance of a Donation of .901 Acres of Real Property from Calvin C. and Lois Johnson and Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Project Fund — Timberline Road Widening Project 305-23270. The Timberline Road Widening Project required the fee simple acquisition of.464 acres and various easements on a 1.365 acre property located just south of Spring Creek on the westerly side of Timberline Road, which was owned by Calvin and Lois Johnson. These interests were to be used for the interim construction of the Timberline Road improvements. City staff successfully negotiated and acquired the necessary interests for the project and an integral part of the agreement was that the Johnsons would donate the remainder of their property that will be needed in approximately ten years when the City of Fort Collins constructs the ultimate improvements to Timberline Road. 13. Resolution2006-114FindingSubstantialComplianceandInitiatingAnnexationProceedings for the Plank PLD & PD Annexation. This is a 100% voluntary annexation. The applicant, Stanley K. Everitt, on behalf of the property owners, Leonard and Barbara Plank, has submitted a written petition requesting annexation of 17.35 acres located at the southeast corner of Kechter Road and Ziegler Road. The property is developed as a single-family residence with outbuildings and is in the FA-1 3 November 21, 2006 Farming District in Larimer County.The requested zoning for this annexation is LMN-Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. The area to be annexed is the entirety of an enclaved property that has been surrounded by the City of Fort Collins for more than three(3)years. The surrounding properties are currently zoned LMN - Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood in the City to the north, south, east, and west. 14. Resolution 2006-115 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Liberty Farms Annexation. The applicant/consultant,Vignette Studios(c/o Don Tiller),on behalf of the property owners, Kevin W. Frazier and Michael P. O'Donnell, has submitted a written petition requesting annexation of 22.32 acres located on the east side of North Timberline Road at the Larimer & Weld Canal, approximately 1/4 to 1/3 mile north of East Vine Drive. The property contains two (2) existing single-family residences and agricultural land. It is in the FAl - Farming District in Larimer County.The requested zoning for this annexation is LMN-Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. The surrounding properties are currently zoned LMN- Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood and MMN - Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood in the City to the north,LMN—Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood in the City to the west,FA 1 -Farming in Larimer County to the east,and FA 1 -Farming in Larimer County to the south. 15. Resolution 2006-116 Authorizingthe he City to Enter into Change Orders With Feslburg Holt &Ullevig to Amend an Existing Agreement to Advance the City's Funding Request For the Mason Transportation Corridor Project to the Federal Transit Administration. This Resolution will authorize the Purchasing Agent to amend the existing agreement, by change order, with the consulting firm of Felsburg Holt & Ullevig, to include additional work tasks necessary to complete the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Assessment of the Mason Transportation Corridor Project. This work is necessary to advance the City's funding request for the Mason Transportation Corridor project to the Federal Transit Administration. Change order#3 will be executed in November 2006 and change order#4 will be executed in March 2007. 16. Resolution 2006-117 Agreeing to Act as a Reviewing Entity for Properties Located Within the Downtown Development Authority Boundaries for the State Income Tax Credit Program for Oualif ring Rehabilitation Projects. This Resolution states the City of Fort Collins chooses to be a reviewing entity for the Colorado Historic Preservation Income Tax Credit within the Downtown Development Authority boundaries during the next calendar year. 4 November 21, 2006 17. Resolution 2006-118 Establishine the Fort Collins Regional Library District and Appointing Two Members of City Council to Serve on a Committee to Select Candidates for the Board of Trustees of the District. The citizen initiative to form and fund the Fort Collins Regional Library District was approved by the voters on November 7. Pursuant to the Colorado Library Law,the City and County must establish the District forthwith and provide for its financial support no later than January 1, 2007. The Colorado Library Law also requires the City Council to appoint two of its members to a committee that will select the initial board of trustees (the Selection Committee). The County Commissioners must appoint two Commissioners to the Committee. Trustees selected by the Committee must be ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Council and a two-thirds majority of the Commissioners. The Council and Commissioners must act on the Committee's recommendation within 60 days or the recommended trustees are automatically ratified. The Selection Committee,with approval of the Council and Commissioners,must decide if there will be five,six or seven trustees. The initial appointments for the trustees(set by state law) must be for terms of one, two, three, four, and five years respectively. If there are six trustees, two will have five year terms. If there are seven trustees, two will have four year terms and two will have five year terms. Thereafter, the length and number of terms is determined by the District by-laws. Trustees may only be removed by a majority vote of the Council and the Commissioners upon a showing of good cause. Once the District Board of Trustees is established, state law requires an intergovernmental agreement(IGA)between the City, the County and the trustees must be effected within 90 days. The IGA must determine the rights, obligations, and responsibilities, financial and otherwise, of the parties to the agreement. This Resolution appoints Councilmembers Ben Manvel and Karen Weitkunat to the Committee to Select Candidates for the Board of Trustees of the Fort Collins Regional Library District. 18. Resolution 2006-119 Adopting the City's 2007 Legislative Policy A eg nda. Each year the Legislative Review Committee(LRC)develops a legislative agenda to assist in the analysis of pending legislation. The proposed 2007 Legislative Policy Agenda has been updated from the 2006 document and was reviewed and approved by the Legislative Review Committee. This document will be used as a guide for the upcoming 2006 General Assembly and the first session of the I 1 Oth Congress. The purpose of the Legislative Policy Agenda is to articulate the City's position on common legislative topics. It will be applied by Council members and staff to determine positions on pending legislation and as a general reference for state legislators and our congressional delegation. ***END CONSENT*** 5 November 21, 2006 Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 6. Second 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. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 179,2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Recreation Fund to be Used for the Youth Pottery Program. 8. Second 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. 23. Second 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. 24. Second 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. 25. Items Relating to the Adoption of a Transportation Maintenance Fee and a Community Park Maintenance Fee. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 184, 2006, Amending Chapter 7.5 of the City Code to Establish a Transportation Maintenance Fee. (Option B-1 from First Reading) B. Second Reading ofOrdinance No 185,2006,Amending Chapter 7.5 of the City Code to Establish a Community Park Maintenance Fee. (Options B-1 and B-2) 26. Second Reading of 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 Levy for Fiscal Year 2007. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 186, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund - Inspiration Playground Capital Project to Be Used for Design and Construction of a Fully Accessible Playground for All Children at Spring Canyon Community Park. 11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 187,2006,Designating 133-137 South College Avenue(the North Half of the Colorado Building) as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. 6 November 21, 2006 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 188, 2006, Authorizing the Acceptance of a Donation of .901 Acres of Real Property from Calvin C. and Lois Johnson and Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Project Fund — Timberline Road Widening Project 305-23270. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, 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 Brown requested information whether there was any increased penalty for destruction of historical markings in downtown. City Manager Atteberry responded he did not believe there were any extra penalties for destroying downtown historical landmarks but he would follow up with Police Services and the City Attorney to see if it was possible to increase those penalties. There is a Graffiti Hotline to report graffiti the public was encouraged to use. Councilmember Weitkunat spoke regardingltem#17Establishing the Fort Collins Regional Library District and Appointing Two Members of City Council to Serve on a Committee to Select Candidates for the Board of Trustees of the District, noting the process is just beginning and she and Councilmember Manvel had been asked to serve on the committee, as well as two county commissioners. Citizens were encouraged to follow the process closely. Councilmember Kastein noted the appointees for the Library District Trustees would be approved by Council and requested the application process be as open as possible. He spoke regarding Item #10 FirstReading ofOrdinanceNo. 186, 2006,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund-Inspiration Playground Capital Project to be Used for Design and Construction of a Fully Accessible Playground forAll Children at Spring Canyon Community Park to commend all who gave private contributions of $720,000, including $250,000 from the Eagles Foundation, $200,000 from Great Outdoors Colorado, and $270,000 from All Children Together (ACT) fund raising efforts. Development impact fees in the amount of$475,000 were collected, as well, so the playground was a collaborative effort of business,developers and individual citizens. He also spoke regarding Item #15 Resolution 2006-116 Authorizing the City to Enter into Change Orders with Feslburg Holt& Ullevig to Amend an Existing Agreement to Advance the City's Funding Request for the Mason Transportation Corridor Project to the Federal TransitAdministration to request that information on future capital projects updates to include schedules and costs and whether the project is meeting projections or is coming in either under or over projections so Council could know whether there was overspending or underspending or exactly on target. He requested the last report on the capital update of the Mason Transportation Corridor. 7 November 21, 2006 Staff Reports City Manager Atteberry stated Fleet Services Division recently completed an extensive testing process that showed the City's fleet is among one of the most cost-effective fleets in North America. Fleet Services went through a rigorous fleet certification program and qualified as an industry- competitive fleet management operation. The Vehicle Replacement Program and Alternative Fuel Vehicle Program, Fleet Utilization Program, which uses a committee to oversee the fleet size, and upgraded Fleet Management software technology were some successful programs recognized by the certification from Fleet Counselor Services, Inc. (FCS). Ken Marmon was publicly acknowledged for his leadership over many years in Operation Services. Councilmember Reports Mayor Hutchinson reported on the Mayor's Institute for Community Design held in Austin, Texas. He also reported he has been invited to be a Director on the Colorado Climate Project, a public/private project,which is a year-long,bipartisan effort to look at actions that should be taken regarding climate change. Three Fort Collins citizens, Tony Frank of CSU, Brian Moeck, General Manager,Platte River Power Authority, and Judy Dorsey, executive secretary of the Clean Energy Cluster and CEO, Brindle Company, were chosen as members of the Blue Ribbon Panel, the main leadership group of the Colorado Climate Project. Mayor Hutchinson reported on the first annual Urban Design Awards that recognized architectural design work done in Fort Collins, including the"green"building,the Lofts, and the work done on alleyways such as Trimble Court. 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.Adopted on Second Reading The following is the staff memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 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 theproperty. The Wastewater Utility will also transfer $400,000 from budgeted contingency funds to capital project for odor control. Ordinance No. 180, 2006, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 7, 2006, appropriates these funds. " 8 November 21, 2006 Brain Janonis, Water Resources and Treatment Services Manager, stated this odor control project results from long term plans to control odors at the edge of the 1000-foot buffer that has been adopted around the wastewater treatment plant. Cost increases have occurred, requiring this appropriation. Councilmember Ohlson stated information provided by staff indicated$12.2 million was needed for odor control and asked where funding for these projects comes from and questioned why such a huge increase in funds was necessary. Janonis stated the funding comes primarily through wastewater rates to fund the costs of odor control. Councilmember Ohlson asked what is the impact of this on each household's monthly water bill. Mike Smith, Utilities General Manager, stated it was probably 3%to 4% of the wastewater cost. Councilmember Ohlson asked for reasons why this was such an expensive project. Janonis stated staff had studied the odors and picked the most cost-effective technology to treat odors which keeps O&M costs from increasing. Greater odor control is being pursued since development has gotten closer to the plant and there are more odor complaints. Councilmember Ohlson asked if wastewater rates will be increasing at a greater rate. Smith answered in the negative and stated funding was included in long-term projections for capital projects. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance No. 180,2006 on Second Reading. Yeas:Councilmembers Brown,Hutchinson,Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. 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.Adopted on Second Reading The following is the staff memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 7, 2006, 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). 9 November 21, 2006 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. " City Manager Atteberry stated staff was available to answer any questions. Councilmember Brown asked if the fees would be reduced since the regional Library District had passed. Marty Heffernan, Executive Director of CLRS, stated the impact fees could still be collected,but how they will be utilized once the District is providing library services has yet to be determined. Council will need to provide direction to staff. Fees would not be reduced as the inflationary increase included in the ordinance provides sufficient funding to offset the impacts of new residents to the City. The money is used to buy books and materials based on existing levels of service and to provide new library space. This money will be used to build the new southeast branch library that the District will operate. City Attorney Roy noted the City Code states the fee will be increased annually to reflect inflation and the ordinance implements what the Code says. Council will retain the ability to impose this kind of fee,notwithstanding the existence of the Library District, as long as the City has an IGA that puts the fees to work for the benefit of the residents of the city. The choice of continuing the fee will be up to Council. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if a discussion on amending the City Code regarding having a Capital Expansion Fee that builds money for the library could be held at a different time. City Attorney Roy answered in the affirmative. New development will continue to have an impact on all capital facilities and, depending on the arrangement worked out with the Library District, Council may wish to continue the fee in recognition of the impact of new development on libraries and, through the IGA with the Library District, work out the way in which those fees are expended. City Manager Atteberry stated even if this Ordinance did not pass, the impact fees would continue to be collected at the previous rate and the rates would not increase. Councilmember Kastein asked if this Ordinance did not pass,then would the City be in violation of the City Code. City Manager Atteberry answered in the affirmative. Councilmember Kastein asked if the Library District has the ability to collect impact fees. City Attorney Roy stated the question could be asked of the Library District's attorney but he did not believe there was statutory authority for a library district to do so. Councilmember Kastein stated the parkland fee was used to buy parks for which no operations and maintenance funding is available. Marty Heffernan, Executive Director of CLRS, stated the issue would be addressed in the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan Update that is underway. A consultant has been hired to help with the public outreach process and a process for developing alternatives and options and information. It will be a few months before the Update is completed. 10 November 21, 2006 City Attorney Roy stated the action tonight was not discretionary unless the Code was amended. Section 7.5-18 of the Code states the impact fees will be increased annually according to the Denver Boulder Consumer Price Index so this ordinance implements the increase by changing the amounts that appear in the Code. If Council wished to change the Code so that the increase became discretionary, a different ordinance would be necessary to amend the Code. Councilmember Manvel made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Roy,to adopt Ordinance No. 183, 2006 on Second Reading. Councilmember Kastein stated that,while he raised the question of the City buying parkland and not being able to operate and maintain the parks, he was supportive of parks in the City but the discussion was necessary to address the problem. Councilmember Manvel stated the Library Impact Fee currently in place will enable the Library District to build a Southeast Branch Library. These impact fees enable the City to save up money to build needed facilities and the increase for inflation is necessary to prevent huge increases in fees. This is an example of good governance. The vote on the motion 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, Ordinance No. 184, 2006,Defeated on Second Readine Ordinance No. 185, 2006, Defeated on Second Readin¢ The following is the staff memorandum on this item. "FINANCL4L 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 $3.15 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 City Parks. Transportation Park Maintenance Fee Maintenance Fee Total New Revenue $1,736,568 $1,686,722 $3,423,290 Exemptions $<272,835> n/a $<272,835> Net Revenue $ 1 463 733 $1 686 722 $3 150 455 11 November 21, 2006 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 184, 2006, Amending Chapter 7.5 of the City Code to Establish a Transportation Maintenance Fee. (Option B-1 from First Reading) B. Second Reading of Ordinance No 185, 2006, Amending Chapter 7.5 of the City Code to Establish a Community Park Maintenance Fee. (Options B-1 and B-2) On November 7, 2006, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 184, 2006 on First Reading by a vote of 5-2 (Nays: Ohlson, Roy). Ordinance No. 185, 2006 was adopted on First Reading by a vote of 6-1 (Nays: Roy). The Transportation Maintenance Fee (TMF) would be applied to all properties, including residential and non-residential properties, with $1.06/month applied to residential properties. The Community Park Maintenance Fee(CPMF)would be applied to each residence in the City in the amount of$2.67 per month. Fees will be added to utility bills beginning in January 2007, The monthly TMF fee will be applied according to the following schedule: Transportation Maintenance Fees Institutional $ 16.44 Per Acre Industrial $ 13.09 Per Acre High Traffic Retail $125.11 Per Acre Retail $ 51.65 Per Acre Commercial $ 16.44 Per Acre Residential $ 1.06 Per Dwelling Unit Total new fees (TMF and CPMF) to residences will be $3.72 per month. The new fees will add$3.15 million in new revenue to the City's resources in 2007 and balance the 2007 Budget. BACKGROUND On First Reading on November 7, 2006, City Council approved the establishment of a Transportation Maintenance Fee and a Community Park Maintenance Fee. Ifapproved on Second Reading, the fees will be effective on utility bills issued after January 1, 2007. Council selected an option to create the two fees with approximately equal revenues. Council also voted to implement the TMF with exemptions for governments,public and private schools (K-12) and places of worship. The proposed TMF rates will be adjusted to increase the net revenue to accommodate all exemptions. 12 November 21, 2006 Transportation Maintenance Fee The establishment ofa TMFwould provide supplementalfunding to maintain city streets,bike lanes, medians(excluding landscaping),and City-maintained sidewalks.Maintenance includes such work as keeping pavement surfaces in good condition, performing seal coats as needed, repairing potholes and cracks, repaving and other work to keep the City's transportation system safe. The fee would be applied to all non-exempt properties within the city limits, including residential properties and non-residential properties. The fee would be a flat dollar amountfor each residential dwelling unit, based on trip generation data for residential uses.A flatfee of$1.06per dwelling unit will be added to monthly utility bills. Non-residential properties will be assessed the fee based on various categories of use and the trip generation characteristics of those categories. Transportation Maintenance Fees Institutional $ 16.44 Per Acre Industrial $ 13.09 Per Acre High Traffic Retail $125.11 Per Acre Retail $ 51.65 Per Acre Commercial $ 16.44 Per Acre Residential $ 1.06 Per Dwelling Unit The net savings to the General Fund from enacting the TMF would be $1,463,733, after utility billing costs, exemptions, rebates and bad debts. The fee of$1.06 per month or$12.72 per year per residential dwelling unit will appear on City utility bills produced after January 1, 2007. Nonresidential fees would be calculated based on a formula which includes trip generation data by land use type and acreage. The fee will be adjusted annually for inflation based on the Denver—Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price Index and as directed by City Council. The fee will 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 cutfees. The total cost of the street maintenance program in 2007 is projected to be over$9 million. Community Park Maintenance Fee The Council directed staff to provide two options for Second Reading of the Park Maintenance Fee Ordinance. The implementation of the CPMF as originally drafted (Option B-1) would support maintenance of the City's community park system. The implementation of Option B-2 would fund maintenance of neighborhood parks as well as community parks. The fee will be imposed on all residential dwelling units as defined in the attached ordinance. A flat fee of$2.67 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 parks.Maintenance includes, but is not limited to maintenance ofall landscaped areas,facilities and 13 November 21, 2006 infrastructure,administration, and minor capital improvements as needed to keep the parkfacilities in safe and usable condition for the general public. 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$1.67 per month or$32.04 per year will appear on City utility bills produced after January 1, 2007. The fee will 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. Rebates A rebate program will be established to offset the impact of the new fees on low-income residents. Residents will 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 will 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 will be$44.76 per low-income household. 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. On November 7, Council voted to provide exemptions from the TMF for places of worship and private schools (K-11). EXEMPTION COSTS Transportation Maintenance Fee Public Schools $132,029 Government $ 77,987 Places of Worship $57,494 Private Schools $5,325 Grand Total $272,835 The final ordinance will include exemptions for government and public school properties as well as places of worship and private (k-12)schools. The total cost of all exemptions will be $272,835." 14 November 21, 2006 Mayor Hutchinson stated the discussion time would cover the transportation maintenance fee, community park maintenance fee and the 2007 budget as the items were related. City Manager Atteberry recognized Council, staff and board and commission members for the hard work done to bring forward the budget. He stated the City has faced several years of significant budget problems,beginning in 2001. It directly related to the September 11 th crisis,internet sales, and a significantly changing economy. One of Council's Policy goals was to increase the financial stability of the City and not fill gaps with one-time revenues but to balance the 2007 budget and create long-term financial stability for the City. Significant budget cuts had been made of$11 million; $8 million in costs have been avoided by employee compensation freezes over the past several years; and 110 City employee positions have been eliminated in the past two years. Last spring, a$5.8 million shortfall was projected in the City's General Fund Budget for 2007. In addition to the budget gap, other strategic service adjustments were identified and included in the amended 2007 budget, such as additional Transfort fixed-route service and altering Dial-A-Ride services, requiring an additional $1.1 million in 2007. The total funding gap of$7.9 million was addressed by(1) further pursuing organizational efficiencies; (2) looking at services provided and deciding whether to reduce or eliminate services; and (3) looking at new revenue. Some examples of organizational efficiencies were the Information Technology consolidation which saved$250,000,review of take-home policies and leave policies,lease consolidation ofcity facilities throughout the community,implementation of a performance measurement program,and electronic time sheets. Employee compensation was reduced by$1 million that resulted in the elimination of merit base pay increases for all City employees. The commitment to the pavement management program was reduced by$700,000,Dial-A-Ride was reduced by$600,000,and other cuts were made to parks and recreation and the library. Some budget additions included an increased investment to fixed-route services, manufacturers' use tax rebate program, natural gas cost increases, and additional costs related to the Phase I of the Southwest Annexation. New fee revenue would come from the Transportation Maintenance Fee and the Parks Maintenance Fee,approved on First Reading on November 7. It was estimated the two fees would generate$3.15 million in 2007. The purpose of the new fees was to achieve long-term financial stability and sustainability. The City organization could not continue to be so heavily dependent on sales and use tax,as it had been in the past. Those taxes were too volatile and unpredictable as a revenue source. About 60% of the budget is from sales and use tax. The fees represented a more stable and predictable funding source for long-term services the City provides. With the passage of the Library District measure, the City will phase out its provision of library services. The annual General Fund allotment of$3.3 million could be reappropriated for other needs. The potential uses of the resources that support the City Library were not considered during the 2007 budget dialog, at Council's request. While using the funding for library services and not enacting the fees has been suggested to fill the budget shortfall, City Manager Attebery recommended adopting the fees to put the City in a stronger financial position than it has been in since 2001. 15 November 21, 2006 There were three options relating to the fees. (1) Do not adopt the fees and close the General Fund gap with the library funds. (2) Adopt the fees and place the revenues in reserves for the 2008-09 budget needs. (3) Adopt either one or both fees. Many expenses are anticipated in 2007-09 that are currently unfimded, including Dial-A-Ride services, expanded police and fire services, future phases of the Southwest Enclave Annexation to provide public safety,remodeling the Police Services building once Police Services moves into its new facility,and the Mason Corridor Project,which will require a local match of$1 million in 2007. Employee compensation needs to be addressed. Mayor Hutchinson stated each audience participant would have three minutes to speak. The following people spoke against cutting funding for Dial-A-Ride: Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb Michael Devereaux, 2150 Maid Marian Court Teresa McClain, 1508 West Elizabeth Susan Williams, 400 Impala Circle Nancy Jackson, 3249 Silverthorne Dave McDanal, 143 West 2nd Street, Loveland Tracy Mueller, 1020 Rolland Moore Drive, probation officer for Larimer County Litsa Tanner, 620 Mathews Street, Disabled Resource Services Robin Sager, 1600 West Plum Street, CSU student Moe Adl, 3918 Moss Creek Drive Jenny Shock, 2604 Mount Ouray Street, Wellington Laura Burnett, 1807 Effingham Street Shelbi Mestas, 127 North Meldrum Don Silar, 5220 Griffith Drive Vivian Armendariz, 820 Merganser Drive Paul Rosenzweig, 112 Rutgers Mark Settle, 703 Glenmoor Drive Toni Lueck, 2400 North Taft Hill Road Andrea Advill, Fort Collins resident, spoke against the TMF and supported Dial-A-Ride Tim Walsh, 2012 Coastal Court Cheryl Distaso, 135 South Sunset Street Deanna Brookhouser, 6537 Westbourne Circle Yvonne Longacre, 1550 Blue Spruce Drive Dan Palmer, 620 Matthews Street Chris Campbell,222 South Whitcomb Street,spoke on behalf of the Fort Collins Board of Realtors, and urged Council to vote against the parks maintenance fee and transportation maintenance fee. With the passage of the library district, the fees are no longer necessary. Eric Kronwall,1119 Monticello Court, stated he did not support the parks maintenance fee or the transportation maintenance fee. 16 November 21, 2006 Bruce Hall, Fort Collins resident, spoke in support of the TMF and PMF as well as Dial-A-Ride. ("Secretary's note: Council took a recess at this point in the meeting.) Councilmember Brown stated a Task Force meeting on Dial-A-Ride was scheduled for December 7th and encouraged all citizens to attend. Councilmember Weitkunat asked whether there was a rebate provided from Medicaid for each Dial- A-Ride trip. Marlys Sittner,Transfort/Dial-A-Ride General Manager,stated a small number of trips provided were paid for by Medicaid which pays a flat fee,based on whether the person is ambulatory or non-ambulatory and whether it was a medical or non-medical trip. The rate paid by Medicaid varies between $12 and $15. Each trip costs the City about $22/trip. The Medicaid payments and passenger faze revenues account for$2/trip. Each trip has a$20 cost that is paid for by General Fund money, with a portion paid by federal grants. Councilmember Weitkunat clarified that these funds have always been included in the calculations of the Dial-A-Ride costs, but never been singled out. Sittner answered in the affirmative. Councilmember Weitkunat stated the discussion about Dial-A-Ride in recent months included different alternatives. One alternative was to keep the status-quo for six months so alternatives would be on the table. Mayor Hutchinson stated cutting Dial-A-Ride meant people outside the city limits would not be served. Because of ADA requirements and the three-quarter mile limit, some areas within the city limits would not be served. He asked about the costs and implications of not providing Dial-A-Ride services to people who live in the county, and instead providing services to all who live within the city limits. Don Bachman,Interim Transportation Services Manager,stated that to provide daytime Dial-A-Ride service to ADA-eligible people outside of the proposed new Dial-A-Ride area,but up to the city limits, the estimate for daytime Dial-A-Ride service was $120,000/year as an ongoing cost. Councilmember Ohlson stated he supported a six-month grace period for everyone currently served by Dial-A-Ride and a permanent grandfathering of existing clients within city limits. Bachman stated the cost amount of$120,000/year was based on current city limits. Any expansion of city limits by annexation would increase the cost as ridership increased. Councilmember Ohlson stated one option might be to grandfather those who live in the GMA so people currently served who live in the GMA would be still be eligible when they were annexed into the City. People have made life choices and live inside the city and may not now be serviced. However,"status quo"is not likely to continue in Dial-A-Ride. The goal is to minimize the hardship to these citizens. There are increasing demands and limited resources. Bachman stated there were 84 current registered Dial-A-Ride users who reside outside the proposed coverage area. To serve those for an additional six months would cost $60,000, beginning January 1. Of the 84 registered 17 November 21, 2006 riders, 57 reside within the city limits. To continue those on an ongoing basis would cost $84,000/year. City Manager Atteberry asked what the cost would be to extend the current service for six months and for one year. Bachman responded the cost is estimated to be$500,000 for one year, assuming some growth in ridership. Services would remain the same, including the same eligibility requirements, evening service and discounted fares. Councilmember Manvel asked if the differences in costs quoted- $84,000/year and$500,00/year- were due to the cost of providing evening service and eligiblity requirements that would be changing under the new proposals. Bachman answered in the affirmative. Calculations were based on destinations within the service area, not serving people who live outside the service area to destinations that are outside the service area. Bachman made a correction to the figure previously given and stated the cost of$500,000 to continue services at the current level would be the cost for six months and the cost for one year would be $1 million. Sittner stated the budget contained $600,000 for service beyond the ADA mandate. A total of$1.1 million of additional funds would be needed to continue services at the current level for 2007. Councilmember Manvel asked for clarification of the amount needed to stay at status quo and to continue evening service and the same eligibility requirements and destinations that are currently in place and what is proposed to be spent on Dial-A-Ride in the 2007 Budget. Sittner stated $1.75 million is currently in the 2007 Budget as presented. To continue services exactly as is currently being provided, $2.23 million in funding would be needed. Councilmember Manvel stated the main part of Dial-A-Ride would continue to exist. The City would be spending considerably more on public transportation in next year's budget if the current proposal goes forward than would be spent with the program staying at status quo. Sittner stated Dial-A-Ride is not being eliminated but the level of service is being reduced. The additional three new routes and all of the Dial-A-Ride service that would go with those routes can be covered for $1.1 million or the status quo can continue, with no new fixed routes. Councilmember Manvel stated there are people in the City who, while not covered by ADA requirements,need public transportation to get around the city since they do not own automobiles. The new routes will expand the number of people served by Transfort. Mayor Hutchinson asked staff whether or not options such as partnering with Shamrock Taxi as a form of public/private partnership, would be considered. Bachman stated as long as fixed route services are being provided, the City is obligated to provide the ADA minimum of paratransit service. It is too soon to tell how the non-profit community will respond to this need. Shamrock Taxi has stated it would continue to provide taxi service and has the capability to transport nonambulatory fares at a rate set by the company. The City could develop a voucher system so citizens could receive a reduced fare,but those details have not been worked out. The City currently contracts with Shamrock Taxi for some of the services provided and some money is saved per trip. The cost of Dial-A-Ride is much more than just the operator and the vehicle. Dispatching, 18 November 21, 2006 maintenance,qualifying of passengers and the organization are all costs of the Dial-A-Ride system, not just the operator and vehicle. Mayor Hutchinson stated dispatching costs and the people who had to be on duty supporting the one driver made a significant difference in the cost for nighttime Dial-A-Ride. City Manager Atteberry noted the owner of Shamrock Taxi stated he could provide that service cheaper than what it costs the City to provide. The City needs to explore the possibility of privatization of the system but needs to ensure reliability, customer service, and the quality of service. Other opportunities should be pursued, such as faith-based organizations, not-for-profits or for-profit organizations. Councilmember Kastein asked staff to explain what are minimum ADA requirements. Sittner stated ADA minimum level of service would be 3/4 of a mile on either side of any fixed routes, whether existing or the proposed three new routes; all trips would begin and end within that service area; hours of service would be the same as for fixed route hours of service, from approximately 6 AM to approximately 7 PM; fares would be no more than fixed-route price so the fares would be$2.50; only people who have a disability that prevents them from using fixed route would be eligible for Dial-A-Ride trips. Councilmember Kastein asked if grandfathering the 84 current registered Dial-A-Ride users who reside outside the proposed coverage area meant providing service from 6 AM to 7 PM for$2.50/trip for people with disabilities for six months for$60,000. Sittner stated that was correct,if the 84 had disabilities that prevented them from using the fixed routes. Councilmember Kastein clarified $84,000 is the cost for providing services for one year to the 57 people who live within city limits,but outside the three-quarter/mile limit. Bachman stated that was correct. Councilmember Kastein asked what portion of the$1.1 million for the proposed new routes was for paratransit. Sittner stated $355,000 would be spent on Dial-A-Ride. Councilmember Kastein asked for an estimate of the cost of not adding new fixed routes, but providing paratransit service. Some people would use the fixed route service,but would also qualify for Dial-a-Ride service. Sittner stated that cost had not been estimated. Part of the consideration of costs was that, out of the 145 current Dial-A-Ride users that would live in the expanded Dial-A- Ride service area, the expectation was that they would have to have a disability preventing them from using the fixed route and,if they could use the fixed route,the expectation was that they would do so. The cost of additional trips if the additional fixed routes were not added had not been calculated. Councilmember Kastein asked if there would be much of an increase in cost over$355,000 if the new fixed routes are not added. Sittner stated grandfathering in the area without adding new fixed routes would increase the cost because there would be an increase in the number of trips. The $355,000 was based on the assumption some riders would use the fixed routes. 19 November 21, 2006 Councilmember Ohlson commented,that at this point there did not need to be resolution on the issue of grandfathering people who live in the GMA. The budget needed to contain a dollar figure that was high enough so staff can give details later. The budget needed to be adopted now with the intent to have a six-month grace period for everyone, including evening service, as alternatives are developed. The other intent was a permanent grandfathering of existing residents for Dial-A-Ride, according to the new rules and possibly adding people as they are annexed into the City,if they are current Dial-A-Ride users. He asked staff for an estimate to provide the services for six months. Mayor Hutchinson asked if the fees were not approved and the library funds were used instead, would that amount of money cover these costs of Dial-A-Ride. City Manager Atteberry stated he understood the request was to keep the status quo from January 1 through the end of June, with a cost quoted by staff of$550,000 so Council would need to find$550,000 to continue current service. Without the fees,current service cannot be continued unless one-time dollars are found to cover that cost. Using the library fees leaves a surplus of about $189,000 that Council could allot. Councilmember Manvel asked if the $189,000 included the possible savings of$60,000 from not starting all the new fixed routes on January 1 st. One proposal for Dial-A-Ride was to delay the start of two of the routes until March. Atteberry answered that amount was not included in the$189,000 so those might be additional funds to use. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she believed there was a general consensus to move to ADA standards,but there is an obligation to current users of Dial-A-Ride. The question of grandfathering centers around whether to bring in the 57 who reside within city limits or the 84 who are under the current program. If service is provided to those 84 who meet ADA requirements,the cost would be $122,000 in the 2007 budget and the cost would be ongoing. No new customers would be added. There was a sense of obligation to those who already use the service because there was somewhat of a promise from the past, but it is not a sustainable promise as more riders cannot be added and keep the service. Adjustments to Dial-A-Ride service must be made in order to meet ADA standards, but increasing costs cannot be borne by the City. Councilmember Manvel commented the figure of$122,000 did not include evening service and does not include destinations outside the 3/4 mile limit, such as Foothills Gateway. Councilmember Weitkunat stated ongoing discussions have to take place as the problem needs to be corrected. Councilmember Ohlson stated if six months of extending current service was not possible,then three months might be an option to offer a transition time. Reserves and one-time funds are available for the transition period. These funds would be for a one-time transition,not on-going,so reserves could be used for this purpose. City Manager Atteberry clarified there may be one-time dollars available to cover the cost of the proposed transition period and not dip into reserves. He strongly advised not using reserves for this type of service. The proposal to use one-time dollars to provide this bridge was a rational idea. 20 November 21, 2006 Councilmember Kastein stated he understood grandfathering to mean operating from 6 AM to 7 PM and cutting back to the minimum standards, except for allowing those who had been riding to continue to do so as long as they met the requirements. He questioned how Foothills Gateway did not fall under those requirements. Sittner answered she understood the discussion was about the 84 people who live outside the newly created service area. The expectation was they would be picked up and transported to destinations within the three-quarters of a mile service area. If people lived within the three-quarters of a mile service area, they would not be taken outside the service area. The Foothills Gateway facility is outside the three-quarters of mile limit, so it would not be a destination served. Councilmember Kastein asked for an estimate of the cost of providing rides to destinations such as Foothills Gateway. Sittner responded the cost,based on 2006 ridership,of taking trips to and from the Foothills Gateway facility was approximately$500,000 annually. Councilmember Weitkunat suggested that one of the areas needing more discussion was what other resources might be available. Six months did not seem to be a good option so three months might be a better time frame to work on transitions. Mayor Hutchinson stated there seemed to be a consensus to ask staff to use the$189,000 in ongoing dollars, along with using one-time dollars to fund a transition time. He asked whether that was adequate to pass thebudget,without actually designing the details ofmodifying Dial-A-Ride service. City Manager Atteberry stated using the$189,000 was a possibility and asked if it were to be used as if it were one-time dollars i.e., a short-time solution, or for an ongoing solution. Councilmember Kastein clarified the $189,000 was an on-going funding source and, if grandfathering occurred, that would also be on-going, as the cost was $120,000. City Manager Atteberry stated the cost of grandfathering was $120,000 and the on-going dollars are available to do so. It was Council's policy decision whether or not to fund the grandfathering. Councilmember Ohlson stated staff should work the numbers for solutions based on 3 to 6 months to develop a transition policy. Mayor Hutchinson stated if Council indicated it wanted to obligate those monies for those purposes, in general without details,then the needs of the budget will be satisfied and there would be time to work out the details. Councilmember Roy stated the six month time frame seemed a more realistic length of time to develop solutions as any shorter length of time would not allow the community time to help develop solutions. Mayor Hutchinson stated future discussions will resolve the question of length of time for a transition. General guidelines for budget purposes were all that was needed at this time. Councilmember Brown asked if the three fixed routes would be delayed with these proposals. City Manager Atteberry stated the Harmony Corridor Route would start as of January 1 and Timberline 21 November 21, 2006 and Prospect Routes would start around March 1 to allow time to acquire the capital,i.e.,the buses. By delaying the Timberline and Prospect Routes, about$60,000 in savings could be used anywhere in the budget. Councilmember Brown stated there was an urgent need for the Harmony Route but the other two routes did not seem as critical. He preferred delaying the two routes and using the funds for Dial-A- Ride. City Manager Atteberry asked if Councilmembers were discussing keeping Dial-A-Ride services at "status quo" or using a "narrowed-down" version to provide service for six months. If"status quo"is being discussed,then the cost was$550,000. There is$189,000 available,but there is a gap of$361,000 of one-time money, assuming a six-month window. If that was Council's direction, those funds may or may not be available. Councilmember Roy stated he was considering a"narrowed-down"version as a basis for services for the next six months. City Manager Atteberry clarified that the definition of a"narrowed-down" version of services would mean within city boundaries, not including the GMA. Councilmember Ohlson stated he believed it included the GMA and evening service to provide the transition people needed to learn to go without the evening service. Evening service was going away so the transition had to include evening service and the GMA. If the time frame needed to be narrowed to fit the budget, that should be done,but the transition time should include riders in the GMA and evening service. Councilmember Kastein asked if$120,000/year would cover the cost of providing service to the GMA and evening service. Bachman stated $120,000 does not cover evening service. Currently evening service goes to 2:30 AM on Fridays and Saturdays. Councilmember Kastein stated he was thinking of the $120,000 solution which is 6 AM to 7 PM, $2.50/ride for people with disabilities. Councilmember Ohlson stated he believed the transition time should include evening service, perhaps not as late as currently provided, as well as to the people in the GMA to allow them time to adjust to the proposed changes. Councilmember Kastein stated a transition period would not be necessary if evening service were not included in the discussion. A grandfather clause could provide service, funded on-going,with the current budget. Mayor Hutchinson asked if, at this time, all that was necessary was for Council to appropriate $189,000 towards Dial-A-Ride,no other details were necessary. City Manager Atteberry answered in the affirmative. Councilmember Kastein asked if more open space dollars could be spent on parks and trails and use Conservation Trust funding for O&M. Staff and the Parks and Recreation Board had recommended 22 November 21, 2006 against more spending on O&M as this would further delay trails capital construction if Conservation Trust monies were used for maintenance rather than purchasing and implementing trails. His idea was to replace these funds with open space dollars. He asked how much money was available to do this and"free up"dollars currently used for O&M in the budget. CLRS Director,Marty Heffeman, stated of all the Conservation Trust dollars budgeted for 2007, about V.1 million, can be used for park and trail maintenance. Historically, those funds have been used for construction of the hard surface trail system. Through the last few budget cycles,many hundreds of thousands of dollars of Conservation Trust money have been moved from trail construction to park and trail maintenance. The Open Lands money can be used for the trail program. The County 1/4 cent Open Space money was available to be used for the City's trail program or Natural Areas Open Land Program. There was no restriction on how much of that money goes for one purpose or another. The Open Lands money was available for trail construction if Conservation Trust money was dedicated to the maintenance function, which traditionally was funded through the General Fund. Over $3 million/year comes in through the 1/4 tax. Councilmember Kastein asked how much was being spent on trails O&M from the General Fund. Heffernan responded trail maintenance costs $220,000, of which $70,000 traditionally has been funded from the Conservation Trust and the difference was made up by the General Fund. The proposed 2007 budget moves $125,000 of Conservation Trust money from construction to maintenance. Nearly all trail maintenance was funded out of Conservation Trust money. Councilmember Kastein asked if there was money to be used from open space dollars that could replace General Fund dollars, whether directly or indirectly, and if Conservation Trust dollars that were used for capital could be used for the maintenance. City Manager Atteberry stated that was being done now, to the extent that it can legally be done. Councilmember Kastein asked about the maximum amount of open space dollars to be used for capital implementation of trails to "free up"more General Fund dollars. Heffernan stated if more Conservation Trust money is diverted from the Trail Construction Program to the maintenance function and the open lands dollars are used for trail construction,there are fewer open lands dollars to buy natural areas and the resulting infrastructure. There are limitations on the other funding source for natural areas, which is the Open Space Yes! money. It has an 80/20 split and many restrictions. There was flexibility in using these funds,but there are trade-offs. If trail construction program was funded this way, then the natural areas program was slowed down. The other consequence was that as more Conservation Trust dollars are devoted to maintenance, then fewer are available after the trail system is built out to build the next recreation center or take care of infrastructure problems that are now known in some parks. Fossil Creek Park and Spring Canyon Park do not have funding,due to current budget constraints,for replacements 5 to 10 years down the road as things wear out. The Conservation Trust has been a good source to fund replacements in the park system. If that money goes toward maintenance, finding funding for these other projects will be tough. Councilmember Ohlson stated he would support more money going from the Open Space fund to trail construction,but he was unsure if the County had the same restrictions as the City, in that the trails had to have a relationship with an open space. Also, the problem of not having funding for future capital projects,i.e.,a recreation center or park improvement,using Conservation Trust funds 23 November 21, 2006 once the trail system is built out, was one to be addressed. He did support the shift of funds from natural areas to trails, as that was always a part of the ballot measure. Councilmember Kastein asked how much open space natural areas money can go into the capital construction. Once that information is known,then the decision can be made relating to purchasing natural areas versus building trails. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance No. 184, 2006,Amending Chapter 7.5 of the City Code to Establish a Transportation Maintenance Fee, on Second Reading. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she did not support this Ordinance on Second Reading. There had been much feedback from the community and,with the passage of the Library District,this fee was not necessary. Councilmember Brown stated job number one of government was to find solutions to very real problems and not to turn to the taxpayers wallets or purses to solve problems. He did not support any fees at this time. Councilmember Manvel stated there were good arguments in favor of passing these fees,including using the funds to meet many needs in the City, using funds for Dial-A-Ride and improving all public transportation for everyone. Long time solutions to the City's financial problems are needed. Some cuts from the 2007 Budget, including cutting $1 million for City employee raises, cutting $700,000 from the pavement management program and the possible Mason Corridor match could be funded. Improving police services, improving roads, maintaining parks are improvements all could support,yet have been cut. The budget was written with a$3.1 million gap and the fees were designed to fill that gap. The citizens have spoken and established the Library District and the fees are not essential to balance the budget. Councilmember Kastein stated the fees were not a desirable solution. Fees instituted by Council when a crisis no longer exists are not necessary. Councilmember Ohlson stated no one liked the fees and at this point in time the fees were no longer necessary. Any substantial fees, other than in an emergency situation, should go to a vote by the public. Many people had expressed irritation that these fees were not being sent to the voters for approval. If Council thinks a tax increase is necessary to adequately fund the community,then the voters should be asked. He did not support either fee increase. Councilmember Roy did not support either fee as those fees were a stop-gap measure to create a balanced budget for 2007 and with the Library District passing, the fees are not necessary. If these fees were adopted, a long-term "loss of trust" from the citizens might result. Mayor Hutchinson stated the fees were a part of the process to create a successful budget. Trust between the citizens and Council was critical and Council was acting to prove that trust,even though there were difficult issues, such as cutting Dial-A-Ride services. The TMF would have impacts on the economic health of Fort Collins, as well. 24 November 21, 2006 The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: none. Nays: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. THE MOTION FAILED. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt Ordinance No. 185,2006,Amending Chapter 7.5 of the City Code to Establish a Community Park Maintenance Fee, on Second Reading. Councilmember Weitkunat stated the City has a financial situation existing with the parks. There is a strong policy that establishes parks every so many miles and there are 17 more parks planned and no mechanism in place to pay for them. A small amount - $2.67 per dwelling unit - would have brought in $1.6 million to help offset that cost. This community loves its parks and wants them maintained. This fee was a mechanism to do that. The economic health of the city organization has a need to move into some kind of mechanism to maintain parks. This $1.6 million could have provided leverage in order to get the Mason Corridor in place. Because it is important to have the public trust and confidence and the public did not want this fee, she was not supporting the parks maintenance fee at this time. Mayor Hutchinson stated there really is no stable revenue for either the transportation system or the parks system so this subject will return. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: none. Nays: Councilmembers Brown,Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. THE MOTION FAILED. ("Secretary's note: Council took a recess at this point in the meeting.) 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 Levy for Fiscal Year 2007,Adopted on Second 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 fscal year 2007 in the amount of$473,456,338. The Ordinance also sets the City mill levy at 9.797 mill, unchanged since 1991. 25 November 21, 2006 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY State statutes and the City Charter both require an annual appropriation to cover expenses for the ensuing fiscal year (2007) based upon the adopted budget. The Second Reading must be adopted before the last day of November. On October 17, 2006, City Council approved the recommended changes to the 2007 budget and approved the 2007 Appropriation Ordinance on First Reading by a vote of 5-2 (Nays: Brown, Kastein). With Second Reading of the Ordinance, there is an adjustment that takes into account changes in the new Special Services Fee (Transportation Maintenance Fee and the Community Parks Maintenance Fee) revenues approved by Council on First Reading on November 7, 2006 The Net City Budget of$3 79,328,212for 2007, which excludes transfers, remains the same as was included in First Reading of this Ordinance. Ado ted 2007 Amended 2007 Operations $322,633,068 $322,799,201 Debt Service 24,269,655 24,269,655 Capital 26 465106 32,259,356 BACKGROUND The Amended 2007 Budget and the Annual Appropriation Ordinance reflect several changes to the adopted 2006-2007 Budget. The majority of adjustments are to balance the General Fund in light of the projected$5.8 million revenue shortfall and additional budget issues such as expanded Transfort Fixed Routes and restructuring of Dial-a-Ride services, extension of City services for the Southwest Annexation, and earmarking monies for the Manufacturers' Use Tax Rebate. General Fund cost reductions included reduced employee compensation, Information Technology efficiencies and consolidation, and over$3.0 million in numerous service reductions. To avoid further service cuts, two new special services fees are reflected in the budget that will provide approximately $3.15 million in revenue for 2007. Additionally, new revenues from the Southwest Annexation are to be allocated toward Police Services, 2007 REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS The annual appropriation ordinance is being adjusted on Second Reading to reflect changes made to the Transportation Maintenance Fee and Park Maintenance Fee on November 7, 2006 The fees approved by Council are: 26 November 21, 2006 Special Services Fees Effective January 1, 2007 Transportation Maintenance Fees: Institutional $16.44 Per Acre Industrial $13.09 Per Acre High Traffic Retail $125.11 Per Acre Retail $51.65 Per Acre Commercial $16.44 Per Acre Residential $1.06 Per Dwelling Unit Community Park Maintenance Fee: Residential $2.76 Per Dwelling Unit The total net revenue from the new special services fees will equal approximately$3.15 million per year. The TMF revenue will be allocated to the Pavement Management Program and the CPMF revenue will be allocated to the maintenance of City Parks. General Fund resources have also been adjusted to reflect the impact of the Special Service fees on the General Fund. Transportation Park Maintenance Maintenance Total Fee Fee New Revenue $1,736,568 $1,686,722 $3,423,290 Exemptions $<272,835> n/a $<272,835> Net Revenue $ 1 463 733 $1 686 722 $3 150 455 2007 SERVICE ADJUSTMENTS To recap,funding has been included in the amended 2007 General Fund Budget for several items: $1,100,000 Additional Transfort Fixed Routes/Dial a Ride: Reduces Dial-a-Ride services to the Americans for Disabilities(ADA)services levels and curtails night services. Offsetting the changes, the $1.1 million appropriation adds three new fixed routes on Harmony, Timberline and East Prospect. The expanded fixed route service is accompanied with the mandatory DAR service within 314 miles of the fixed routes. $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. 27 November 21, 2006 $150,000 Natural Gas Cost Increase: The volatility and growing costs for Natural Gas could not be accommodated under the 2007 budget funding levels and additional funds are added to cover these costs. $170,000 Employee Compensation Corrections: Several adjustments to employee compensation are necessary in 2007 to correct pay inequities that resulted from freezing the pay plan in 2002. $437,122 Southwest Annexation An enclave area of approximately 2.7 square miles was recently annexed into the City. 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 ofproperty taxes, sales taxes, and fees. Many of the City' services are currently used by enclave residents and do not trigger additional expenditures. All of the new revenue generated from the Phase One Southwest Annexation is allocated toward increasing Police Services. Dial-a-Ride/Paratransit Service The 2007 budget as approved on First Reading October 17 includes changes to Transfort/Dial-a-Ride (DAR) Services. Due to the increasing demand for DAR and its high cost per trip, the budget reduces the service levels to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) service levels. This will reduce the service coverage area from the current Growth Management Area, to the Federally required minimum of 314 miles from the fixed routes. Also, night service would be curtailed and the fare and eligibility policies changed to match the ADA standards. Offsetting these changes, the budget appropriates an additional $1,100,000for three new fixed routes on Harmony, Timberline, and East prospect. The expanded fixed route service is accompanied with the mandatory DAR service within 314 miles. These changes in service will help to control the cost growth while providing much more actual transit service to the public in accordance with the Transfort strategic plan. At the October 17 meeting, Councilmembers requested that staff work with Lorimer County, non-profit organizations, and DAR users to seek alternative solutions to City operated DAR services for those patrons who would lose service under the new ADA minimum service area. On November 2, Transportation Services staff sponsored a focus group meeting to begin the process of engaging these groups. There were 15 attendees including staff and a Council member. There was consensus that the attendees could be the foundation for a steering committee. The notion is that everyone would digest the information, return to their organizations, and recommend additional participants. A subsequent steering committee would be called for the task of organizing a Dial-a-Ride "Summit", which would be a public meeting. Consequently, at the time offtnal budget adoption this will still be a work in progress. The second meeting has been scheduled for December 1, 2006 28 November 21, 2006 The City Council also requested staff to investigate the possibility of using one-time funds to extend DAR service outside the new service area to allow time for users to find alternatives to the City provided service. Presently approximately 85 present active users would reside outside the new service area. The budget assumes that the three new fixed routes would begin service on January 1, 2007. However, on closer analysis ofthe service plan it has become apparent that equipment, bus stops, and other needs make full implementation on January 1 a significant challenge. Transfort is prepared to start the Harmony immediately in 2007. Amore reasonable target for the Timberline and East Prospect routes is March 2007. This two month period would allow $60,000 to be available for DAR alternatives without any additional appropriation. In conjunction with the November 21 Council agenda packet, a separate staffmemorandum will be sent to Council that presents possible options for providing some level of service until alternatives can be examined for current DAR riders that will lose service. Conservation Trust Fund. Council asked for some additional information regarding the options that may be available to the City for shifting the use of Conservation Trust Fund revenue from capital projects and trail development toward trail maintenance. CLRS staff and Natural Resources staff have developed more detailed information for Council's consideration. A memorandum is provided under separate cover as part of the November 16 Council Thursday Packet. " Councilmember Roy asked for clarification from Councilmember Ohlson regarding the Dial-A-Ride proposal being made. Councilmember Ohlson stated there are many details to be worked out by staff. The number needs to be"plugged in"regarding money that is left over from the library as well as other one-time monies. A staff recommendation was needed on the number of months, the hours of service, who qualifies and other such details. Options and a recommendation should be presented to Council by staff on how to fill a temporary transition period for all people currently covered by Dial-A-Ride and a long-term grandfathering of people who live inside the City limits,based on the new criteria as well as a transition and grandfathering of those people who are currently covered who live in the GMA, so that when they become city residents, they will be covered. City Attorney Roy asked if the intent was to grandfather only those existing users of Dial-A-Ride that are ADA eligible. Councilmember Ohlson asked for a staff recommendation before that decision was made. Councilmember Kastein suggested the time frame be for an entire year, but not providing evening service. Mayor Hutchinson stated the specifics did not need to be worked out at this time. City Attorney Roy stated Option B of the existing Appropriation Ordinance contains these directions and would not need to be modified. Adopting the Ordinance, Option B, will enable staff to implement the directions given by Council. The money is in the Ordinance; it is just a question of how it would be 29 November 21, 2006 utilized. Option B is the version of the Appropriation Ordinance that does not contain the TMF or the PMF. City Manager Attebery agreed Option B would allow staff to develop options and recommendations. Councilmember Roy asked how accountability would be maintained regarding developing a positive solution to Dial-A-Ride. Council is committed to working toward a solution to this obligation. City Manager Atteberry stated the best way to maintain accountability is to come back in a work session setting to talk through the process and the players to get to the next steps. Using an outside facilitator has been suggested to help with some of the meetings. Councilmember Roy asked what data was available from other communities that have public/private cooperative relationships concerning paratransit. Councilmember Manvel stated the Youth Activity Center has been the center of much discussion in the past and asked what monies were available in this budget to continue some services at the Youth Activity Center and what other programs could be continued. City Manager Attebery stated the 2007 budget did not contain funds to continue the Youth Activity Center beyond the date of the opening of the new Northside Aztlan Community Center. The gymnasium portion of the Youth Activity Center will continue to operate. Marty Heffernan, CLRS Director, stated the amount of the lease for the YAC building is quite expensive,even with the discount offered. The gymnasium was built with community- donated dollars and does not have any rental obligation with it. Existing recreation staff will run the program at the gymnasium for a variety of classes and activities. In the morning,there would be Early Childhood Development classes and classes for parents of young children. A variety of activities and sports will occur in the gymnasium as there is a lack of gymnasium space in the community for non- school related activities. There will be some drop-in hours, but it will be less than what is currently offered with the YAC. Also, the YAC staff is needed to staff the new Northside Center as it is three times larger than the existing facility and funds were not available to hire new staff. Councilmember Manvel asked about the anticipated opening of the new Northside Aztlan Community Center. Heffernan responded it should open in July or August,barring unforseen circumstances. Councilmember Manvel asked if the YAC would continue to operate if the new center was not opened by July. Heffernan stated there was only enough money budgeted to keep the YAC open through August. Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat,to adopt 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 Levy for Fiscal Year 2007, Option Bon Second Reading. Councilmember Kastein moved to amend the motion, to specifically appropriate $120,000 from the $189,000 for one year of Dial-A-Ride service that would grandfather current users,but scale back the hours of service to 6 AM-7 PM. Motion was seconded by Councilmember Ohlson. 30 November 21, 2006 Councilmember Kastein stated there is an obligation to people who will have to make changes to their lives due to changes in Dial-A-Ride. There is a big difference between grandfathering people for as long as they need the service and grandfathering them for four months. Councilmember Weitkunat stated this motion does not negate the need for a three-month transition period. This motion guarantees that for one year the Dial-A-Ride service will be provided from 6 AM- 7PM at $2.50/ride for qualified disability. What is not provided is the night service which could be created with a transition from 7 PM-11PM for the 84 people who would be grandfathered. Councilmember Kastein stated this motion does not contain a transition period for those who use the service from 6 AM-7PM. Other funds could be used to provide night service. Councilmember Ohlson stated his original proposal included all users who are currently in the city limits using Dial-A-Ride, so they did not have to worry about a transition period, but would receive service through grandfathering. The only people who would be unsure of continued service would be those in the GMA that are not annexed into the City. The transition period of 3-6 months would be used to find other solutions for them. Councilmember Kastein stated his motion would provide service to all who currently receive it, both inside city limits and within the GMA, and the service will continue at a cost of at least $120,000. Councilmember Ohlson stated a transition period was necessary to provide some evening service. One -time monies could be used to cover any cost over$189,000. City Manager Atteberry clarified that the motion is to grandfather 84 passengers and continue to serve them only,using the$122,000,from 6 AM- 7 PM, to provide on-going service. Additionally, for those not served by these parameters and to continue status quo in the evening and other services, a 3-6 month transition is needed to provide time to study and look for alternatives. If the transition period lasts for 6 months, the cost is $550,000 and 3 months would cost$275,000. Councilmember Kastein stated continuing the night service did not seem very practical and was quite expensive and not very needed. It is not an essential. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she did not support continuing the"status quo,"until 2 AM,but would support providing abbreviated hours for evening service. Councilmember Manvel stated Transfort does not provide evening service,so those who are not disabled but are without cars in Fort Collins have no evening transportation service. The Dial-A-Ride evening service is desirable, but the demands for it are not as great. Adding extra services beyond ADA minimums, such as providing service to those outside of city limits or offering extended evening hours, could have a detrimental effect. If only ADA minimums are provided and demands are much greater than the amount budgeted,the federal government will allow the City to put limits on the services. But if service is provided to people whom the City is not required to serve or if the City is giving services it is not required to serve, and the cost of service becomes too great, then the federal government will require the City to provide the service without the option of scaling back since services were provided beyond ADA minimums. 31 November 21, 2006 Councilmember Ohlson stated this motion appeared to maintain most of the"status quo,onlyremoving night service. Councilmember Kastein stated removing evening service would remove a big part of the"status quo' that costs a lot of money and is not an absolute requirement. Councilmember Manvel stated people would not be delivered to places outside the service area, such as Foothills Gateway, so the 84 people would be served,but only within the 3/4 mile limit. Councilmember Kastein stated he wanted to provide a continuing service for people who use Dial-A- Ride today, during the same hours of operation that Transfort currently operates so all that use public transportation will be on a level playing field. A commitment will be made for on-going service for the people who are currently signed up, wherever they happen to live, to be delivered to destinations that are within the 3/4 mile limit from fixed-route service. Councilmember Brown stated he wanted to extend evening hours past 7 PM. City Attorney Roy asked if the motion was to amend the annual appropriation ordinance or to leave the ordinance as it is currently written with the direction given. Staff would need to recalculate the appropriation ordinance before it was adopted, if it was amended. Deputy City Manager Jones stated ultimately the appropriation would need to be changed as funds were being transferred from the General Fund to Transportation. The choices were either immediate recalculation or bringing another appropriation ordinance to transfer these funds. Councilmember Kastein asked if his motion could be used as simply as direction. City Attorney Roy answered in the affirmative. Jones stated a transfer of funds from the General Fund to Transportation would have to be made at some point. City Manager Atteberry suggested another appropriation to transfer the funds would be optimal. The motion provides clear direction. City Attorney Roy clarified the motion now was to adopt Option B of the Ordinance with the direction that staff return another ordinance implementing the direction with regard to the $122,000. The vote on the motion to provide direction was as follows:Yeas: Councilmembers Brown,Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Roy thanked Council and staff for the hard work done on the budget. Councilmember Brown stated he was disappointed there were not more cuts brought forward,but was glad there were no fees. He supported the budget. Councilmember Kastein stated a$379 million budget was being adopted. He did not believe adding new services was appropriate at this time. He supported the budget and believed the right decisions were made concerning Dial-A-Ride. 32 November 21, 2006 Councilmember Manvel stated this was a good budget, but felt the transit solution was a good one, serving more people. Hopefully, other organizations that do good in the community would be willing and able to step up and help fill some holes in the Dial-A-Ride service. Until there is good public transportation throughout the city,the ridership will not reach the levels that it could reach. As public transportation grows, as it must to serve the city, areas will no longer be more than 3/4 mile away from service, and Dial-A-Ride will cover more areas. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she supported the budget. The approach from the beginning was to reduce expenditures and look at new revenues. There were over$3.3 million in service cuts as well as a cut of$1 million for employee compensation and benefits. The cuts were difficult to make. To have a first-class city and first-class service comes with a cost. When costs and services are reduced, it is no longer a world-class city and a world-class organization with world-class employees. There is a balanced budget,but it was a hard process. Mayor Hutchinson stated the budget is balanced, but one cut of $1 million was for employee compensation and that cannot continue. Fees may still need to be added to create a sustainable and predictable revenue source. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown,Hutchinson,Kastein,Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 2006-119 Adopting the City's 2007 Legislative Policy Agenda. Postuoned to December 5. 2006 The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY" Each year the Legislative Review Committee (LRQ develops a legislative agenda to assist in the analysis ofpending legislation. The proposed 2007 Legislative Policy Agenda has been updated from the 2006 document and was reviewed and approved by the Legislative Review Committee. This document will be used as a guide for the upcoming 2006 General Assembly and the first session of the 110th Congress. The purpose of the Legislative Policy Agenda is to articulate the City's position on common legislative topics. It will be applied by Council members and staff to determine positions on pending legislation and as a general reference for state legislators and our congressional delegation. BACKGROUND SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY AGENDA Policy statement additions, deletions and amendments to the 2005 Legislative Policy Agenda are highlighted in italics: 33 �I November 21, 2006 AIR QUALITY,page 6, addition to list of objectives: The City's adopted objective air quality objectives include: • reduce total vehicle emissions, by focusing on technology (e.g., tailpipe emissions) and behavior (e.g., driving patterns) • reduce high priority pollutants (ozone,fine particles, mobile source hazardous air pollutants and greenhouse gases) • reduce greenhouse gas emissions 30%below projected 2010 levels by 2010 • reduce commercial and industrial emissions in the Fort Collins area • reduce wood smoke emissions in the Fort Collins area and reduce the number of non-certified wood stoves and conventional fireplaces This wording updates the policy agenda to reflect City air quality policy. AIR QUALITY,page 6, revise statement#4: "Support legislation and regulations that make tailpipe standards more stringent; that establish equal standards for cars, light trucks and sport utility vehicles; that set fuel neutral standards for gasoline and diesel that decrease sulfur content offuels;mirfthat promote advanced low emission vehicle technology, and that provides incentives for alternative fuels such as biodiesel, cellulosic ethanol and compressed natural gas. " This statement expands the previous list to reflect the changing marketplace ofalternativefuels. AIR QUALITY,page 7, addition of statement#6: "Support legislation and regulations that reduce vehicle emissions by reducing unnecessary idling of vehicles. " An additional statement was added in light of the pending state legislation to reduce the amount of train trips through Fort Collins. Air quality would benefit from the associated reduction in vehicle idling. AIR QUALITY,page 7, revise statement#8: "Support legislation and regulations that provide incentives to encourage renewable energyproductions, including windpower,andprovidefor "State Implementation Plan" credits for renewable energy (excluding residential wood burning and corn-based ethanol) and energy efficiency. " This revision adds support for State Implementation Plan credits for energy efficiency and renewable energy. The Air Quality Control Commission will consider this issue in 2007. Fort Collins could benefitfrom formal recognition ofenergy efficiency and renewable energy efforts in State Implementation Plans if we were to be designated non-attainment for ozone. 34 November 21, 2006 AIR QUALITY,page 7, addition of statement#10. "Support legislation and regulations that provide incentives for green building and sustainable design. " This adds new language to support incentives for green building and sustainable design. LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE,page 20, addition of new section: "The Legislative Review Committee is a representative group of Council members that reviews and reacts to proposed legislation on behalf of the City Council and the City. In taking a position on particular bills, the Committee interprets and applies the various policies that are included in the Legislative Policy Agenda. Ifa bill may fall within two ormorepolicies, then the Committee must decide how to balance thosepolicies in taking a position. Ifa bill falls outside of the Legislative Policy Agenda, the Committee refers the bill to the full Council for consideration before a position is taken on behalf of the city. 11 The Committee believes it is important to clearly spell out the how the Committee will handle legislation when more than one policy statement may apply and when legislation is not addressed by an existing policy statement. POLICE SERVICES,page 25, addition of statement#10: "Support legislation that regulates the use of cell phones by a motorist while operating a vehicle." This statement was added due to concern over the increased risk of traffic accidents due to distractions caused by cell phone use. RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE,page 26, addition of wording to statement#1: "Support integrated waste managementplanningfor the state and for local and regional communities. " Additional wording was added to broaden the scale for waste management planning. RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE,page 27, revise wording to Statement#3: "Support "buy recycled" or "environmentally preferable purchasing" policies for government agencies'procurement. " 35 November 21, 2006 This revision is to broaden the support for recycled products to include environmentally preferable purchasing. RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE,page 27, addition of wording to statement#5: "Support legislation that clarifies and broadens the regulatory authority of local government to ensure the efficient collection and processing of recyclable material and solid waste. " RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE,page 27, revise wording to statement#7: "Support increased involvement by the State to collect and monitor data on trash volumes, rates of diversion from landfill disposal and economic impacts of recycling. " RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE,page 27, addition of wording to statement#11: "Support consideration of certain waste restrictions in Colorado landfills, e.g., bans on electronic waste, organic materials and "white goods". " This wording addresses growing issue of proper disposal of electronic waste which includes such items as computers, televisions and printers. RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE,page 27, revise wording to statement#12: "Support legislation to require greater producer responsibility, such as "take back" regulations that assist consumers to appropriately recycle electronic equipment (e.g., computers and televisions)" This statement addresses the growing issue ofproper disposal ofelectronic waste which includes such items as computers, televisions and printers. RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE,page 27, revise wording to statement#13: "Support legislation that establishes a deposit fee on beverage containers using unclaimed deposits to fund recycling programs" The purpose of this revision is to specify that deposit money that remains unclaimed in the program should be used for recycling programs rather than returned to the general fund. TRANSPORTATION,page 32, addition of statement#13: "Support legislation that limits the ability of railroad locomotives, cars and trains to block street and highway grade crossings. " 36 November 21, 2006 This statement is to specifically support legislative efforts to address unreasonable blockage of grade crossings by trains. Such legislation may be introduced at the state level in 2007. WATER UTILITIES,page 33, addition of statement#7. "Support legislation that would reasonably allow Colorado water courts to address water quality concerns while not significantly altering the responsibility ofwater courts in protecting water rights against injury. " The purpose of this statement is to support only legislation that truly deals with water quality issues involved in the transfer of water rights as opposed to the use of water quality issues as a tactic to block the legal transfer of water rights. " Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to postpone pulled Item #18 Resolution 2006-119 Adopting the City's 2007 Legislative Policy Agenda, to December 5, 2006. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. City Manager Atteberry thanked staff for its hard work and continued effort on the budget. He noted it was the last meeting for Don Bachman, Interim Transportation Director, as he had taken a new position in northern California. Mark Jackson will be his replacement as Interim Transportation Director. Other Business Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Roy,to adjourn to November 28,2006 for a possible executive session regarding the salaries of the City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 37 November 28, 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 28,2006, 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 Roy, to adjourn into Executive Session under Subsection 2-3 l(a)(1)(a)of the City Code for the purpose of discussing the proposed compensation and benefits of the City Manager, Municipal Judge, and City Attorney. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson,Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 38 December 5, 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, December 5, 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 that Council had decided at a retreat to allow public comments on Consent Calendar items during Citizen Participation. Gina Heath, Ridgewood Hills resident, commented regarding Consent Calendar item #7 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2006 Authorizing the Conveyance of Nonexclusive Easement Interestsfor the Construction ofa Platte River Power A uthority(`Platte River') Transmission Line Across Collna Mariposa Natural Area adjacent to Shields Street and expressed appreciation for the action taken to preserve open space. Ray Schultz, 625 Holyoke Court, commented regarding Consent Calendar item#7 and thanked the Council for voting to keep the area as natural as possible. Mike Farrell, 516 Ramah Drive,president of the Ridgewood Hills HOA, spoke regarding Consent Calendar item#7 and thanked the Council for listening to its constituents about the power line. David Broad, address not stated, commented regarding Consent Calendar item#7 and thanked the Council for its efforts regarding undergrounding of the power line. Citizen Participation Follow-up Mayor Hutchinson stated that the management of PRPA deserved thanks for cooperating with the City to work on the undergrounding of the power line. Agenda Review City Manager Atteberry stated that item #10 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 187, 2006, Designating 133-137 South College Avenue (the North Half of the Colorado Building) as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code had been revised to include all of the addresses assigned to the building and property. He stated that there was no need to pull the item from the 39 December S, 2006 Consent Calendar to adopt the revised Ordinance. He also stated that item 422 Resolution 2006-119 Adopting the City's 2007Legislative Policy Agenda would be moved to the Discussion Agenda and suggested that it be the first discussion item. CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the September 19, 2006 Regular Meeting_ 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 148,2006 Authorizing the Convevance of Nonexclusive Easement Interests for the Construction of a Platte River Power Authority("Platte River' Transmission Line Across Colina Marinosa Natural Area adjacent to Shields Street Platte River had requested a 75-foot wide non-exclusive easement for an overhead 230kV transmission line across Colina Mariposa Natural Area. City Council approved the easement on First Reading on September 19,2006. On October 3,2006,Council denied the easement on Second Reading and requested that PRPA consider constructing the transmission line underground to meet the Natural Areas Easement Policy, which does not allow overhead power lines to be built across natural areas. Platte River has agreed to place the transmission line underground and is now requesting a 25-foot wide non-exclusive permanent easement and a 35-foot wide temporary construction easement for constructing an underground 230kV transmission line across Colina Mariposa Natural Area along the east side of Shields Street south of Trilby Road and adjacent to the 25-foot wide permanent easement. Platte River has agreed to compensate the City approximately$26,000 for the permanent easement, $6,000 for the temporary easement and $17,000 in restoration fees, for a total of approximately $49,000. The final compensation values will be determined once the final alignment is determined. 8. Second 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 Providine 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- Busch Companies, Inc. (the "Company"). In 1986, the bonds were reissued in the amount of$20,000,000. The 1986 bonds were called at their first call date of 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 40 December 5, 2006 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 1996 bonds carry an interest rate of 6.00%. The refinanced rate of interest is expected to be approximately 5.50%. The proposed refinancing will extend the maturity of the bonds from 2036 to 2046. Ordinance No. 182, 2006, authorizing and approving the issuance and sale of the bonds, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 7, 2006. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 186, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund - Inspiration Playaound Capital Project to Be Used for Design and Construction of a Fully Accessible Playground for All Children at Spring Canyon Community Park. This Ordinance,unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 21,2006,appropriates funds to construct a totally accessible playground for children of all abilities at Spring Canyon Community Park. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 187, 2006,Designating 133-137 South College Avenue (the North Half of the Colorado Building) as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 21, 2006,designates the North half of the Colorado Building, 133-137 South College Avenue, as a local landmark. The owner of the property, Ida Siegel,through her son Ed Siegel, as attorney-in- fact, is initiating this request. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 188,2006, Authorizing the Acceptance of a Donation of .901 Acres of Real Property from Calvin C. and Lois Johnson and Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Project Fund — Timberline Road Widening Project 305-23270. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 21, 2006, authorizes the acceptance of a donation of property located just south of Spring Creek on the westerly side of Timberline Road, owned by Calvin and Lois Johnson. This donation is part of an agreement negotiated by City staff to complete the Timberline Road Widening Project. 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 190, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Recreation Fund to Be Used for the Purpose of Improving Youth Football Operations and Increasing Awareness And Interest in the Sport. The Recreation Division was awarded a three-year National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) Grant in the amount of$150,000 over three years. The Recreation Division will receive$50,000/year to be used for staffing a full-time youth football Coordinator. NRPA, as part of its grant agreement with USA Football, has received funds to be sub-awarded to five community organizations for the purpose of improving youth football operations and 41 December 5, 2006 increasing awareness and interest in the sport. Fort Collins was selected as one of the five Hubs. This Ordinance appropriates the funding from NRPA for this sub-grant. 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 191, 2006, Amending Chanter 23 Article IX of the City Code to Allow More Site-Specific Regulation of Certain Activities in Natural Areas. The Natural Areas Program will officially begin managing Gateway Park on January 1,2007. Two minor City Code changes are proposed to facilitate the transfer. 14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 193, 2006, Amending Section 15-327 of the City Code Pertaining to Secondhand Dealers and Flea Market Vendor Requirements. Council recently adopted amendments to the Secondhand Dealer Ordinance as part of the Southwest Enclave Annexation. Section 15-318(f)requires flea market operators to keep a record of each vendor renting a booth in the flea market, including name, address, date of birth and driver's license or other identifying number. Section 15-327 requires vendors to provide that information; however the specific mention of date of birth was inadvertently omitted. This amendment changes the language to ensure that the provisions contained in Sections 15-318(f) and 15-327 are consistent. 15. First Reading.of Ordinance No. 194, 2006, Approving Revised Electric Service Rules and Regulations. The current Electric Service Rules and Regulations were last revised in 2002. Since that time, the section of this document governing the installation and operation of distributed electrical generation at a customer's facilities has become obsolete. A growing interest in photovoltaic systems and alternative fuel generation has made it necessary to update the Electric Service Rules and Regulations to better accommodate these types of installations. 16. First Readiniz of Ordinance No. 195, 2006, Adopting the 2007 Classified Employees Pay Plan. The Pay Plan continues the current practice of setting City pay range maximums at the market 70th percentile. Data from the public and private sectors was used to determine the prevailing market rates for approximately 100 benchmark jobs. This Ordinance sets salary ranges, not specific salaries of individual employees. 17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 196, 2006, Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Second Amendment to the Long-Term Lease for Civic Center Village Adjacent to the Civic Center Parking Structure. Staff is proposing to amend the Civic Center Village Ground Lease to clarify various maintenance responsibilities,and to provide two reserved parking spaces in the Civic Center Parking Structure for the Civic Center Village leaseholder. This amendment is needed to 42 December 5, 2006 clarify the maintenance requirements of the lease, to enhance the business partnership between the leaseholder and the City, and to ensure an ongoing business relationship. 18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 197,2006,Designating the Jefferson Lindenmeier House and Garage. 511 South Whitcomb Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chanter 14 of the City Code. The owner of the property, Sondra Carson, is initiating this request for Fort Collins Landmark designation for the Jefferson Lindenmeier House and Garage, 511 South Whitcomb Street. Constructed in 1925 bythe Lindenmeier Brothers,the exceptional historic residence, with rare matching historic garage, are notable examples of Prairie Style architecture with Bungalow elements. The buildings embody the distinctive characteristics of a type,period, and method of construction, and, further,possess high artistic values, and qualify for designation under Landmark Standard 3. 19. Resolution 2006-122 Approving Expenditures From the Art in Public Places Reserve Account in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund to Commission an Artist to Create Gateway Art Elements for the East Prospect Road Project. This Resolution approves expenditures of$46,044 for design,materials,travel,installation and contingency for a project with the artist team from May & Watkins Design, LLC, to create multiple elements for the East Prospect Road Project. 20. Resolution 2006-123 Approvinizth e County Assessor's Current Methodology for Calculatin Tax Increment. Adoption of this Resolution formally recognizes the methodology being applied by the Larimer County Assessor's Office to the North College Urban Renewal Plan Area. 21. Resolution 2006-124 Amending Resolutions 2000-123 and 2001-018 to Revise the Process for City Council Evaluations of the Performance of the Ci1Y Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge. This Resolution consolidates and amends two previous Resolutions that established aprocess for conducting the annual performance reviews of Council's three direct employees. 22. Resolution 2006-119 Adopting the City's 2007 Legislative Policy Agenda. Each year the Legislative Review Committee(LRC)develops a legislative agenda to assist in the analysis of pending legislation. The proposed 2007 Legislative Policy Agenda has been updated from the 2006 document and was reviewed and approved by the Legislative Review Committee. This document will be used as a guide for the upcoming 2006 General Assembly and the first session of the 110th Congress. The purpose of the Legislative Policy Agenda is to articulate the City's position on common legislative topics. It will be applied 43 December 5, 2006 by Council members and staff to determine positions on pending legislation and as a general reference for state legislators and our congressional delegation. 23. Resolution 2006-125 Establishing Fees Charged by the Fort Collins Police Services for Evidence Viewins. These fees are being established due,in part,to a significant increase in requests for property and evidence viewing and copying by non-law enforcement agency personnel. C.R.S.Section 24-72-306(1)authorizes Fort Collins Police Services to assess reasonable fees for the actual costs it incurs,including its personnel and equipments costs,to search,retrieve and copy criminal justice records for public inspection. This statute also requires that such fees be approved by the City Council. The cost of equipment and personnel to provide copies of digital recordings, color photographs and other documentary materials held in Evidence has not previously been included in calculating established fees. The proposed amendment to the FCPS' Criminal Justice Records Fee Schedule will allow for the copying of documents held in Evidence, as well as the collection of fees for the search,retrieval,copying and viewing of criminaljustice records retained in the Property and Evidence Unit. ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2006 Authorizing the Conveyance of Nonexclusive Easement Interests for the Construction of a Platte River Power Authority("Platte River") Transmission Line Across Colina Mariposa Natural Area adjacent to Shields Street. 8. Second 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. 44 December 5, 2006 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 186, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund - Inspiration Playground Capital Project to Be Used for Design and Construction of a Fully Accessible Playground for All Children at Spring Canyon Community Park. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 187, 2006,Designating 133-137 South College Avenue (the North Half of the Colorado Building) as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 188,2006, Authorizing the Acceptance of a Donation of .901 Acres of Real Property from Calvin C. and Lois Johnson and Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Project Fund — Timberline Road Widening Project 305-23270. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 190, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Recreation Fund to Be Used for the Purpose of Improving Youth Football Operations and Increasing Awareness And Interest in the Sport. 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 191, 2006, Amending Chapter 23, Article IX of the City Code to Allow More Site-Specific Regulation of Certain Activities in Natural Areas. 14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 193, 2006, Amending Section 15-327 of the City Code Pertaining to Secondhand Dealers and Flea Market Vendor Requirements. 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 194, 2006, Approving Revised Electric Service Rules and Regulations. 16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 195, 2006, Adopting the 2007 Classified Employees Pay Plan. 17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 196, 2006, Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Second Amendment to the Long-Term Lease for Civic Center Village Adjacent to the Civic Center Parking Structure. 18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 197,2006,Designating the Jefferson Lindenmeier House and Garage, 511 South Whitcomb Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. 27. First Reading of Ordinance No. 198, 2006, Amending the City Code for the Purpose of Decriminalizing Certain Code Violations by Creating a Civil Infraction Classification and Procedures for Violations Thereof. 45 December 5, 2006 28. Items Relating to Recreational Vehicle(RV) Storage and Parking. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 199, 2006, Amending Sections 17-181 and 17-182 of the City Code Regarding Camping. B. First Reading of Ordinance No.200,2006,Amending Sections 1213 and 1214 of the Traffic Code Relating to Parking. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 201, 2006,Amending Sections 20-104, 20-105 and 20-106 of the City Code Pertaining to Parking. 29. First Reading of Ordinance No. 192,2006,Making Various Amendments to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. 31. First Reading of Ordinance No. 202, 2006, Amending Section 2-606 of the City Code and Setting the Salary of the Municipal Judge. 32. First Reading of Ordinance No. 203, 2006, Amending Section 2-581 of the City Code and Setting the Salary of the City Attorney. 33. First Reading of Ordinance No. 204,2006,Amending Section 2-596 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins and Setting the Salary of the City Manager. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, 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 Ohlson spoke regarding item #7 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2006 Authorizing the Conveyance of Nonexclusive Easement Interests for the Construction of a Platte River Power Authority ('Platte River') Transmission Line Across Colina Mariposa Natural Area adjacent to Shields Street and thanked PRPA for its cooperation. He suggested that the"full force of the organization"do the"fullest analysis possible" regarding the remaining lines that would go through natural areas to determine whether overhead or underground lines would do the "least damage."He stated that it might be necessary to grant new easements to "minimize the impact"of 85 foot poles. He asked for Council support for his suggestion. Councilmember Manvel agreed with Councilmember Ohlson's suggestion and expressed appreciation for PRPA's cooperation on this issue. 46 December 5, 2006 Councilmember Kastein stated it was good to hear thanks from citizens regarding Council's action. He expressed a concern that undergrounding power lines was expensive and noted this decision made sense because the cost could be"distributed widely"to minimize the impact to ratepayers. The cost for undergrounding other power lines on natural areas was an unknown. He would support having staff look into those costs and bring back data to the Council. He was not ready to put the "full strength of the organization"behind stopping power lines. He also commented regarding item #12 First Reading of Ordinance No. 190, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Recreation Fund to Be Used for the Purpose of Improving Youth Football Operations and Increasing Awareness And Interest in the Sport and thanked the staff for working to win the grant. Councilmember Manvel spoke regarding item #15 First Reading of Ordinance No. 194, 2006, Approving Revised Electric Service Rules and Regulations and noted citizens would now find it easier to generate their own power with wind or solar. Resolution 2006-119 Adopting the City's 2007 Legislative Policy Agenda Adopted The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Each year the Legislative Review Committee (LRC) develops a legislative agenda to assist in the analysis of pending legislation. The proposed 2007 Legislative Policy Agenda has been updated from the 2006 document and was reviewed and approved by the Legislative Review Committee. This document will be used as a guide for the upcoming 2006 General Assembly and the first session of the 114thCongress. ThepurposeoftheLegislativePolicyAgendaistoarticulatetheCity'sposition on common legislative topics. It will be applied by Council members and staffto determine positions on pending legislation and as a general reference for state legislators and our congressional delegation. BACKGROUND SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY AGENDA Policy statement additions, deletions and amendments to the 2005 Legislative Policy Agenda are highlighted in italics: AIR QUALITY,page 6, addition to list of objectives. The City's adopted u*ctive air quality objectives include: • reduce total vehicle emissions, by focusing on technology (e.g., tailpipe emissions) and behavior (e.g., driving patterns) 47 December S, 2006 • reduce high priority pollutants (ozone, fine particles, mobile source hazardous air pollutants and greenhouse gases) • reduce greenhouse gas emissions 30%below projected 2010 levels by 2010 • reduce commercial and industrial emissions in the Fort Collins area • reduce wood smoke emissions in the Fort Collins area and reduce the number of non-certified wood stoves and conventional fireplaces This wording updates the policy agenda to reflect City air quality policy. AIR QUALITY,page 6, revise statement#4: "Support legislation and regulations that make tailpipe standards more stringent; that establish equal standards for cars, light trucks and sport utility vehicles;thatset fuel neutral standards for gasoline and diesel that decrease sulfur content offuels; mnf-that promote advanced low emission vehicle technology, and that provides incentives for alternative fuels such as biodiesel, cellulosic ethanol and compressed natural gas. " This statement expands the previous list to reflect the changing marketplace of alternative fuels. AIR QUALITY,page 7, addition of statement#6: "Support legislation and regulations that reduce vehicle emissions by reducing unnecessary idling of vehicles. " An additional statement was added in light of the pending state legislation to reduce the amount of train trips through Fort Collins. Air quality would benefit from the associated reduction in vehicle idling. AIR QUALITY,page 7, revise statement#8: "Support legislation and regulations thatprovide incentives to encourage renewable energy productions, including wind power, and provide for "State Implementation Plan"credits for renewable energy(excluding residential wood burning and corn- based ethanol) and energy efficiency. " This revision adds support for State Implementation Plan credits for energy efficiency and renewable energy. The Air Quality Control Commission will consider this issue in 2007. Fort Collins could benefit from formal recognition of energy efficiency and renewable energy efforts in State Implementation Plans if we were to be designated non-attainment for ozone. 48 December 5, 2006 AIR QUALITY,page 7, addition of statement#10: "Support legislation and regulations that provide incentives for green building and sustainable design. " This adds new language to support incentives for green building and sustainable design. LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE,page 20, addition of new section: "The Legislative Review Committee is a representative group of Council members that reviews and reacts to proposed legislation on behalfof the City Council and the City. In taking a position on particular bills, the Committee interprets and applies the various policies that are included in the Legislative Policy Agenda. Ifa bill may fall within two or more policies, then the Committee must decide how to balance those policies in taking a position. If a bill falls outside of the Legislative Policy Agenda, the Committee refers the bill to the full Council for consideration before a position is taken on behalf of the City." The Committee believes it is important to clearly spell out the how the Committee will handle legislation when more than one policy statement may apply and when legislation is not addressed by an existing policy statement. POLICE SERVICES,page 25, addition of statement#10: "Support legislation that regulates the use of cell phones by a motorist while operating a vehicle." This statement was added due to concern over the increased risk of traffic accidents due to distractions caused by cell phone use. RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE,page 26, addition of wording to statement#1: "Support integrated waste management planning for the state and for local and regional communities. " Additional wording was added to broaden the scale for waste management planning. RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE,page 27, revise wording to Statement#3: "Support "buy recycled"or "environmentally preferable purchasing"policies for government agencies' procurement. " 49 December 5, 2006 This revision is to broaden the support for recycled products to include environmentally preferable purchasing. RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE,page 27, addition of wording to statement#5: "Support legislation that clarifies and broadens the regulatory authority of local government to ensure the efficient collection and processing ofrecyclable material and solid waste. " RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE,page 27, revise wording to statement#7: "Support increased involvement by the State to collect and monitor data on trash volumes, rates of diversion from landfill disposal and economic impacts of recycling. " RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE,page 27, addition of wording to statement#11: "Support consideration ofcertain waste restrictions in Colorado landfills, e.g., bans on electronic waste, organic materials and "white goods". " This wording addresses growing issue ofproper disposal of electronic waste which includes such items as computers, televisions and printers. RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE,page 27, revise wording to statement#12: "Support legislation to require greaterproducer responsibility,such as "take back" regulations that assist consumers to appropriately recycle electronic equipment(e.g., computers and televisions)" This statement addresses the growing issue of proper disposal of electronic waste which includes such items as computers, televisions and printers. RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE,page 27, revise wording to statement#13: "Support legislation that establishes a deposit fee on beverage containers using unclaimed deposits to fund recycling programs" The purpose of this revision is to specify that deposit money that remains unclaimed in the program should be used for recycling programs rather than returned to the general fund. TRANSPORTATION,page 32, addition of statement#13: "Support legislation that limits the ability of railroad locomotives, cars and trains to block street and highway grade crossings. " 50 December 5, 2006 This statement is to specifically support legislative efforts to address unreasonable blockage ofgrade crossings by trains. Such legislation maybe introduced at the state level in 2007. WATER UTILITIES,page 33, addition of statement#7: "Support legislation that would reasonably allow Colorado water courts to address water quality concerns while not significantly altering the responsibility of water courts in protecting water rights against injury. " The purpose of this statement is to support only legislation that truly deals with water quality issues involved in the transfer of water rights as opposed to the use of water quality issues as a tactic to block the legal transfer of water rights. " City Manager Attebeny recognized the work done by Mayor Hutchinson and Councilmembers Manvel and Ohlson on the Legislative Review Committee. He stated the staff and the Committee were recommending approval of this Resolution. Mark Radtke,Legislative Affairs Coordinator,stated the purpose ofthe legislative policy agenda was to provide the staff and Councilmembers with guidelines for taking positions on federal and state legislation during 2007. Ifbills surfaced that were not covered by these guidelines,the policy agenda would come back to the full City Council. High profile items were usually brought back to the Council by the Legislative Review Committee even if they were covered by the guidelines. Staff, the appropriate boards and commissions, the City Manager's Office, and the Legislative Review Committee were involved in formulating the final draft of the legislative policy agenda. Many of the policies set forth in the legislative policy agenda reflected other policies adopted by the Council in the past. The"underlying theme"in the legislative policy agenda was keeping local issues local decisions rather than state or federal decisions. Councilmember Kastein stated he was not comfortable with some of the legislative policy agenda. He asked if a different(modified)legislative agenda could be passed at some point if this Resolution was adopted. Radtke stated the legislative policy agenda could be altered. Councilmember Kastein noted a breakfast with the legislators was scheduled next week and asked if the discussion topics would be sent out ahead of time. Radtke replied in the affirmative. Mayor Hutchinson noted these were guidelines to be used as a"tool"to take positions on legislation. He asked if it would be possible in the future to have the legislative policy agenda refer via a footnote or annotation to specific policies(i.e.,the air quality policy)that had been formally adopted by the Council. Radtke stated that could be done. Councilmember Brown stated he had questions about 16 of the items on the legislative policy agenda and asked that those issues be discussed at a work session. He asked how soon a work session to "fine tune" or make changes to the legislative policy could be scheduled if this Resolution was adopted tonight. 51 December 5, 2006 Mayor Hutchinson stated if work sessions were held to discuss the legislative policy agenda that would be a change to the process, since the current process was to develop the legislative policy agenda through a Council committee. He would entertain a discussion about whether the entire Council wanted to spend work session time on this. Councilmember Weitkunat stated there had been a Legislative Review Committee for many years and it was formed to look at the basic agenda and recommend modifications each year. Most of the legislative policy agenda had been in place for quite some time and it was being"tweaked." The appropriate place for the process was with the Legislative Review Committee and this was where concerns from Councilmembers should be discussed. She suggested changes maybe needed relating to libraries because of the creation of the new library district. The intent was the Committee rather than the Council as a whole deal with legislation. She supported retaining the current process. Councilmember Manvel stated it was important that the legislative policy agenda become more "visible"to the Council before Committee consideration. Councilmember Ohlson noted he understood that the questions that Councilmembers Brown and Kastein had about the legislative policy agenda did not relate to the amendments and did relate to the longstanding"existing boilerplate." He stated if there were questions on the"tweaks"made by the Committee he would agree there needed to be additional discussion. He believed the questions should be discussed by the Legislative Review Committee. Mayor Hutchinson stated the Legislative Review Committee wanted the legislative policy agenda to reflect the Council's position. He thought it would be helpful to have the document refer to the Council policies that were the basis for the legislative policy. He understood a majority of the Council wanted to handle the discussion in ways other than a work session. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Resolution 2006-119. Councilmember Kastein stated this was a longstanding policy agenda that"migrated from Council to Council" and there was a "certain amount of institutional wisdom built into that document" as well as a"certain amount of politics that have been accumulated over the years." It sometimes made sense to look at the whole agenda again to see if it reflected the Council's beliefs. There were four areas on which he had some questions and he asked his questions too late in the process. There were several items he was not "comfortable"with and Councilmember Brown had many questions that should be looked at. He would support the motion and would like a follow-up by staff and the Legislative Review Committee on all of the questions he and Councilmember Brown asked. Mayor Hutchinson stated some of the legislative agenda policy was derived from longstanding, formally adopted Council policies. Some of those policies may need to be changed and it would be helpful to know which legislative policy agenda items were based on adopted Council policies. Councilmember Manvel stated it would be helpful to know which legislative policy agenda items were policy-based. He suggested the Legislative Review Committee meet soon to look at 52 December S, 2006 Councilmember Brown's comments. All Councilmembers were welcome to attend the Committee meetings to provide input. Councilmember Brown stated he was late getting his points to the Legislative Review Committee. There were some issues involving"big government, Second Amendment rights and taxation" and he wanted those issues to be reviewed. For that reason, he would not support the motion. Councilmember Ohlson asked about expectations for a timetable because the Legislative Review Committee would be very active in reacting to proposed legislation after the Legislature convened and the Committee meeting was "booked." City Manager Atteberry stated if the Council adopted this Resolution,the staff would interpret the decision as direction to "act on behalf of that adopted agenda." A number of Council committees met regularly and asked the Council to clarify how soon the Legislative Review Committee should meet to discuss a revised legislative policy agenda. Mayor Hutchinson stated the discussion of the questions asked by Councilmembers Brown and Kastein could"whittle down"the agenda items that needed to be reconsidered. The discussion could also show that some of the legislative policy agenda"reflected a policy this Council"doesn't like." He asked if the Councilmembers'questions could be answered by the time the Legislature convened in January. Radtke stated staff could provide a response to the questions quickly. Councilmember Weitkunat stated the legislative policy agenda had been in place for a long time and many of the questions focused on items that were in the agenda when the legislative policy agenda was adopted last year. The process needed to be followed to maintain the integrity of the process. There would be a new Council and another legislative review relating to the policy for the next year using the same document as the basis. The time to "scrutinize"the legislative policy agenda was when the new Council took office. Councilmembers had the responsibility to bring issues forward "mid-stream" rather than at the end of the process. Any "strong" concerns affecting the 2007 legislative agenda could be addressed as individual items. Mayor Hutchinson stated answering the questions would be the first step. Councilmember Manvel stated many of the questions may not be relevant to positions the City would take in the 2007 legislative session. If any of the questions had a bearing on legislation that might arise, the Legislative Review Committee would consider the fact that there were Councilmember questions on the matter. Councilmember Kastein stated he would be interested in seeing the answers to the questions posed by Councilmember Brown. He had two"lingering issues"he would like answered and may attend the next Legislative Review Committee meeting to have them addressed. This would determine if a revision to the legislative policy agenda was needed. Mayor Hutchinson stated this had been a productive discussion and he was pleased the Council was interested in the legislative policy agenda. 53 December 5, 2006 The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Brown. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 198, 2006, Amending the City Code for the Purpose of Decriminalizing Certain Code Violations by Creating a Civil Infraction Classification and Procedures for Violations Thereof.Adopted on First Reading The following is staff s memorandum on the item. "FINANCIAL IMPACT A hearing officer will be necessary for an estimated 10 hours per month to hear any contested civil citations or abatement assessments. The costs have already been budgeted for the 2007 budget and will be continued and/or increased in future budgets as necessary. The amount of increase in administrative costs is unknown; however, these costs will be directly related to the number of civil citations issued and the number ofcases setfor hearing. At leastsome of the costs will be offset by revenues from fines. In 2007,Neighborhood and Building Services will attempt to temporarily absorb the increase in administrative costs with existing staffand resources. By mid-2007, staff should have acquired sufficient cost-revenue data to analyze the necessity for increased staff and resources. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Currently, all violations of the City Code (except the Occupancy Ordinance and Public Nuisance Ordinance) are criminal misdemeanors, subject to a penalty of$1,000 and up to 180 days in jail. Decriminalizing certain additional Code sections will result in more effective enforcement of violations that adversely affect the livability of City neighborhoods, such as: • Collection and disposal of refuse and rubbish • Weeds, outdoor furniture and outdoor storage restrictions, storage of inoperable motor vehicles and parking on unimproved surfaces • Sidewalk snow and ice removal and signs in the right-of-way • Pruning or removing trees or shrubs encroaching streets and sidewalks 54 December 5, 2006 BACKGROUND Other communities that have made nuisance violations civil have achieved greater compliance and enforcement of nuisance violations.` The recommended revisions to the City Code, as outlined below, will change certain violations from criminal misdemeanors to civil infractions. At the work session on August 22, 2006, Council directed staff to move forward with a civil process for addressing certain code violations with quarterly reports to be made to Council after the civil citation process has begun. Most of the changes necessary to decriminalize portions of the Code are in Chapter 19, relating to Municipal Court, hearing and citation enforcement procedures. Individual provisions for specific nuisance violations will also be amended. The changes are summarized as follows: Chapter 1 These amendments primarily incorporate and apply penalty and culpability provisions to civil infractions. Chapter 19 These revisions add procedures for issuing a civil citation and appearing before a hearing officer to contest citations or the costs assessed for abatement. In addition, the proposed amendments clarify procedures for collection and liens provide that, after two violations in twelve (12) months of any ordinance classified as a civil infraction, any subsequent violations could be cited as misdemeanors, subject to criminal penalties. Chapter 12 These amendments pertain to the collection and disposal of refuse and rubbish. Chapter 10 These amendments pertain to certain sections dealing with weeds and rubbish, outdoor furniture restrictions, outdoor storage restrictions, unsheltered storage of inoperable motor vehicle restrictions, and parking on unimproved surface. Chapter 24 These amendments pertain to the removal ofsnow and ice. Chapter 27 These amendments pertain to the duty of property owners to prune or remove trees or shrubs that are encroaching on the right-of-way. Civil citations will require theproperty owner or tenant to correct the violation, while also assessing a fine for the violation. Fines will increase with repeat violations, creating a financial incentive for property owners to avoid f srther nuisance violations. This system ofprogressive penalties provides 'The City and County of Denver reported an increase in compliance rates of 65% since instituting the civil citation process in 2004. In addition, over$320,000 in f nes has been collected after issuing 2,168 civil citations between June 2004 and December 2005(with$900,000 still owed to them in the form of property liens). 55 December 5, 2006 an immediate fine, while concurrently discouraging repeat nuisance violations and encouraging continued compliance. The amount of the fine is set by the Municipal Judge. Staff recommends the fines for all civil violations, except violations ofLUC 3.8.16 (occupancy limits) be set at$100 for a first violation, $300 for a second violation, and any subsequent civil citation penalty would be doubled. If a third violation is charged as a criminal misdemeanor, the fine would be from $500 to $1000. Any fines assessed and collected from civil citations will be placed in the General Fund as a Code Enforcement/Neighborhood and Building Services revenue line in the City accounting system and reappropriated as necessary to help offset the ongoing public expense of funding Neighborhood Code Compliance services. " Beth Sowder, Neighborhood Services Manager, stated Council direction at the work session on August 22 was for staff to move forward with a recommendation to decriminalize certain nuisance code violations and to prepare quarterly reports once the civil citation process began. The proposal was to decriminalize(ormake civil)violations relating refuse and rubbish collection,weeds,outdoor furniture storage, outdoor storage, inoperable motor vehicles, parking on unimproved surfaces, sidewalk snow removal, and trees or shrubs encroaching on the streets or sidewalks. In November 2005 the occupancy limits in the Land Use Code were also decriminalized. Nuisance code violations were currently criminal violations i.e., subject to up to a$1,000 penalty and up to 180 days in jail. Conviction of such violations would give a criminal record to the violator and would require a lengthyMunicipal Court process. If the violations were decriminalized there would still be u to a P P P $1,000 fine and a hearing could be requested before the Municipal Court Referee (the Hearing Officer). There would still be a notification and citation process. The notification process would require correction of the violation by a due date. A fine would be assessed if the violation was not corrected or if it was a repeat violation. If it was a repeat violation staff would be able to issue a citation right away. Fines would increase for repeat violations and there would be an opportunity to make it a civil violation after the third violation. Fines would be set by the Municipal Judge and staff's recommendation for civil violations(except Land Use Code occupancy limit violations)was a fine of$100 for the first violation, $300 for the second violation, and doubling of the fine or conversion to a criminal misdemeanor violation ($500 to $1,000) after that. The fines would be collected upon payment within the 10 days after a citation or after a determination by the Hearing Officer that a fine should be assessed. The fines would be placed in the General Fund and reappropriated as necessary to help offset the funding for the code compliance process. It would be necessary to hire a Municipal Court Referee to serve as a Hearing Officer and this was included in the Code Enforcement budget offer for up to 10 hours per month. The administrative costs were unknown and they would be directly related to the number of civil citations issued and the number that would go to a hearing. Neighborhood and Building Services was planning to absorb those costs for 2007 and assess the need for a new budget offer after the program was in place. There had been substantial public outreach, including direct a-mails to stakeholders, Coloradoan columns, a neighborhood newsletter, a special meeting of the Colorado Apartment Association and the work session in August. The input received was in favor of decriminalization and specific input and suggestions were received. Implementation would begin 10 days after Second Reading and noted 56 December 5, 2006 that due to rescheduling of consideration of the Ordinance Second Reading would be held at a time when CSU was not in session. She suggested that Council may want to consider changing the date of Second Reading. Lloyd Walker, 1756 Concord Drive, Rolland Moore West Neighborhood, stated the Council had "risen to the challenge of preserving and protecting neighborhoods"by unanimously adopting the revised occupancy ordinance. His comments related to this agenda item and the next one. The two ordinances would benefit neighborhoods and make explicit the "spirit" of the existing ordinances and zoning regulations. More effective enforcement of the nuisance ordinances would result from decriminalization. He also made comments in favor of the next ordinance relating to RV parking. The changes would allow repeat offenders to be dealt with effectively and with"enough teeth" to discourage ongoing violations. All neighborhoods would benefit from the package of ordinances recommended by City staff. Effective enforcement was important to deal with nuisances. He asked that Council adopt this ordinance and the following ordinance relating to RV parking. Councilmember Kastein asked if the violations that would be decriminalized would count toward a Public Nuisance Ordinance (PNO) violation. Sowder replied in the affirmative and stated civil infractions were included under the PNO if the same violation was repeated within six months or if three violations occurred within one year or five occurred with two years. The PNO violator had the option to come up with a voluntary abatement plan. Councilmember Kastein asked when civil infractions were included in the PNO. Sowder replied that was done in November 2005 when the occupancy ordinance violations were made civil violations. Councilmember Kastein asked if staff considered issues such as whether a civil infraction would require less burden of proof and whether it was appropriate to roll "minor" civil infractions into a PNO violation. Sowder stated noise violations automatically became a PNO violation and that this determination was based on the overall severity or repetition of the problem for other violations. She stated the PNO was intended to be used for chronic problem properties. Councilmember Kastein asked if there were more"frivolous" complaints recently. Sowder stated she had not seen this to be a trend. There was usually cause for complaint when a complaint was filed. The majority of inspections were proactive rather than based on a complaint. Councilmember Kastein stated he wanted to "check in" periodically to see how the complaint process was working or if it was "backfiring in any way." Sowder stated staff was careful about listening to the complaints and trying to screen out those that seemed to be neighborhood disputes for referral to the mediation program to try to get to the root of the problem. Councilmember Manvel asked if the fine structure ($100, $300 and then doubled) was in the ordinance. Teresa Ablao, Assistant City Attorney, stated standard fines were set by the Municipal Judge and staff was recommending the first offense fine be set at$100 and so forth. The Municipal Judge had the authority to set the amount of a fine within the established range unless a fine was specified in the ordinance. 57 December 5, 2006 Councilmember Manvel asked if the Council passed the ordinance without objecting to the recommended fines, would the Municipal Judge understand the Council had discussed the fines as recommended by staff. It appeared the Council did not have a role in sending forth a recommendation regarding the fines to the Municipal Judge. City Attorney Roy stated the Municipal Judge had the authority to submit a schedule of fines for Council approval. He asked if fines were doubled on a second offense for all violations. Ablao replied in the affirmative, except for traffic code violations that were established as a penalty assessment. City Attorney Roy stated the information about fines in the agenda item summary was consistent with what the Municipal Judge would normally do,but it was still up to her to set the fine and it was not mandated by the ordinance as presently written. Councilmember Manvel asked if fines were doubled or tripled for the second offense. City Attorney Roy stated staff needed to take a look at this issue before Second Reading. Councilmember Manvel noted that further offenses were doubled and asked if that meant that the cap was doubled or the penalty was doubled i.e.,what the fine would be for each violation after the third. City Attorney Roy stated the maximum fine would be$1,000 and the fine could not double beyond that. Typically the fine was twice the amount imposed for the previous offense up to the $1,000 maximum. The issue that needed to be discussed further was whether it would be$100,$200 and then doubled or $100, $300 and then doubled. Council could decide to put the fine in the ordinance. Ablao stated the Municipal Judge's fine schedule was approved by Council by Resolution each year. Councilmember Ohlson asked for additional information about how City staff would gain access to properties. Ablao stated the Code Inspection Officer would be authorized to enter premises if there was reasonable cause. If the premises were occupied,permission to enter must be requested and if permission was not granted there would be a need for a warrant from the Municipal Judge to gain entry without consent. City Attorney Roy asked if warrantless entry would be allowed in some circumstances. Ablao stated this would be allowed in circumstances relating to immediate health and safety issues. Councilmember Ohlson asked if the City had been "responsible" in from both the City's and citizens' civil rights perspectives. Ablao replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat,to adopt Ordinance No. 198, 2006 on First Reading. Councilmember Roy commented this work had been "years in the making" and would make a difference for a`renewed sense of vibrancy" for the neighborhoods. Councilmember Weitkunat commented"dangerous"behaviors would still be treated as "criminal offenses" and other nuisances would be appropriately categorized as civil offenses with no jail penalty. This ordinance was a"service" to the community. 58 December 5, 2006 The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Items Relating to Recreational Vehicle (RV) Storage and Parking.Adopted on First Reading The following is staff s memorandum on the item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 199, 2006, Amending Sections 17-181 and 17-182 of the City Code Regarding Camping. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 200, 2006,Amending Sections 1213 and 1214 of the Traffic Code Relating to Parking. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 201, 2006,Amending Sections 20-104, 20-105 and 20-106 of the City Code Pertaining to Parking. Current ordinances regarding urban camping do not adequately address various issues that have arisen repeatedly over the years, and there is no ordinance that addresses RVparking and storage. The current City Code camping provisions (Sections 17-181 and 17-182) require a permit system that is not workable and prohibits some types of camping the City may not intend to prohibit. Similarly, the Fort Collins Traffic Code (FCTC), Section 1214, as currently written, appears to prohibit occupancy of any vehicle, including RVs, at any time and anywhere, in the City. There is a need for clarification and definitions in order to properly address these subjects. In addition, due to the number ofcitizen complaints received regarding R Vparking,storage and occupancy, Chapter 20 (Nuisances)should be amended. BAC%GROUND At the September 12, 2006 Work Session, Council directed staff to move forward with the recommended Code changes regarding RV parking, storage and urban camping. The proposed amendments to Chapter 17 eliminate the camping permit requirement and redefine "camping" consistent with the definition. Further amendments will also allow temporary and intermittent camping on private property for 7 consecutive days and not more than 14 days in a calendar year. Theproposed amendments to the Fort Collins Traffic Code(FCTC)will continue to prohibit the use of vehicles for living and sleeping purposes on public property, streets and lots open to the public. A new section will prohibit the use of motor vehicles (including RVs and trailers)for living or sleeping purposes on private lots open to the public, to address people parking and living out of vehicles (e.g., buses, vans, trucks, and RVs) on the street and/or a parking lot or other public 59 December 5, 2006 property, in lieu of a campground or other occupancy arrangements. Amendments to Section 1214 will allow parking RVs and trailers on the street for a 48-hour period for loading/unloading purposes and will prohibit parking of any RV or trailer in a manner that interferes or obstructs the view of any intersection or traffic control device. The proposed amendments to Chapter 20 will subject RVs and trailers to the same requirements that are contained in the current 'parking on yards" ordinance by requiring RVs and trailers to be parked on an improved surface or be screened from public view by a solid fence, masonry, or shrubbery no less than six (6)feet high. This requirement addresses the quality of life issues in neighborhoods. " City Manager Atteberry introduced the agenda item and clarified in response to possible misinformation that parking tickets in the downtown were not $1,000. Beth Sowder,Neighborhood Services Manager,stated this item was discussed at a work session on September 12 and Council provided direction to move forward with ordinances in accordance with the staff s recommendation. The current ordinances did not adequately address complaints and there were no ordinances relating to RV parking and storage on private property. The current permit system was not workable and definitions needed to be clarified. Ordinance No. 199, 2006 related to camping and amended Sections 17-181 and 17-182 by eliminating the camping permit requirement,redefining"camping"to be consistent with the natural area and recreational definition approved earlier this year, and allowed for temporary or intermittent camping on private property for up to seven consecutive days or 14 days in a calendar year. Ordinance No. 200, 2006 would amend Sections 12-13 and 12-14 of the Traffic Code to prohibit the use of vehicles for living and sleeping purposes on public property and streets, prohibit the use of vehicles including RVs and trailers for living and sleeping purposes on private lots open to the public,allow RVs and trailers on streets for 48 hours for loading and unloading purposes, and prohibit parking of any RV or trailer so as to interfere with the view of any intersection or traffic control device. Ordinance No.201,2006 related to parking of RVs and trailers on private property and amended Sections 20-104,20-105 and 20-106 to require RVs and trailers to be parked on an improved surface or screened from public view with masonry or shrubbery no less than six feet high. She presented visual information showing situations that would be addressed by this ordinance and situations that would be in compliance with the Code. Public outreach on this issue included direct e-mail to stakeholders,Coloradoan columns, neighborhood newsletters,apartment association meetings and the Council work session. All of the input received had been in favor of this change except one person was against the portion that would prohibit overnight camping in parking lots. Implementation would begin 10 days after Second Reading and the enforcement effort would include notification of the violation and time to correct before any civil citation would be issued. George Jansen,Fort Collins resident, stated it would not be unusual for his parents to visit and stay in their RV in his driveway for more than 14 days in a calendar year. He suggested a 30-day limit would be more appropriate. 60 December 5, 2006 Councilmember Ohlson asked if many parts of Fort Collins had covenants that would prevent many of the things covered by these ordinances. Sowder replied in the affirmative and stated there was a large area of Fort Collins not covered by covenants. The covenants would be relied on for stricter enforcement and the City would only be able to enforce to the extent of the ordinances. Councilmember Ohlson asked if information was available on what percentage of Fort Collins in households were covered by some kind of HOA or covenants. Sowder stated she was not aware that such information was available. Councilmember Ohlson believed there were many neighborhoods that had far stricter covenants than what the City would have. He asked why the City did not look at being stricter regarding people parking in their front driveway. Under the proposed ordinance people could park in their driveways or front yards on a hard surface on a permanent basis as long as it was licensed even though it was not currently in use. Sowder stated this was correct. Staff did discuss this as an option and concluded this would be"too strict." After reviewing the ordinances of other cities staff concluded the requirement should be made consistent with the parking requirements for vehicles or screened. Councilmember Ohlson stated he was not too concerned about people camping overnight in a parking lot as long as they did not drain anything onto the ground. He asked why this was a concern. Teresa Ablao,Assistant City Attorney,stated this provision was discussed with Police Services and the concern was enforcement on private property. Councilmember Brown asked if a visitor could stay at someone's house for 14 days and then at someone else's house for another 14 days i.e.,whether the 14-day restriction was per vehicle or per location. Sowder stated it was by location. Councilmember Manvel suggested future consideration of a setback requirement for driveway parking. He noted an RV was much bigger than a shed,which would not be allowed close to another neighbor's property. He asked about the consistency of language in Section 12-14 that provided no recreational vehicle"shall be parked or stored"upon a street and language that specified a 48 hours as the maximum number of hours for such parking. He asked for clarification of this language. Ablao stated one subsection allowed parking for a maximum time of 48 hours on a street in any residential district. She stated the 48-hour allowance was not included in the section prohibiting parking on a street. Councilmember Manvel stated there was conflicting language that would prohibit someone from parking an RV on the street in front of their house to load it. Ablao stated Subsection(2) clarified that parking for loading and unloading purposes was allowed in a residential district. Councilmember Manvel stated he would like additional clarification prior to Second Reading to reword the first provision so that the second provision was clearly an exception to the first provision. 61 December S, 2006 Councilmember Kastein asked why parking on an improved surface was required. Sowder stated this applied to motor vehicles and now to RV and trailer parking because parking on unimproved surfaces would tear up yards and contribute to weeds. Councilmember Kastein asked if there needed to be an improved surface from the front of the house to the improved surface in the back. Sowder stated only the surface used for parking must be improved. Councilmember Kastein asked if the 14-day limit applied to living in an RV in a driveway rather than just parking it there. Sowder replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if a permitting process was included in the Code for exceptions to the rule. This might be appropriate for emergency situations. She asked if there was a process for any of the neighborhood nuisance codes that allowed for issuance of a permit or exemption for exceptions. The intent of the Code was to ensure that people would not be living in campers and RVs outside rather than to"stifle visitation." She asked if an existing process could be modified to allow for exceptions based on circumstances. Sowder stated there was no formal permit process but extensions of the time limit were regularly granted for special circumstances. An extension may not be granted in some situations if complaints were received. Councilmember Weitkunat stated it might be beneficial to include the extension process in the ordinance to let everyone know that there were circumstances in which an extension could be granted. Sowder stated it would be possible to add that to the ordinance. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy,to adopt Ordinance No. 199, 2006 on First Reading. Councilmember Ohlson supported Councilmember Weitkunat's suggestion for including the extension process in the ordinance provided there were no complaints and proper procedures were followed. He expressed concern about requiring parking on a hard surface and stated he would prefer to see RV parking on a soft surface on the side rather than on the improved driveway if he was a neighbor. He would be interested in citizen feedback on the issue of parking of"gigantic things" on the front driveways. Very little of his Council District had covenants or HOA's to protect against that kind of RV parking. He was pleased with the progress that had been made. Councilmember Kastein stated he would be concerned about changing the ordinance to allow parking only on improved surfaces. People had made decisions to buy RVs already and were parking them alongside their houses and would now be forced to put in an expensive surface or find parking elsewhere. He was somewhat uncomfortable with the fact that this was"aesthetics driven." People made a choice about living in an area that had covenants to protect against this kind of thing. There was a weed ordinance and he did not understand the argument that parking on a soft surface would contribute to weeds. 62 December S, 2006 Councilmember Roy stated he would be interested in knowing how many households in Fort Collins already had some protection against"visual blight" due to covenants or HOA's. It made sense to require parking on impervious surfaces that were visible. Councilmember Ohlson stated not everyone had a choice about living in an"upscale neighborhood." People should not have to deal with neighborhood nuisances because of their financial and personal circumstances. Councilmember Weitkunat stated it was important to determine how big the problem was that a nuisance ordinance would address. It made sense to start here and then look at the "magnitude of the problem" to determine if it needed "greater fixing." More legislation may be necessary if the problem is determined to be big enough to warrant that. She believed the known problems were being fixed "appropriately." The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy,to adopt Ordinance No. 200, 2006 on First Reading. Councilmember Manvel stated he would vote for the motion because he was confident some minor wording"repairs" could be done to make the exceptions clear before Second Reading. Councilmember Kastein stated prior to Second Reading he would be asking for verbiage to revise the ordinance to eliminate the need for an improved surface for parking at the side of the house even without a fence. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adopt Ordinance No. 201, 2006 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. 63 December S, 2006 Ordinance No. 192, 2006, Making Various Amendments to the City's Land Use Code,Adopted on First Reading The following is staffs memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff has identified a variety ofproposed changes, additions and clarifications in the Fall biannual update of the Land Use Code. BACKGROUND The Land Use Code was first adopted in March 1997. Subsequent revisions have been recommended on a biannual basis to make changes,additions,deletions and clarifications that have been identified in the preceding six months. The proposed changes are offered in order to resolve implementation issues and to continuously improve both the overall quality and "user friendliness" of the Code." Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, stated this was the First Reading of the fall update of the Land Use Code. The ordinance was almost the same as the version seen at the October 24 work session. A change had been made to remove the provision relating to portable signs in the downtown area. Staff would be working with a design committee on minimum design standards and this would probably be brought back for inclusion in the City Code rather than the Land Use Code since it dealt exclusively with the right-of-way. Issues would be addressed relating to grand openings,City-wide application and portable signs not visible from the right-of-way. A change had also been made to the ordinance relating to alternative compliance. He stated the language had been inadvertently retained from a previous draft and that the alternative compliance provision was no longer needed. He stated staff viewed this as a housekeeping change. A summary of the Planning and Zoning Board's recommendations had been provided in Council packet. The Board voted 6-0 on all but two items. The Board voted 4-2 on the downtown height issue and a summary of the two points of view had been provided in the Council packet. On December 19 staff would bring to the Council a minor amendment to the Downtown Strategic Plan to provide language and direction for anyone seeking a modification to height and mass. This would address issues such as private parking structures, civic plazas, use of superior materials, creative use of urban form i.e., things that would justify a modification. This would help guide the Planning and Zoning Board in addressing a request for a modification to height and mass. On the sign issue,with regard to banners only,the Board voted 4-2 and a summary of the two views was included in the Council packet. Staff was aware there were some property owners in the Canyon Avenue Subdistrict of the downtown were at the meeting to address this issue. Mayor Hutchinson stated audience participants could address any of the Land Use Code changes. 64 December 5, 2006 Nate Donovan,2400 Hampshire Square,spoke regarding Section 11 of the Ordinance relating to the proposal to eliminate the time requirement for posting of signs prior to an election. Tthere should be a time limit and asked that the current 45-day limit be kept in place or that some other"reasonable limit" be set. He noted it took a lot of City resources to take down election signs that were not placed appropriately. Candidates should place signs on private property with the consent of the property owner. Donald Prose, 16 Alta Loma Drive, Pueblo, Colorado, stated he represented Pro-Vin Enterprises, Inc., which was part owner of the Key Bank Building at the corner of Howes and Oak Streets. The property owner chose to "invest" in downtown Fort Collins because of its natural beauty and "progressive nature." A property was valued by its present and future use and that a piece of property on which a 12-story building could be built was much more valuable than one upon which only a 3 or 4-story building could be built. If the proposal was accepted by Council, the property would be reduced from a 12-story building site to a 3 or 4-story building site overnight. This would be done at"great harm"to the property owner. This"borders on eminent domain"because"vertical property" would be taken away by government. Other property owners felt the same way. Much effort must have been spent on this"ambitious plan to micromanage the entire downtown business district" but little thought must have been expended concerning how this proposal would affect property owners. Property values would go down along with the tax base. If this proposal was accepted by the Council he predicted there would be"endless litigation"to determine whether or not this was a matter of eminent domain and to recoup lost value from the City. He predicted the tax base would be lowered over the entire downtown district. He believed a vote for this proposal was a vote for"sprawl"because "if you can't go up, you've got to go out." Dana Geyer,3718 Mariner Lane,stated the proposal in front of the Council was the wrong approach at the wrong time. This building height and setbacks proposal would "tie the hands" of future Councils and City staffs. Great cities were "identified by their skyline and physical structures." Staff was charged with promulgating building guidelines that would allow the downtown and all of Fort Collins to grow and develop into a vibrant, attractive and functional "city of tomorrow." Arbitrarily limiting buildings on ablock byblock basis without a comprehensive outline would result in a "willy-nilly collage of a cityscape in the future." He questioned what the "real agenda" was. There were no plans to build on these properties for 15-30 years from now and there was no urgency to impose constraints and restrictions today. Future issues, constraints or opportunities were unknown. Lowering the height would impact the economics of any future development project. This proposal would amount to a"public taking of private property rights"and potentially millions of dollars of lost potential development. He asked that there be a comprehensive approach and process that would give the entire City future options for development as needs and opportunities arose a generation from now. Jack Vahrenwald, President of the Savings Building Condominium Association, owner of the Key Bank building at 125 South Howes Street and associated parking lots,stated the Association was not in favor of the proposed Ordinance. The Association had a general objection regarding the current attempt to limit growth that may not happen until 2036 or 2046. The downtown area had grown along with Fort Collins and Fort Collins would continue to grow. To be viable,the downtown would 65 December 5, 2006 also have to grow. This growth needed to be"more vertical than horizontal"to preserve Old Town areas. The Association also had a specific objection to the proposal. The Association's parking lot at the northwest corner ofMeldrum and Oak Streets was approximately an acre in size. Current City regulations provided that a building could go up to 168 feet subject to substantial City review. Of 33 blocks only four were proposed to be restricted to a maximum of 45-foot high buildings. One of the blocks proposed for height restrictions was the Association's parking lot. The other three blocks were mostly homes. The parking lot and the surrounding property had no homes. Imposing a 45- foot height restriction on the parking lot would "unfairly treat this property" as compared to the others that would be restricted to 45 feet. He asked that Council allow the Association's block to have 85-foot height limit. Mike Jensen, downtown property owner and developer, stated he owned Block 23 bounded by College, Maple, Cherry and Mason. He had been working on redevelopment projects for the last three years. This Ordinance would substantially impact project plans. Building height restrictions would"limit the future"of the downtown. A"line in the sand"that was established on a block by block basis was"challenging"and must be negotiated. He asked the Council consider the need for additional jobs in the downtown and noted he hoped to bring additional jobs to the downtown with the redevelopment project on this property. He asked if the City would consider a higher building if the project would attract a"world class"employer. A world class facility would be needed to do this which could require a higher building than 7-9 stories. He asked that the Ordinance be amended to allow for modifications to accommodate buildings needed for employment or other"missing uses" in the downtown. (**Secretary's Note: The Council took a recess at this point in the meeting.) Councilmember Weitkunat asked for clarification regarding building height modifications. Shepard stated a section of the Code referred to how the mass of a building could be mitigated. A previous version of that standard contained specific metrics and the standard was being revised to make it more discretionary. The language would broaden the interpretation so there may not be a need for an automatic modification procedure if a project had"good design." When the standard contained metrics there was a provision for alternative compliance to allow flexibility for site specific creative design solutions. The alternative compliance language was superfluous and not needed when the standard was written to make it more discretionary. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if Section 3 would address this. Shepard stated Section 3 contained language relating to regulating the mass of a building while allowing"impressive"design solutions to come forward without requiring a modification. A modification procedure was available to anyone at any time. Staff believed a discretionary standard was better and more efficient than a two-step prescriptive standard with an alternative compliance provision. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if this change was made after the Planning and Zoning Board hearing. Shepard replied in the affirmative. 66 December S, 2006 Councilmember Weitkunat noted that previous discussions about building height addressed missing uses, public good and purpose, etc. She asked where those types of criteria were referenced. Shepard stated that was forthcoming and would be processed as a minor amendment to the Downtown Strategic Plan. He noted this would be presented to the Planning and Zoning Board and would be brought forward for a Council Resolution on December 19. Councilmember Weitkunat asked for confirmation that staff was saying this was a process that would meet Council's intent about alteringthe height of a building in this articular zone that modification � g P , was a process that was open to everyone, and modification was open by altering the Downtown Strategic Plan and referencing it. Shepard stated this was the direction staff received at the work session and this was what staff planned to implement. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if this was the intent of the Planning and Zoning Board. Shepard stated all six of the Board members agreed on this direction. Mayor Hutchinson stated this was a"pivotal point"for this issue. He asked if it was correct that this would give clear flexibility and the building height standards did not address architectural interest, design details, and mitigation of extra height. He asked if the height numbers were the"baseline" and if you wanted to build higher there would be different standards to preserve the quality view of the downtown. Clark Mapes, City Planner, stated a developer would need to meet these standards to get to those heights. Mayor Hutchinson asked if slightly different standards would have to be met to exceed the height limit. Shepard stated that was correct and there was a statement relating to measurement of height that read as follows: ". . .that the maximum height limits are intended to convey a scale of building rather than exact point or line." He stated staff believed there was a "plus or minus factor" and average or mean heights of sloping roofs could be used, or that lofts, cornices and chimneys could be exempted. A package of design elements would be reviewed for a building of these heights. Mayor Hutchinson noted some might be concerned that they could not build a building of more than three or four stories in spite of that paragraph. Shepard stated staff would point out the opportunities in the modification standard (Article 2) or the criteria that would be added to the Downtown Strategic Plan to address public benefits and guide the Planning and Zoning Board in considering a modification. Mayor Hutchinson stated this was an important issue because Mr. Jensen was asking that Council confirm that modifications would be available if required. Councilmember Manvel asked staff to explain the feasibility of building a 12-story building on the parking lot property west of Meldrum Street under the current standard. Mapes stated the current Code provided for a 12-story limit and for an office building listed a floor area ratio of 5. He stated presumably under the existing Code provision a 12-story building could be built on the parcel. If it was a mixed use building(office below and residential above) the Code would allow a 12-story building except that this zone district specifically referred to another section in the Code relating to compatibility standards for height, bulk, mass and scale of buildings. This was the provision that 67 December 5, 2006 created some of the disagreement relating to the Steele's site project. The net effect was that it made it difficult to determine in advance what could be built on a given piece of property, and especially the referenced parcel. He noted even the owners agreed that a 12-story building would not fit on that parcel and the question was therefore how big a building could fit on the parcel. Councilmember Manvel asked if the intent of these proposed changes was to move from a"fuzzy compatibility standard" that meant a large investment for something that ultimately not work to a "definite standard"that would allow one to ask for a higher building. Mapes stated the intent was to "add clarity and predictability" and a number of developers had indicated this was their most important issue as opposed to the issue of a reduction in height for some particular properties. Councilmember Kastein asked for clarification that there were situations where no development would ever be approved at the maximum height and whether the intent was to determine what was feasible and would"probably be approved"for a maximum height in specific areas subject to design criteria. Mapes replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Kastein asked how to respond to the people who did not"care about that assurance" that the intent was to take some of the"ambiguity"out of the process. He noted some people were questioning making height decisions now when development might not occur for many years and times might change. Mapes stated an approach could be taken to allow proposed projects to "fight it out." There were historic preservation,neighborhood,general citizen, DDA,and property owner interests. The City could take a position that it would not "give any guidance." This was what happened on the Steele's site project. There were developers that wanted City guidance and strong and competing groups were polarized on height issues. This would be a"compromise"that would make an attempt to balance the competing interests and that this appeared to be a better solution than the "laissez-faire" approach. More people cared about receiving guidance than did not care. Councilmember Kastein asked about the parcel referenced by one of the speakers bounded by Mountain,Meldrum,Oak and Sherwood that would be limited to 45 feet. One speaker made a point that the blocks to the north were limited to 85 feet and the uses were basically the same as the property that would have a 45-foot height limit. He asked staff to comment on this. Mapes presented visual information showing the parcels, the zoning districts and the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer zone strip along the west edge(excluding one small parcel of property). The specific zoning was done in response to the uses in place at the time the zoning was done. The NCB zoning was put in place as part of the West Side Neighborhood Plan and the owner contended this zoning was not appropriate for a small parcel of property. This small piece of property in question was zoned as a"concession."The small piece of property was not zoned as it is with the idea that a 12-story building would be appropriate for this half block,but instead to reflect the uses that were in place at the time of zoning. The issue of scale associated with the Downtown zone was probably not considered much at the time of the zoning. By right and in terms of scale this block fit better as part of the NCB zone district, which would have a 3-story height limit to provide a transition zone. Councilmember Kastein stated it appeared people were made aware of the buffer between the downtown and the neighborhoods and this parcel property was really in that buffer area where everything was 3 to 4 stories. He asked what the height limit was at this time. Mapes stated it was 68 December 5, 2006 168 feet set by the standard which then referred to compliance with a compatibility standard relating to bulk, height, mass and scale. Councilmember Kastein asked if this meant that the height would be limited as it would be for the whole downtown area. Mapes replied in the affirmative and stated it would be necessary to "speculate"as to what height might actually be approved since there were houses west of the alley. Councilmember Kastein asked whether the current F.A.R. would limit the size of the building on this property. Mapes stated if it was an office building only it would be limited to a F.A.R.of 5 and that lot coverage was currently limited to 75%which would mean that the F.A.R. would equate to about a 6-story building. The F.A.R. would limit the height on this block to six stories if it was strictly a non-residential building. A mixed use building with a residential component any additional floors above the six stories would be permitted as residential. This type of building was probably not "remotely appropriate" for this block. Councilmember Kastein stated another speaker was asking for an addition to the Code. He asked if the changes that would be proposed to the Downtown Strategic Plan would include consideration of mitigating circumstances that would make it possible to have higher buildings. He asked if employment opportunities could be a mitigating circumstance. Mapes replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Brown asked if the inclusion of employment could mean a higher building for the parcel in question. His understanding was that the parking lot and the potential building height was part of the negotiation with people who owned the Key Bank building. He asked if there could be another 10 to 15 feet of height with a mixed use building. Mapes stated the 168- foot number was established with City Plan in 1997. The parcel was probably in a PUD zone prior to 1997 and there would not have been a height limit stated. The Code prior to City Plan required that any building over 40 feet to be reviewed under the Code that was in effect. The 168-foot number was established after the zoning was put in place in 1997. Councilmember Brown asked if an employment opportunity would be one reason to raise the height of the building. Mapes stated this had not been considered in the context of this specific block. He stated the intent was to apply this(i.e.,employment as a mitigating factor)throughout the entire zone district. This concept may require additional staff work because this block was more"sensitive"in terms of its surroundings i.e.,the scale and number of buildings around it. Shepard stated language would be added to the Downtown Strategic Plan relating to mitigating factors and there was existing language in the modification section that provided a modification could be granted by the Planning and Zoning Board to substantially alleviate an existing defined and described problem of City-wide concern or if it would result in a substantial benefit to the City because a proposed project would address an important community need described in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Modifications could be handled through the existing language or through the new language to be added to the Downtown Strategic Plan. Councilmember Brown asked for further clarification regard the effect on specific property in the "western oval." Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director, stated the Council could consider a modification to the height limit in that parcel if a finding was made that there would be a substantial 69 December S, 2006 benefit to the Citybecause the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically defined and described in the City's Comprehensive Plan. This meant the Council would have to make a finding regarding whether a specific proposal would meet a specific community need such as economic development. Councilmember Brown asked what the height limit would be. Frank stated there was no limit to what could be proposed in a modification request. Mapes stated the criteria would apply to this location. Councilmember Brown expressed a concern that nobody knew what would happen 20 years from now and that he did not want to "tie the hands of future Councils"when considering the economic impact of a proposal. Frank stated unique situations could be considered when there was a"strong public purpose." It would be helpful to address some of Council's intent in the new language of the Downtown Strategic Plan i.e., examples of what might be appropriate for a modification request. Councilmember Ohlson asked about the item relating to emergency access requirements. The Council had discussed and concurred the intent was to look at these access problems on development review for in-fill redevelopment and green field locations. There were concerns that access requirements could be too stringent relating to minimum turnaround diameters and the minimum width of fire access. He did not want to "sacrifice health and safety"but noted Europe and some large American cities such as Boston and New York City had narrow areas that worked fine. He asked when Council would see the staff work on that issue since it was not part of this Ordinance. He would like to see closure on this issue even if the recommendation from staff was that there be "no change." Shepard stated this issue had been discussed during the in-fill and redevelopment project and during the business outreach done in 2006. Staff was now looking at things"creatively" on more of a case-by-case basis. This issue did relate to the Fire Code and staff would have to work with the Fire Prevention Bureau to come back with a recommendation for next spring. City Manager Atteberry stated he would let the Council know when a staff recommendation would be brought forward on this issue. Councilmember Ohlson asked if an amendment to the Ordinance could be brought back on Second Reading if the Council decided to have no limit or a longer time limit (such as 100 days) on the posting of election signs. He understood the public wanted some kind of time limit ahead of an election. City Attorney Roy stated the motion to adopt the Ordinance could include direction that the provision pertaining to election signs was to be revised on Second Reading to include a specific time limit. Council would need direction on leaving in language that provided that the Zoning Board of Appeals could grant a variance to extend the time period. Councilmember Weitkunat noted the issue of the time limit for posting of election signs came up during the Primary and November elections. She asked if there was explicit information available for City elections that indicated that signs could not be posted until January. City Clerk Krajicek stated the information that was available on City elections included the language that staff was proposing be removed. 70 December 5, 2006 Councilmember Weitkunat asked if there was a City timetable as to when certain election actions would take place. City Clerk Krajicek stated there were specific deadlines for circulating and submitting nomination petitions and that this did not affect the timing for posting of election signs. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if sign could be posted when a candidate made an announcement of candidacy. City Clerk Krajicek stated a sign could be posted 45 days prior to the election under the current requirement. Councilmember Ohlson stated the public did not want signs to be left up for an unlimited period of time. There had been discussion that it was an unfair "competitive disadvantage" for those who "played by the rules" and posted signs in the proper locations and at the proper times when others did not play by the rules and had signs up longer in illegal locations. He asked if staff would have suggestions on enforcement i.e.,hiring of temporary staff,removal of illegal signs rather than giving them back,fines,etc. City Attorney Roy stated what was presently being proposed was moving the regulation of signs in the right-of-way from its current Code location to another section relating to handbills in the right-of-way. There was a quicker way to dispose of offending signs in the handbill p g � section. A misdemeanor offense could then be charged for putting signs in the right-of-way or failing to pick them up after notice. This would be done in a separate Ordinance rather than in the Land Use Code Ordinance. City Manager Atteberry stated this was a growing problem that needed to be fixed and the Ordinance would address the issues mentioned by Councilmember Ohlson. Councilmember Manvel asked about the section relating to banners and pennants and asked for clarification about who the permittee would be for a banner permit for a shopping center. Peter Barnes, Zoning Supervisor, stated the Code would allow each business to have a banner for the proposed number of days i.e., a new business could have 20 days plus an additional 20, an established business could have 20 days. He stated the shopping center itself could have a banner for the allotted number of days. Councilmember Manvel asked about the maximum size for a banner or banners would be a total of 40 square feet. Barnes stated any one banner could not exceed 40 square feet. Councilmember Manvel asked if this meant that each store could have 20 banners that were each 40 square feet. Bames stated the number of banners was not currently limited. Councilmember Manvel stated he believed that this was an"omission"and noted the case of a small shopping center that recently had a"small fence"of banners around a corner. He did not want this kind of thing to be possible. He did not favor having an unlimited number of banners surrounding a shopping center and suggested that there be a limit on the total square feet of banners. Councilmember Weitkunat noted there was a permitting process and asked if there were criteria for receiving a permit. Barnes stated there were no criteria under the current Code provision and that permits were arranged over the phone and tracked in a computer database. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson,to adopt Ordinance No. 192, 2006 on First Reading and to direct staff to include a 90-day limit on campaign signs. 71 December 5, 2006 Councilmember Manvel stated the 90-day limit was"somewhat arbitrary"but it would eliminate the "gap"between the Primary election signs and the General election signs. Those in the political arena might welcome a specific time when signs could go up. He believed citizens would also welcome not having signs up all the time. City Attorney Roy requested clarification of the motion regarding a Zoning Board of Appeals review for possible extension of the time period. Councilmember Manvel stated he did not want to include that in the motion. Councilmember Ohlson stated"compromises"had been made and were being proposed and he did not want to see too much more compromise. The original Downtown Strategic Plan was developed after an exhaustive process that addressed many issues including building height. The plan was built on the neighborhood plans and those plans should not be"tossed out"as a new plan was developed. It appeared that there would be an "out" that would mean almost anyone could qualify for a modification that could result in"considerably taller"buildings if certain criteria were met. He did not want to "diminish" anything that had received strong agreement at the Council work session when there was no "new information coming forward." Councilmember Roy stated it was important that there be a "sense of place and scale" and the success of downtown did not depend on"how much and how high you can go." He would like to know how many square feet would be possible at build-out for aproposal with no modifications.The "scale of buildings"made a difference as to how a place succeeded. In-fill and redevelopment was important for the City and it was also important that the citizens had the "ability to feel like they were part of it." He also had concerns that banners could be "visual clutter" under the new requirement. Many of the changes were "positive changes" to the Land Use Code but he had concerns about several of the issues that related to "clutter and sense of place." Councilmember Kastein stated he would support the 90-day time limit for political signs to fill the gap between the Primary and General elections. It made sense to limit the signs. He would support verbiage that would allow for exceptions to the height requirements because the design standards were"strong"for large scale buildings. He stated he would like an analysis by staff prior to Second Reading on the block to the west(the"oval")regarding what would occur to the east(the Mountain Avenue,Oak Street,Howes Street block)if that block was allowed to be 85 feet. He stated he would follow-up with staff on an 85-foot limitation on that particular block. He asked if staff had any verbiage yet relating to the changes to the Downtown Strategic Plan for modifications based on "excellent employment opportunities." He stated if there was any draft verbiage that he would like to see that before Second Reading. He supported the change to allow banners for 40 days,especially for nonprofit organizations and that he supported the rest of the changes. Councilmember Brown stated he also wanted to look at 85 feet for the western block and that he would like to know the height of the trees on that block. He expressed a concern that there could be freedom of speech issues relating to campaign sign time limits. He stated he would like information on that before Second Reading. City Attorney Roy stated he would provide the Council with information on that issue prior to Second Reading. 72 December S, 2006 Councilmember Weitkunat stated the 90-day time limit for political signs would be "beneficial." She stated there should not be an unlimited ability to post such signs. She stated the increase to 40 days for banners was only for nonprofit organizations and new businesses. She stated she did not believe that this would be a major problem because the City "wanted business to succeed." She stated a"little extra PR"could make a difference in that success. She stated there had been concern expressed by some agencies doing outreach about the current time limit for banners. She stated the Council needed to make sure that the height requirements meet current needs since it was not possible to predict what would happen 25 years in the future with market or community conditions. She stated decisions regarding the Code must relate to"this point in time"and that the Code would change as circumstances changed in the future. She stated there should"always"be a possibility for modifications based on circumstances because "nothing should be set in stone." She stated she would support the motion. Councilmember Ohlson stated he wanted to see new businesses succeed and had support an extended time period for banners for such new businesses. He stated he would like clarification before Second Reading regarding the information that had been presented by staff that there was no limit to the number of banners as long as they were each under 40 square feet. He stated he believed that there had been majority support regarding looking at"cracking down on"real estate signs in the right-of- way or those that had been posted for many years. He stated he would like some future staff work on that issue. He stated he had some suggestions for the next round of Land Use Code changes and that he would forward those suggestions. He stated his vote on Second Reading of the Ordinance might change ifheights were to be"arbitrarily raised without good reason." He agreed that there was a need for modifications and that he would support "good projects" that were higher. He stated "unattractive buildings"were bad for business in the long run. He stated he would like to see more specific ideas on what would qualify for a modification. He stated projects should have to meet more than one criterion to go higher and that they should have to meet "good urban design" standards. Councilmember Roy stated he would vote against the motion. He stated Council needed to ensure that projects had a sense of place and scale in relation to surrounding core area neighborhoods. He stated he also had concerns about the banner"clutter"issue. He stated the Ordinance represented much"positive work"but that he had to vote in accordance with his"values"on the"visual clutter" issues. He stated he would not support the Ordinance on First Reading. Councilmember Ohlson stated "threatening lawsuits" was generally not the "strongest' way to influence a Council decision. Mayor Hutchinson stated it made sense to have a time limit for election signs. He stated there had been a dialogue on the building height issue. He stated "economic gain and protection" was important as was compliance with City design standards. He stated it was proper to provide some "baseline predictability"for the developers and property owners and to provide for some flexibility to have a higher building. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Brown and Roy. 73 December 5, 2006 THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 2006-126 Approving an Agreement Between the City and Front Range Retail Company to Provide Financial Assistance for the Front Range Village, Adopted The following is staff s memorandum on the item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City staffhas been negotiating diligently with Front Range Retail Company to develop an incentive agreement that will assist in ensuring the development known as "Front Range Village", a retail and commercial development totaling 910,000 square feet. The development is located on approximately 100 acres at the cross roads of Harmony and Ziegler roads in southeast Fort Collins. Front Range Village is the first significant retail project the City has seen in many years. This development is regionally significant and will help the City bolster retail trade activity that has eroded over the pastf:ve years with the coming ofregional retail competition and the decline in Fort Collins specific retail venues. The proposed Financial Assistance Agreement is based the following philosophy: 1. Incentives should be based on project need. 2. The developers should have the ability to achieve a reasonable rate ofreturn. 3. Incentives should be performance driven. 4. Sales tax share back should be minimized to the extent possible. The total incentive agreement is$22,000,000, with the vast majority ofthese funds beinggenerated by a Public Improvement Fee (PIF), which is an optional sales fee levied by the developer on the retail sales at the development. The anticipated total net present value (today's dollars) of the Public Improvement Fee is $18,500,000. The remaining$3,500,000 comes from sales tax share back($1,500,000)and from Transportation Improvement reimbursements ($2,000,000)to offset major transportation improvements related to this project on Harmony Road and Ziegler Road. The Front Range Village retail center will generate$2,200,000 in net new sales taxes to the City on an annual basis following the full first year of operations. Of that amount, $1,600,000 is unrestricted general fund dollars to be allocated to City Council priorities. The remaining $600,000 is allocated in equal amounts to Open Space, Building on Basics, and Transportation improvements related to dedicated sales tax funding streams. 74 December 5, 2006 BACKGROUND The City offort Collins is projecting that sales and use taxes will continue to grow over the coming one to three years, but at a much lower rate ofgrowth than had been seen in the past. It is projected that, without significant retail development, overall sales taxes will grow in the 1% to 2% range from 2007 through 2009. With the net new sales tax generated by the Front Range Village, the City will see a 4%increase in overall sales taxes (in addition to the 1%to 2%already projected) beginning in 2008. It has been a priority of the City to pursue additional retail sales opportunities through new retail development and through redevelopment which is outlined in the City's economic action plan. City staffengaged Economic Planning Systems in Denver to assist in the analysis of the Front Range Village and to advise on the overall net new sales taxes generated. Staff and EPS evaluated the overall project and developed the Financial Assistance recommendation for City Council consideration. PROJECT COSTS Project Costs Land Costs $17,982,811 Hard Costs $62,668,540 • Onsite improvements • Offsite improvements • Building shells • Tenant allowances • Signs Soft Costs $34,780,505 • Development fees • Impact fees • Sales and use taxes • Financing expenses • Overhead expenses • Marketing expenses • Appraisal expenses • Interest expenses • Engineering/architecture ees Total Project Costs 1 $115 431856 PROJECT REVENUES 10 Year Revenue Summary No Assistance 75%PIF/Incentives Gross Revenue $99,500,000 $131,000,000 75 December 5, 2006 DETAILS ON PROPOSED INCENTIVES Public Improvement Fee The incentive agreement allows the developer to impose up to a .75%PIF on retail sales on the lessees involved in Front Range Village. The PIF generates$18,500,000 in total revenues on a net present value basis (today's dollars). The City will collect the PIF fees and remit them to the developer. Sales Tax Share Back The City will remit to the developer up to $1,500,000 in sales taxes on a net present value basis (today's dollars)generated by the Front Range Village. These sales tax share back payments will be contingent upon the developer constructing and operating at least 550,000 square feet of retail shopping and those retail shops generating and remitting sales tax revenue to the City. If all contingencies are satisfied, the sales tax share back will be made in three payments approximately twelve months apart. If the developer fails to meet the contingency requirements for any particular payment, the City will not be obligated to make that payment. Transportation Improvement Costs The City will also remit$Z 000,000 to the developer to offset a portion of the cost of the developer's share ofthe significant transportation improvements relating to this project. The City will pay these funds from dollars provided the City by the Colorado Department of Transportation for long-term maintenance and improvements for Harmony Road. OVERALL BENEFITS TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS The construction and operation of the Front Range Village Center will provide significant overall benefits to the community. These benefits include: 1. An overall increase in net new sales taxes of 4%. 2. Increases of$600,000 overall in dedicated sales taxes for open space, transportation and Building on Basics. 3. Provision of shopping opportunities in southeast Fort Collins to address sales tax leakage occurring in that part of the community. 4. Major transportation improvements will be realized along the Harmony corridor and along Ziegler Road. " City Manager Atteberry stated this was an important issue for the City and the community and that hundreds of hours of work and objective analysis went into the Resolution. He stated a strong partnership had been built. He stated this agenda item was related to the Council high priority goal of economic health. He stated regional retail competition had increased in northern Colorado and that Fort Collins had not had significant major retail development in recent years. He stated Bayer 76 December 5, 2006 Properties had shown a strong interest in Fort Collins during 3'/2. years of active negotiations. He stated good quality development was important to Fort Collins and that the Front Range Village Center would have a major impact on net new sales tax in Fort Collins. He stated the project could also have a significant impact on the southeast branch library and that he believed that the library would be part of the development agreement. He stated staff believed that the Resolution reflected the direction and vision of the Council. Mike Freeman,Economic Adviser,stated long term projections over the next four to five years were for 1-2%sales tax growth without significant new retail coming on line. He stated there were only three to four major retail development opportunity sites remaining. He stated projects of this magnitude were rare and that there might be several more such opportunities for Fort Collins in the next few years. He stated this was not a typical incentive package. He stated being proactive on retail development was part of the economic health strategy adopted by the Council. He stated the actions taken by staff were consistent with that plan. He stated there had been a rigorous analysis of this project through the City's economic consultant(EPS)to determine that it would be regionally significant and bring in tax dollars from outside the community. He stated the determination was made that the incentive agreement needed to focus on the net new sales tax i.e. the whole benefit to the community. He stated the total investment to be made by the developer was roughly $115 million, that the land costs would be about $18 million, that the hard costs would be about $63 million, and that the soft costs would be about$35 million. He stated the revenue from the project would be significant and that the projections were that there would be $2.2 million annually in net new sales tax with $1.6 million in unrestricted sales tax that would flow into the fund without any specific designation for use. He stated each quarter of the three-quarter-cent dedicated sales taxes would generate about $200,000 per year. He stated a project of this magnitude would not happen without some public assistance. He stated because of the City's budgetary situation the City did not want to share back a lot of net sales tax. He stated a way had to be found to help close the gap to help make this project successful. He stated the City's principles were that the incentive would ultimately need to be business-based, that the sales tax share back component needed to be minimized, and that there would be significant infrastructure costs. He stated several different scenarios were evaluated and that staff was recommending that the developer be allowed to impose a public improvement fee(an additional sales tax)of up to .75%. He stated the fee would close the gap by generating about$18.5 million in today's dollars over 30 years. He stated the remaining gap was about $3.5 million and that staffs recommendation was to allocate some of the money ($2 million) received from CDOT for long term maintenance of Harmony Road for this project. He stated staff was recommending that the remaining$1.5 million be shared back through a sales tax share back agreement. He stated there would be three payments over three years when the development reached 550,000 square feet and had been operational for at least two months and when the operation had produced sales tax for 12 months. He stated much of the sales tax "leakage"to regional competition was from southeast Fort Collins and that this project would help address some of that leakage. He stated it would give the City the equivalent of about a 4% annual increase in sales tax. He stated this would be a high quality development that would meet all of the City's requirements. He stated he believed that this company was "right for Fort Collins." He stated representatives of Bayer Properties were available to answer any questions. Mayor Hutchinson stated each audience participant would have five minutes to speak. 77 December 5, 2006 Jim Stobie, 623 Grant Street, CSU student, spoke in opposition to big box development and the incentive package. He expressed concerns about the impact of drought on the water supply and the population and the reliability of the sales tax figures. He questioned giving priority to partnerships with companies from out of state and expressed concerns that their profits would not be reinvested in the local economy. He stated Fort Collins was the number one community because it offered "something different"than the big boxes that were everywhere. Jeff Emmell, 543 Spindrift Court, opposed the incentive package as written. He stated the public improvement fee should be for the welfare of the community rather than a"project'improvement fee. He stated the fee should be used to guarantee that the businesses would bring in salary and benefit packages for their employees that would benefit the community. He stated this would help avoid a retail "spiral'in which the employees could not afford to live in the community. He stated if the employees succeeded the City would succeed and that this could be used as a"model." He asked that the incentives be made contingent upon a long term benefit for the people who make the project successful and move some of the money back into the community. Daniel Hallford, 636 South Loomis Street, CSU student, stated this"concrete pad"would produce groundwater seepage and reduce the water in aquifers. He questioned the need for another shopping center and stated the incentive package would mean using public money for private gain. He stated the resources could be better spent in other areas. Councilmember Ohlson asked for a comparison of the scale of this project at build-out with other projects in the region. Freeman stated the Shops at Centerra were roughly 700,000 square feet and that the current Foothills Fashion Mall contained about 600,000 square feet. He stated this proposed project would have just over 900,000 square feet. Councilmember Ohlson asked for a brief description of the proposed buildings and whether the project would be"special." City Manager Atteberry suggested that Mr. Silverstein could address the architectural standards. Councilmember Ohlson asked if the architectural character was already decided and stated he wanted a general description rather than a building-by-building description. David Silverstein, Bayer Properties principal, stated the company had been working diligently with City staff on the architectural planning of the project. He stated there were several important elements,including the architectural"feel'and landscaping. He stated there would be a"main street'element of the project and that the library would be on the second floor. He stated there were some unique features and that company and staff expectations were being met about the type of project this would be. Greg Byrne, CLRS Director, stated staff was satisfied with the architecture and"pleased with the urban design' relating to the streetscape and building layout and placement. He stated there would also be energy conservation aspects of the buildings. He stated the project would be a "contribution to the community." Councilmember Ohlson asked how many of the buildings would have LEAD certification and what level of certification was anticipated. Mr. Silverstein stated the developer was striving for LEAD 78 December 5, 2006 certification for the entire project and that as much of the project as possible would achieve certification. Councilmember Ohlson stated there were some attractive developments at Harmony and College and that it was difficult to walk to some of those developments. He asked if pedestrian access would be better for this new project i.e. whether people would have to drive from store to store even though they might be only 50 yards apart. Byrne stated there would be a mix on this site. He stated it was a big site with about 900,000 square feet and that a substantial portion of the project would be in big box retail. He stated true pedestrian connections were difficult to do with that kind of retail component. He stated he believed that the Bayer team had done"as good a job as you can"on this. He stated some components of the site were not big box and were street-oriented. He stated those areas would be much more pedestrian-oriented than Harmony and College. Mr. Silverstein stated there would be landscaped pedestrian walkways connecting the Target element of the site with the pedestrian element of the site so that pedestrians and consumers would not have to walk through paved parking lots. He stated those walkways would connect the entire site. Councilmember Ohlson asked what would happen if the public improvement fees collected were more than the anticipated amount i.e. would the developer be able to keep the extra fees. Freeman stated an extensive analysis was done to pin down the $18.5 million figure as closely as possible. He stated staff believed that the $18.5 million was a reasonable assumption based on anticipated sales. Councilmember Manvel stated the agenda item summary clearly outlined the project costs and estimated that gross revenues would be$99.5 million with no assistance and$131 million with the PIF/incentives. He asked how the $31.5 million difference was determined. Freeman stated those figures were not in "present dollars" and that the assumption was a 10-year period after the center opened. Councilmember Kastein asked if the .75%PIF would show up on items purchased at the center for the "foreseeable future." Freeman replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Kastein asked if thought had been given to a guaranteed revenue stream for the City in connection with the$1.5 million share back and the$2 million for transportation improvements that would go to the project. Freeman stated it was complicated to calculate net new sales tax and many other agreements in the Denver area would be structured over a multi-year period sharing net new sales tax back over a five-year period of time. He stated with this equation there would be a "tremendous amount of staff time and developer time"working on determining what was net new sales tax. He stated the City was trying to avoid this pitfall of a highly complicated incentive agreement. He stated the nature of how Bayer developed its projects was a"benefit to Fort Collins." He stated the company would develop most of the project at one time. He stated staff was confident that a lot of the risk for the incentive package could"sit on Bayer's shoulders"because rapid build- out would achieve the anticipated revenue and PIF. He stated the City's assurance was that the vast majority of incentive dollars would be in that public improvement fee. He stated the City also determined that there needed to be some form of guarantee to the City regarding the one-time$3.5 million ($1.5 million in sales tax and $2 million in transportation). He stated the solution was a 79 December S, 2006 "reasonable compromise"because the developer would immediatelyhave to develop at least 550,000 square feet of the 900,000 square foot project to qualify for the incentive. He stated the developer was confident enough about the proj ect to place the risk in the PIF and the 550,000 square foot figure gave the City some assurances. Councilmember Kastein asked if the$1.5 million assumed the 550,000 square footbuild-out and that this figure did not correlate to the$2.2.million net new sales tax. Freeman replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Kastein asked how many square feet would generate the net new sales tax. Freeman stated it would be generated by the total development. Councilmember Kastein asked if the figures would be in the"black"in the first three years of sales tax revenues. He stated he did not want to see the City give away over $600,000 in the first year and have the City net a"negative number" in sales tax revenue when the project reached 550,000 square feet. Chuck Seest, Finance Director, stated the intent was for the agreement to be based on achieving a certain "objective" threshold. He stated 550,000 square feet would provide some net new sales tax. He stated this was based on 310,000 square feet for Target plus additional tenants. He stated the focus was on the criteria rather than the end result and that if the criteria was met there was a reasonable assurance that the end result would be achieved. Councilmember Kastein asked if the City would be paying out less than it was making when it paid out one-third of the$1.5 million in the first year. Freeman stated staff did not believe that this would be the case. Councilmember Kastein asked if the City would "be in the black" the first year. Freeman stated staff was not sure if that would be the case for the first year and believed that this would be the case for the second and third years. He stated Bayer was not a"build and hold" company and that the developer would be highly motivated to get the center open to meet the criteria to qualify for the public improvement fee. Mr. Silverstein stated in order to open the 550,000 square feet the developer must build all of the public improvements that were part of this package. He stated the developer's risk was much higher than the City's risk. Councilmember Kastein stated the "deal"had to work for both sides and that he had to be able to explain to the taxpayers what the City's risk was. Mr. Silverstein stated the City's first money would not be put into the transaction until the center was built and opened with a minimum of 550,000 square feet. He stated the square footage that would be open in July of 2008 would likely exceed the 550,000 square feet. Seest stated the agreement provided some flexibility up front for the developer and provided that the other target dates must be met for the $1.5 million in payments to be made. Councilmember Ohlson asked if the City would receive use tax associated with the construction. Freeman stated the use tax on the first year was$.5 million and that the total fees on the project were "very significant." Seest stated some of the tenants would also pay additional use tax. City Manager Atteberry asked about the benefit to the three quarter-cent taxes, noting that the focus had been on the discretionary revenues that could be used for the General Fund. Freeman stated in the first 12- 80 December 5, 2006 month period the estimate was that each of the quarter-cent dedicated taxes would generate about $200,000 each. Councilmember Manvel asked if that was total or net new sales tax. Freeman stated this would be net new sales tax. Councilmember Roy asked about the time line for the City to remit$2 million to the developer for transportation improvements. Freeman stated the transportation improvements would be defined in detail in the development agreement and that the improvements would have to be developed and accepted before the City would make the payment. Councilmember Roy asked how much of the$2 million would be for work the City would have done anyway and work that would be specific to this project. Freeman stated it was difficult to make this estimate at this time. He noted that the improvements would be for six lanes, full bike lanes, sidewalk,curb and gutter,median landscaping,etc. Gary Diede,Interim City Engineer,stated there was a lot more than $2 million in public improvements that would have to be made for the project. He stated the developer's engineer was working on the plan and that the cost would be significantly higher than $2 million. He stated a large portion of the $2 million that would come out of the maintenance money for Harmony Road was to be spent on the intersection of College Avenue and Harmony Road. He stated other funds (such as CMAQ funds) would be used to help build that intersection. He stated the other funding would free up about $2 million from the maintenance money. Councilmember Roy asked about the relationship between the City,Bayer Properties and the Library District. He stated he wanted to know the City's cost for the library. City Manager Atteberry stated he could provide that information under separate cover. Councilmember Roy stated he was very interested in what would happen as a result of the formation of the Library District and the ballot language relating to a southeast library. City Manager Atteberry stated capital expansion fees for the library had been collected by the City over the years and that those fees would be used to build this facility. He stated those were City dollars. He stated there had been discussion about whether the City would transfer those dollars over to the Library District to build the asset. He stated this would have to be negotiated with the Library District. Councilmember Roy stated there was specific ballot language that related to the Library District opening and operating a southeast branch library and asked what City dollars would be needed for that project. Brenda Cams,Library Director,stated there had been ongoing discussion about opening a branch library in this project. She stated the plan had been that this City facility would use the impact fees of about$5 million that had been set aside since the fee was created for construction and books. She stated the plan continued to be to move forward on this project in cooperation and partnership with the City. She stated the Library District funds would be sufficient to open a very nice library branch. Councilmember Ohlson asked if groceries and prescription drugs would be exempt from the PIF. Freeman replied in the affirmative. 81 December 5, 2006 Councilmember Ohlson asked about the status of signed leases and major or peripheral tenants. Mr. Silverstein stated Target and Lowes were acquiring their tracts of land and that those deals were nearing completion. He stated when construction started there would be in excess of 70%leased. He stated the project must be on sound economic footing before construction could begin. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt Resolution 2006-126. Councilmember Kastein stated "good negotiations" had taken place between the City and Bayer Properties. He stated there had been a lot of community input and that there was a place for incentives provided the City did not"give away the farm." He stated there would be little risk and great benefit for the City. Councilmember Manvel stated this was an "impressive plan" and that it was great to have this project happening in Fort Collins. He stated he had some difficulty with giving City funds to businesses that would compete with existing businesses. He stated the subsidies were "minor" compared to the scale of the project($3.7 billion in sales over the next 10 years). He stated it was important that sales did not"disappear"from the City and that he looked forward to a"high quality" development that would be an "asset" to the City. Councilmember Weitkunat stated this was"positive and extremely exciting"for the City. She stated this would mean some economic activity that was"badly needed." She stated this would be a"win- win" for everyone. Councilmember Roy stated he would support the Resolution. He stated it was a difficult for him to support incentives at this scale because small business owners did not have the same opportunities that Bayer Properties would receive. He stated the project could impact the downtown area. He stated he hoped that something would be created that would make a"significant difference"for Fort Collins for a long time. Councilmember Ohlson stated he shared the concerns about competition with existing businesses, sprawl and the"homogenization" of the country. He stated it was not a difficult decision for him to support the package because of what was happening in other area communities. He stated it was necessary to maintain the sustainability and viability of services in Fort Collins and that the payback would be complete in one year. He stated there would be a 1 00-year payback ofhundreds of millions of dollars in incentives for one project for community to the south. He stated some people confused a healthy economy with sales tax dollars. He stated they were related but not the same. He stated he would not support this package for primary employment because that would be an "artificial stimulation to population growth." He stated this package was for sales tax dollars to support a quality community. He stated the payback was"overwhelmingly fast"for this project. He thanked the City staff for putting together a"responsible package"that seemed to work for everyone. Mayor Hutchinson stated this was a significant action for economic health. He stated this project would"fit"Fort Collins and would not be a classic mall. He stated he would support the Resolution. 82 December 5, 2006 The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Meeting Extended Councilmember Brown made a motion, seconded by Councilmember, to extend the meeting past 10:30 p.m. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Items Relating to the Reappointment, Contract, and Compensation of the Municipal Judge, Adopted The following is staff s memorandum on the item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Resolution 2006-127 Reappointing Kathleen M. Lane as Municipal Judge and Authorizing Certain Other Amendments to the Judge's Employment Agreement. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 202, 2006, Amending Section 2-606 of the City Code and Setting the Salary of the Municipal Judge. Article VII, Section 1 of the Charter provides that the Municipal Judge is to be appointed for a term of two years. Kathleen M.Lane was first appointed to serve as the City's Municipal Judgefor a term commencing July 1, 1989. Resolution 2006-127 reappoints Judge Lane for another two-year term commencing on January 1, 2007 and ending on December 31, 2008, and authorizes the Mayor to execute an addendum to Judge Lane's Employment Agreement. The addendum will reflect the new term and,pursuant to the request of the Judge, revise other terms and conditions relating to working less than full-time, as set out in the salary ordinance, including a reduction in vacation benefits. Ordinance No. 202, 2006, establishes the 2007 salary of the Municipal Judge. BACKGROUND City Council is committed to compensating employees in a manner which is fair, competitive and understandable. The goal as an employer is to attract and retain quality employees and to recognize and reward quality performance. In order to accomplish this goal the City Council and the Municipal Judge meet once a year to discuss last year's performance and set goals for the coming-year. 83 December 5, 2006 In 2006, the total compensation paid to the Municipal Judge included the following: SALARYAND BENEFITS ANNUAL NON-MONETARYBENEFITS Salary $ 99,256 Vacation (30 days per year) Life Insurance 348 Holidays (11 days per year) Medical Insurance 7,704 Dental Insurance 528 Long Term Disability 983 ICMA (457) 2,978 rICMA (401) 9,926 Total Monetary Compensation $ 121,723 The process established for evaluating the performance of the City Manager, City Attorney, and Municipal Judge, adopted by the Council via Resolution 2000-123 on October 17, 2000 and further amended by the adoption of Resolution 2001-018 on February 6, 2001,provides that any change in compensation for the City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge will be adopted by the Council by ordinance in sufficient time for the change in compensation to take effect as of the first full pay period of the ensuing year. Resolution 2006-127 authorizes the Mayor to execute a Seventh Addendum to the existing Employment Agreement between the City and the Judge, extending said Agreement for a term commencing on January 1, 2007 and ending on December 31, 2008, and revising other terms and conditions ofsaid Agreement so as to add provisions relating to working less than full-time, as set out in the salary ordinance, including a reduction in vacation benefits. " Councilmember Weitkunat made amption,seconded by Councilmember Brown,to adopt Resolution 2006-127. Mayor Hutchinson stated the Council had asked him to summarize the interactions with the three employees and provide information about the criteria for rating the individuals. He stated Kathleen Lane was the Municipal Judge and that the system was a pay for performance system. He stated the Municipal Judge was rated on judicial duties, Municipal Court administrative duties, and Liquor Licensing Authority duties. He stated court employees and prosecutor peer ratings were also considered as related to legal ability, integrity, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, sentencing and overall judicial performance. He stated the Council rated Judge Lane and found that her overall performance exceeded expectations. He stated in light of the budget difficulties the Municipal Judge requested, and the Council negotiated with her, a salary increase based on merit pay (a 4% increase). He stated the Municipal Judge had been proactive in helping with the budget crisis and had determined that she could work 80%of the time for the coming year. He stated the Council was pleased with the performance of Judge Lane. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. 84 December 5, 2006 THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Brown,to adopt Ordinance No. 202, 2006 on First Reading, inserting the figures $82,581 (base salary) and $103,376 (total compensation) effective January 1, 2007. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Items Relating to the Compensation and Benefits of the City Attorney,Adopted The following is staffs memorandum on the item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Resolution 2006-128 Approving a Sixth Addendum to the City Attorney's Employment Agreement. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 203, 2006, Amending Section 2-581 of the City Code and Setting the Salary of the City Attorney. City Council met in Executive Session on November 14, 2006 to conduct the performance review of City Attorney Steve Roy. Ordinance No. 203, 2006, establishes the 2007salary of the City Attorney. Resolution 2006-128 adopts an addendum to the City Attorney's employment contract. BACKGROUND City Council is committed to compensating employees in a manner which is fair, competitive and understandable. The goal as an employer is to attract and retain quality employees and to recognize and reward quality performance. In order to accomplish this goal the City Council and the City Attorney meet once a year to discuss last year's performance and set goals for the coming year. In 2006, the total compensation paid to the City Attorney included the following: 85 December 5, 2006 SALARYAND BENEFITS ANNUAL NON-MONETARYBENEFITS Salary $ 137,000 Vacation (35 days per year) Life Insurance 480 Holidays (11 days per year) Medical Insurance 7,704 Dentallnsurance 528 Long Term Disability 1,356 ICMA (457) 4,110 ICMA (401) 13,700 Total Monetary Compensation $ 164,878 An addendum to the City Attorney's employment agreement approved by the Council in December 2004 states that, assuming satisfactory performance, the City Attorney's base salary will be increased to no less than$152,500 as of the first pay period in January, 2007. Because of the fiscal constraints that have limited the compensation increasesfor other City employees, the City Attorney has proposed that half of the 2007 increase called for by the agreement be postponed until January of 2008. A contract addendum making that change is presented for Council consideration. The process established for evaluating the performance of the City Manager, City Attorney, and Municipal Judge, adopted by the Council via Resolution 2000-123 on October 17, 2000 and further amended by the adoption of Resolution 2001-018 on February 6, 2001,provides that any change in compensation for the City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge will be adopted by the Council by ordinance in sufficient time for the change in compensation to take effect as of the first full pay period of the ensuing year. " Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt Resolution 2006-128. Mayor Hutchinson stated City Attorney Steve Roy was the chief legal officer of the City and that this position demanded an "incredible" variety of skills, knowledge and abilities. He stated the City Attorney was rated on eight major areas: general legal counsel,legislative services,litigation,office administration, management relations, personal attributes and skills, strengths and areas for improvement. He stated City Attorney Roy's overall performance had been"superb"and exceeded expectations at the highest level. He stated City Attorney Roy asked for a reduction in the amount of his raise due to the financial circumstances of the City and asked that the contract be approached a half a year at a time. He stated the compensation would be only half of the contractual obligation. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Ohlson,to adopt Ordinance No. 203, 2006 on First Reading, inserting the figures $144,750 (base salary) and $174,297 (total 86 December 5, 2006 compensation) effective January 1, 2007. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Ordinance No. 204, 2006, Amending Section 2-596 of the City Code and Setting the Salary of the City Manager, Adopted on First Reading The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City Council met in Executive Session on November 14, 2006 to conduct the performance appraisal of City Manager Darin Atteberry. Ordinance No. 204, 2006, establishes the salary of the City Manager. BACKGROUND City Council is committed to compensating employees in a manner which is fair, competitive and understandable. The goal as an employer is to attract and retain quality employees and to recognize and reward quality performance. In order to accomplish this goal the City Council and the City Manager meet once a year to discuss last year's performance and set goals for the coming year. In 2006, the total compensation paid to the City Manager included the following: SALARYAND BENEFITS ANNUAL NON-MONETARY BENEFITS Salary $ 159,730 Vacation (30 days per year) Life Insurance 557 Holidays (11 days per year) Medical Insurance 7,704 Dental Insurance 528 Long Term Disability 1,581 ICMA (457) 4,792 ICMA (401) 15,973 Car Allowance 9,000 Total Monetary Compensation $ 199,864 The process established for evaluating the performance of the City Manager, City Attorney, and Municipal Judge, adopted by the Council via Resolution 2000-123 on October 17, 2000 and further amended by the adoption of Resolution 2001-018 on February 6, 2001,provides that any change in compensation far the City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge will be adopted by the 87 ._...._. _ . ._._.._. December S, 2006 Council by ordinance in sufficient time for the change in compensation to take effect as of the first full pay period of the ensuing year. " Nate Donovan, 2400 Hampshire Square, thanked the City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge and the City staff in general for their"great work." He stated the Councilmembers and the Mayor also put in a lot of time on the public's business. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Ordinance No. 204, 2006 on First Reading, inserting the figures $163,404 (base salary) and $213,594 (total compensation) effective January 1, 2007. Mayor Hutchinson stated CityManager Darin Atteberrywas rated on three main areas:City Council, City organization and leadership skills. He stated the City Manager was in charge of a full service city government and a$454 million budget. He stated the Council rated City Manager Atteberry as exceeding expectations in a challenging time of transition. He stated City Manager Atteberry had expressed concerns about employee morale and budget difficulties. He stated City Manager Atteberry asked that his raise coincide with the raise to be given to a majority of City employees (2.3%). He stated the Council reluctantly honored that request. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 88