Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 06/19/2007 - CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE M ITEM NUMBER: 6 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: June 19, 2007 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Wanda Krajicek SUBJECT Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the March 6, 2007, March 20, 2007,April 17,2007, May 1, 2007 and May 15, 2007 Regular Meetings and the Special Meeting of April 10, 2007. March 6, 2007 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, March 6, 2007, 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: Jones, Krajicek, Roy. Citizen Participation David May, Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce, representing the Northern Colorado Legislative Alliance of the Greeley, Loveland and Fort Collins Chambers of Commerce, stated the Legislative Alliance had made improving the transportation system a priority. A letter had been sent to the City Council regarding the level of Council support for a RTA and specific regional transportation projects. Pete Seel, 1837 Scarborough Drive,Rolland Moore West Neighborhood Network,spoke regarding the canal importation stormwater development project that would be discussed by Council at an upcoming work session. The Neighborhood Network was concerned about the impact of this major project on the neighborhood and the natural and wetlands areas. Lloyd Walker, 1756 Concord Drive, Rolland Moore Neighborhood Network, spoke regarding the canal importation project and the potential impact on the stormwater and natural areas of Red Fox Meadows. The neighborhood would like to see this project handled in a "sensitive fashion" and would like to have an opportunity to engage in improvements or maintenance through a volunteer "Friends of Red Fox Meadows" group. Seth Anthony, West Prospect Road resident, spoke regarding the proposed new urban renewal authority that would help replace the tax increment financing revenue that the DDA would lose when that expires in a few years. An urban renewal authority would have power beyond tax increment financing, such as the power of eminent domain. He questioned whether this was the intent of the City and urged the Council to state the tax increment financing purpose of the urban renewal authority and forego the"unnecessary powers"of eminent domain allowed by State law. Item#18 on the Consent Calendar was initiation of eminent domain proceedings for 90 square feet of property for the Ziegler/Kechter roundabout. The eminent domain power should not be"used lightly." When it was used the cost should be explained openly. Vivian Armendariz,820 Merganser Drive,thanked Council for extending Dial-a-Ride night service. She also thanked Council candidate Matt Fries for developing a Dial-a-Ride plan. 234 March 6, 2007 Citizen Participation Follow-up Mayor Hutchinson thanked those who spoke during Citizen participation. He noted the City was sensitive to the Red Fox Meadows situation and the City's goals matched the goals of the citizens. Councilmember Kastein thanked the Northern Colorado Legislative Alliance for the study on the level of legislative support for transportation. The data collected would be used by the RTA Steering Committee. Agenda Review Deputy City Manager Jones stated there were no changes to the published agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the November 21 2006 and December 5 2006 Regular Meetings and the Adjourned Meeting of November 28 2006 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No 031 2007 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Natural Areas Fund for the Pu ose of Providing Natural Areas Programming Not Included in the 2007 Adopted City Budget This Ordinance,unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 20, 2007,appropriates prior year reserves in the Natural Areas Fund. The purpose of the previously appropriated funds remains the same,that being for land conservation,construction of parking lots,fences and trails,restoration of wildlife habitat and other natural areas program needs to benefit the citizens of Fort Collins. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No 032 2007 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves Ordinance No.032,2007,was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 20,2007. The Ordinance appropriates prior year's reserves for expenditures authorized in 2006 by Council but which could not be completed by the end of 2006. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No 033 2007 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Transportation Services Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Existing Appropriations in the Transportation Services Fund and the General Fund to Be Used for the Design and Construction of East Mountain Trolley Track Enhancements This Ordinance,unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 20, 2007, appropriates revenue received from a grant from the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Enhancement Grant Program. This grant will be used to restore the brick roadbed surrounding the exposed, abandoned, streetcar railway track. The restoration will be an asset to the adjacent Old Town National/State/Local Landmark District, and provide safe pedestrian/bicycle passage. 235 March 6, 2007 10. Second Readine of Ordinance No. 034, 2007 Amending Section 23.5 of the City Code Pertaining to Special Events. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 20, 2007 amends the City Code to make the special event application process friendlier to the citizens applying for permits. 11. Items Relating to the Weiner Enclave Annexation A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 035, 2007, Annexing Property Known as the Weiner Enclave Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 036,2007,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Weiner Enclave Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. These Ordinances,unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 20,2007, annex and zone 7.55 acres located on the west side of Ziegler Road, south of Rock Creek Drive, and north of Kechter Road. Fossil Ridge High School is directly to the east. This annexation request consists of two properties (5117 Ziegler Road and 5305 Ziegler Road) that are developed as single-family residences with several outbuildings. The property at 5117 Ziegler Road contains an existing livestock feedlot(not operating)and the property at 5305 Ziegler Road contains a commercial business (Express Concrete). The McClelland's Channel runs along the south property line of 5305 Ziegler Road. The properties are in the FA 1 -Farming Zoning District in Larimer County. The requested zoning in the City of Fort Collins is LMN - Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. 12. Items Relating to CDOT's Safe Routes to School Program A. Resolution 2007-023 Authorizing the Execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and the Colorado Department of Transportation for the Widening of an Existing Sidewalk on the South Side of Mulberry Street from Dunn Elementary School to Shields Street. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 038, 2007, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund - Pedestrian Plan Capital Project for Improvements Associated with the Safe Routes to School Program. The Safe Routes to School Program was designed to promote the safety and environmental conditions for students traveling to and from school. With the hope to increase the numbers of students walking or bicycling to school, this program uses the Four E's (Education, Enforcement, Engineering, and Encouragement) to provide a comprehensive approach to traffic safety problems around schools. 236 March 6, 2007 The City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning office received a grant from the CDOT Safe Routes to School Program for FY 2005-06 to widen the existing sidewalk along the south side of Mulberry Street from 2.5 feet to 6 feet,from Dunn Elementary to Shields Street. This widened sidewalk will greatlyimprove safety and connectivitybetween Dunn elementary and the surrounding neighborhoods. 13. First Reading of Ordinance No.039 2007 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue and Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for the Restorative Justice Program The Restorative Justice Program(the"Program")is an alternative method ofholding a young offender accountable by facilitating a meeting with the young offender, the victim and members of the community to determine the harm done by the crime, and what should be done to repair the harm. This Ordinance appropriates funds from two grants that have been received for the purpose of continuing this program. 14. First Readine of Ordinance No. 040,2007 Amending Chapter 25 of the City Code to Create a Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate The Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate Program is an important economic incentive for retaining and supporting local manufacturers. Manufacturing concerns are a very important element of the City's tax base. They also serve as a primary engine for both job creation and commercial investment in the community. This Ordinance adds the Program to the City Code to ensure that the Program provides an important economic incentive on an ongoing basis. 15. First Readine of Ordinance No. 041 2007 Authorizing the Execution and Delivery by the City of an Amended and Restated Site Agreement and Lease Agreement a Continuing Disclosure Undertaking. an Official Statement and Related Documents onceming the Leasing of the Mason Office Building and the Mason Street Parking Structure: Ratifying Action Previously Taken: and Providing Other Matters Adoption of this Ordinance will approve and authorize the legal documents necessary to complete a lease purchase certificate of participation transaction to effectively refund the 1998 and 1999 COPS that were originally issued for the construction of the City's Mason Street Parking Structure, the 215 North Mason Office Building and an off-site Police Facility. 16. First Reading of Ordinance No 042 2007 Authorizing the Lease of City Owned Property at 321 Maple Street For Up to Five Years The Fort Collins Technology Incubator(FCTI) provides critical business assistance to the most providing high tech startup companies in the community. As part of its service,FCTI offers below market lease space to its client companies. This Ordinance would allow FCTI's various participants to lease space for up to five years. 237 March 6, 2007 17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 043.2007 Authorizing the Execution of Ouit Claim Deeds and a Temporary Construction Easement for the Improvement of North Taft Hill Road by Larimer County. Presently, Larimer County is improving North Taft Hill Road between LaPorte Avenue and the Poudre River. To accomplish this project, Larimer County is requesting that the City of Fort Collins dedicate the following property interests to Larimer County: 1. a temporary construction easement on approximately 1,200 square feet in size on property in use by the City for its trail system; 2. a Quit Claim Deed for approximately 428 square feet of property acquired by the City for its trail system but no longer needed, for new right-of-way on the west side of Taft Hill Road; and, 3. a Quit Claim Deed of approximately 4,400 square feet of property, which was acquired by the City as a consequence of the dissolution of the LaPorte Water and Sanitation District in 2006, subject to a perpetual utility easement by the City, also located on the west side of Taft Hill Road. 18. First Reading of Ordinance No.044.2007. Authorizing the Acguisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary for the Construction of Public Improvements in Connection with the Street Oversizing Ziegler and Kechter Intersection Project Intersection improvements were constructed for Ziegler Road and Kechter Road. These improvements included the construction of a modern roundabout at the Ziegler and Kechter intersection. Because of the round configuration of the improvements and the square shape of the existing right of way, two small slivers of property are needed on the west side. One of these properties has been purchased. Over the past year, staff has been in negotiations with the other owner, Hearthside Homeowners Association of Fort Collins, Inc., and has not been successful in reaching a mutually satisfactory agreement. An eminent domain authorization is being proposed for consideration by Council if an agreement cannot be reached. 19. Resolution 2007-024 Authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement with Colorado State University to Establish the University's Public Water System as a Consecutive System Within the City's Integrated Public Water System Colorado State University(CSU) owns and operates a public water system that distributes water supplied by the City. The Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment(CDPHE)has determined the University's system to be a consecutive public water system and therefore subject to Colorado drinking water regulations. 238 March 6, 2007 As public water systems, CSU and the City may either meet the requirements of the regulations as individual entities or enter into an integrated systems agreement and share responsibilities. The proposed intergovernmental agreement establishes CSU as part of the City's integrated public water system and delineates responsibilities for applicable drinking water regulations. 20. Resolution 2007-015 Convening a Task Force to Update the City of Fort Collins Climate Protection Plan and to Promote Renewable Energ,EEnergy, Efficiency,Waste Reduction and Transportation-related Technologies. Services. and Practices In 1999, City Council adopted Resolution 1999-137, setting a goal to reduce citywide greenhouse gas emissions 30%below worst case 2010 levels,by 2010, and adopting a Plan to meet the goal. The most recent progress report(2004)indicates the City is not on track to meet the 2010 reduction goal. This Resolution calls for the fonnation of a task force, including citizens and City staff, to develop an updated plan to describe the steps the community will take to meet the existing greenhouse gas goal. It directs that the revised Plan shall include measures to encourage renewable energy, energy efficiency, transportation efficiency, and waste reduction. It also allows the task force to make recommendations on how the City should develop a future direction for climate protection after 2010. 21. Routine Easements. A. Easement for construction and maintenance ofpublic utilities from Fort Collins Bible Church,to underground electric system underground,located at 2550 South Taft Hill. Monetary consideration: $4886. (See Map#1). B. Easement for construction and maintenance ofpublic utilities from Fort Collins Bible Church, to install new pad mount electric switch gear, located at 2550 South Taft Hill. Monetary consideration: $505.68. (See Map #2). ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 031, 2007 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Natural Areas Fund for the Purpose of Providing Natural Areas Programming Not Included in the 2007 Adopted City Budget. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 032, 2007, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 033,2007, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Transportation Services Fund and Authorizing the Transfer ofExisting Appropriations in the Transportation Services Fund and the General Fund to Be Used for the Design and Construction of East Mountain Trolley Track Enhancements. 239 March 6, 2007 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 034, 2007, Amending Section 23.5 of the City Code Pertaining to Special Events. 11. Items Relating to the Weiner Enclave Annexation. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 035, 2007, Annexing Property Known as the Weiner Enclave Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 036,2007,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Weiner Enclave Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 038, 2007, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund- Pedestrian Plan Capital Project for Improvements Associated with the Safe Routes to School Program. 13. First Reading of Ordinance No.039,2007,Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue and Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for the Restorative Justice Program. 14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 040,2007,Amending Chapter 25 of the City Code to Create a Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate. 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 041, 2007,Authorizing the Execution and Delivery by the City of an Amended and Restated Site Agreement and Lease Agreement, a Continuing Disclosure Undertaking, an Official Statement, and Related Documents, Concerning the Leasing of the Mason Office Building and the Mason Street Parking Structure; Ratifying Action Previously Taken; and Providing Other Matters. 16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 042, 2007, Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property at 321 Maple Street For Up to Five Years. 17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 043,2007,Authorizing the Execution of Quit Claim Deeds and a Temporary Construction Easement for the Improvement of North Taft Hill Road by Larimer County. 18. First Reading of Ordinance No.044,2007, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary for the Construction of Public Improvements in Connection with the Street Oversizing Ziegler and Kechter Intersection Project. 26. First Reading of Ordinance No. 037, 2007, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves Designated for Library Improvements in the Capital Improvement Expansion Fund for Transfer to the City's Capital Projects Fund to Construct a Southeast Branch Library and the General Fund to Purchase Library Books and Materials. 240 March 6, 2007 28. First Reading of Ordinance No. 045,2007, Establishing Local Sanctions Upon Contractors and Subcontractors of the City Who Employ Unauthorized Aliens to Perform Work for the City. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt and approve all items on the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Consent Calendar Follow-up Mayor Hutchinson commented on item#15 First Reading of Ordinance No. 041, 2007,Authorizing the Execution and Delivery by the City of an Amended and Restated Site Agreement and Lease Agreement, a Continuing Disclosure Undertaking, an Official Statement, and Related Documents, Concerning the Leasing of the Mason Office Building and the Mason Street Parking Structure; Ratifying Action Previously Taken; and Providing Other Matters. Councilmember Ohlson commented regarding item#14 First Reading of Ordinance No. 040, 2007, Amending Chapter 25 of the City Code to Create a Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate and item#20 Resolution 2007-015 Convening a Task Force to Update the City of Fort Collins Climate Protection Plan and to Promote Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency, Waste Reduction and Transportation-related Technologies, Services, and Practices. Councilmember Kastein spoke regarding item #14 First Reading of Ordinance No. 040, 2007, Amending Chapter 25 of the City Code to Create a Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate and item #18 First Reading of Ordinance No. 044, 2007, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary for the Construction of Public Improvements in Connection with the Street Oversizing Ziegler and Kechter Intersection Project. Councilmember Manvel commented on item #13 First Reading of Ordinance No. 039, 2007, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue and Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for the Restorative Justice Program. Councilmember Roy commented regarding item #12 First Reading of Ordinance No. 038, 2007, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund - Pedestrian Plan Capital Project for Improvements Associated with the Safe Routes to School Program. Councilmember Reports Councilmember Weitkunat reported on Poudre Fire Authority Board of Directors discussions regarding the need to meeting with the City Council at least once per year, the new fire station in Timnath and the budgeting for outcomes process. 241 March 6, 2007 Councilmember Kastein reported on DDA discussions regarding the consolidation of newsracks in the Old Town area. He also reported on MPO discussions regarding the funding of a Regional Transportation Authority and a citizen driven task force for the effort. Mayor Hutchinson stated he represented the City on a panel session on energy saving initiatives and natural resource management and policies at the Metro Mayors Conference. Resolution 2007-025 Urging the Registered Electors of the City Not to Support the Repeal of Ordinance No. 137, 2006, Which Annexes Property Known as the Southwest Enclave Annexation Adopted. The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On October 3, 2006 the City Council adopted on Second Reading, an ordinance annexing the Southwest Enclave to the City of Fort Collins. This ordinance was adopted following a two year process that involved numerous meetings with area residents and business owners, and adoption of a number of Code amendments that will mitigate impacts on enclave residents. Following adoption of the annexation ordinance, a referendum petition was filed seeking to repeal the ordinance. The petition was certified to the City Council on December 19, 2006 and the Council decided to refer the ordinance to a vote of the registered electors at the next regular municipal election, scheduled for April 3, 2007. This Resolution describes reasons for the Southwest Enclave annexation and urges registered electors to not support the repeal of the annexation by voting "no"on the ballot measure. BACKGROUND The City of Fort Collins and Larimer County entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement(IGA) in the early 1980s that outlined the eventual city limits for Fort Collins and contained a clause that obligates the City to pursue annexation of enclaves as they occur. Lorimer County is not equipped to provide urban-level services, nor does it make sense to have a "checkerboard"pattern of urban and rural development within the boundaries of a municipality. People who live near the city also benefit from City services and it makes sense that they help pay for these services. For all these reasons, the City has remained committed to this agreement and regularly annexes enclaves as they are formed. Fort Collins continues to grow at a steady pace and has surrounded the Southwest Enclave over time. The annexation in 2001 of City-owned open space on the west side of Fort Collins closed the final border,forming the enclave. The Southwest Enclave is larger than most with a population of nearly 3,100 and a total landmass of 2.7 square miles. 242 March 6, 2007 This has been a contentious issue for many enclave residents. Between 2004 and 2006 the City held more than 16 neighborhood forums in the area to explain the City's intent to annex and to hear concerns from enclave residents and business owners. After hearing those concerns, Council reiterated its commitment to providing the same high level of services to residents and property owners within the Enclave that it provides to those who reside in other parts of the City. Council subsequently adopted a series of mitigation measures, including: 1. Using reserve funds to cover all except 5% of the 25% mandated service rights fee for current Poudre Valley Rural Electric Authority customers. 2. Undergrounding electric utilities at no cost to property owners. 3. Phasing in monthly stormwater utility fees over a five year period. 4. Allowing barbed wire fences and electrically charged fences used for livestock and pasture management in UE and RUL zones. 5. Changing the amortization period to 7 years for nonconforming permanent signs. 6. Changing the licensing and record-keeping requirements for secondhand dealers/flea markets so as not to put an undue burden on individual booth operators. A number ofcitizens in the enclave have repeatedly stated they do not have a voice in the annexation issue. Enclave residents continue to be represented in this issue by the Lorimer County Commissioners and they communicate regularly with Commissioners, City staff and City Council members. The mitigation measures are a direct result of many of those conversations. For all of the above stated reasons City staff believes that the annexation of the Southwest Enclave is in the best interests of the City and recommends that Council adopt the Resolution, which urges City electors to vote "no"on the ballot measure. " Deputy City Manager Jones stated the Resolution would urge voters to vote"no"on the Southwest Enclave Annexation measure on the April ballot. Cameron Gloss, Current Planning Director, presented background information on the Southwest Enclave Annexation,the extensive outreach that had taken place,and mitigation measures that would be done to mitigate the impacts of the annexations to the residents and businesses in the area. He stated City electric rates would be substantially lower than REA rates for the area. Deputy City Manager Jones stated the Council had decided to refer the ordinance to a vote of the people after receiving a referendum petition. She stated this Resolution would urge a"no"vote on the measure. Mayor Hutchinson stated each audience participant would have five minutes to speak. Marty Tharp, 601 Birky Place, spoke in support of the Resolution. She expressed concern that the wording of the ballot measure could be confusing to voters i.e., it would be necessary to vote"no" to approve the annexation. 243 March 6, 2007 Karen Rose, 5200 Parkway Circle East, Southwest Enclave Annexation representative, stated the people of the annexation area gave everyone in the City the right to vote on this issue. This matter was all about "power" and "rights." Those in the annexation would be forced to pay 5%more for electricity that they would not receive for 10 years. The City had fees (stormwater, parks, etc.) on the utility bills that were not charged by REA. A vote to adopt this Resolution would be a"denial of the founding principles of this nation" and would "set a precedent' by phased annexation of an area that would deny the new City residents the right to vote on the Councilmembers and the City issues for 10 years. Sandy Robbins, 5801 South Shields Street, stated area input from"activists"had not been heard by the City. Private funds had been raised to"continue this fight'because the annexation was"unjust." The mitigation efforts would not have happened without the work of the activists. Open space was used to create the Enclave in an area that did not depend on City services. She and other area residents contributed to the City as volunteers. The people of the Enclave were being "denied a choice" to continue to be County residents and open space had been used in a way it was never intended to be used. Seth Anthony, West Prospect Road resident, stated he would vote "yes"to repeal the annexation. This was a"non-binding resolution"that used taxpayer time and resources to "tell citizens how to vote." Councilmember Kastein asked staff to explain the fee for the transfer from REA to City electric service. Gloss stated, as required by State law, the City would collect a 25% service rights fee that would be passed along to Poudre Valley REA. The proposed mitigation measure would provide that the City would cover 20% of the 25% fee. Councilmember Kastein asked if the City could decide not to charge the fee. Gloss stated the City was required to collect that fee and pass it along to REA. Councilmember Manvel stated he understood this fee was charged when someone moved from one utility service to another to account for the investment made by the utility to provide service. He stated the City would pay four-fifths of the fee in this case,the enclave residents would pay one-fifth, and the REA would get the money. Gloss stated that was correct. Councilmember Kastein asked Ms. Rose to address the issue of this fee. Ms.Rose stated the statute provided that REA must be reimbursed for the lost customers at the rate of 25% for 10 years. The statute did not provide how the City would get that funding i.e., it did not specify that it would come from the REA customers or other utility customers such as gas customers. Other cities had made different choices to totally cover the cost in the case of forced annexation. Councilmember Kastein stated the 5%that would be passed along to the customer would still mean a lower electric rate in every case than the rate before the annexation. He asked staff to comment on whether a forced annexation was "unprecedented." Gloss stated the citizen comment was that a phased approach to an enclave annexation was unprecedented. There had been phased annexations in other communities and that the City had annexed enclaves in the past. 244 March 6, 2007 Councilmember Kastein asked if involuntary annexations occurred elsewhere. City Attorney Roy stated annexations took place by reason of contiguity pursuant to a petition or after an enclave area had been entirely surrounded by the City for a minimum of three years. This was an enclave annexation and that such annexations were done "fairly routinely" around the state. Phased annexations were not done routinely but were permitted by the State statute because the annexation did not take effect until the annexation plat was recorded with the County. The City could annex the entire Enclave as a whole. The Resolution related to the matter of whether the voters wanted to repeal the phased annexation. The Council chose to bring the annexation into the City in phases because of the size of the annexation and because doing it all at once would make it more difficult to provide the necessary services. Once each phase became part of the City, those people would acquire the right to vote. People in the County did not have the right to vote as City residents. Mayor Hutchinson noted that County residents were represented by the County, which had a partnership in this process with the City. City Attorney Roy stated the County Commissioners were a party to the Intergovernmental Agreement pursuant to which the Enclave was annexed. Mayor Hutchinson stated outreach was done before this annexation because of the City's intent to mitigate the impacts and problems that people brought up. He stated some"unusual things"were done because this was an unusually large annexation. It was necessary to look at the "real result" of annexation on electric bills. It would cost 15% less overall for electricity. The City was mitigating the fee to be paid to REA to ensure a reduction in the average residential electric bill. Gloss stated this was correct. Councilmember Manvel stated Enclave residents would pay a stormwater fee that they were not currently paying. He asked staff to explain how City stormwater fees worked. Gloss stated the City did not charge separately for each basin and that the stormwater utility fee went toward regional improvements and maintenance of stormwater facilities throughout Fort Collins. The costs were spread among all City residents. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution 2007-025. Councilmember Roy stated the Southwest Enclave was already"within the City of Fort Collins."The election would help determine whether or not it would be "part of the City of Fort Collins." Annexation would answer the questions about representation and would facilitate a"higher level of land use" for the City and County. It was important for City residents to understand why this was an enclave and how it sat within the City boundaries. Mayor Hutchinson stated the Council had asked staff to determine the length of the boundary shared between the City limits and the enclave i.e., how long that boundary was. Gloss stated the contiguous boundary was about three miles in length and that the "perimeter"was about 18 linear miles where the boundaries touched. Councilmember Weitkunat stated there was a need to be "cautious" about using terminology such as"forced annexation"or"involuntary annexation." Annexation was a tool used by a city to build 245 March 6, 2007 and design a community and manage growth. Annexation was a method to manage how the City grows. The question was whether an area that was"totally engulfed"by a city should remain in the County's jurisdiction. The City was willing to take in the property in the interest of"good growth." She urged the voters to understand what annexation meant in community development. This was the Southwest Enclave Annexation and the question was whether it should be part of the community or not. Councilmember Manvel stated some speakers expressed a concern that this decision was not in their hands. There were 3,000 Enclave residents and 140,000 Fort Collins residents. The question was who should decide what the"shape of Fort Collins"should be. This area was"in Fort Collins"and the residents were enjoying City amenities such as open space. The question was whether those residents should be governed by the City of Fort Collins and pay the same fees and taxes and obey the same rules as City residents. He believed that the answer was "clearly yes." The phasing was in place because of the cost to the City and that every year of delay would mean more cost. This was the time for annexation and encouraged voters to determine that the area should be part of the City. He urged voters not to repeal the annexation. Councilmember Brown stated the City had "bent over backwards" to do everything possible. He voted no on the annexation because he felt that the phased annexation did not give the people the right to vote. He would vote against the motion. Councilmember Kastein stated it was"proper and appropriate"for the Council to take a position on this ballot issue. The City/County intergovernmental agreement was that the County would maintain rural level services and the City would maintain urban level services. Over time the City had expanded and the County's area had"shrunk." This meant that the City had expanded its services to support a larger area. This was about "efficiency of government." Tax dollars should not go to both entities for the same services. The phased annexation approach was necessary because of budget constraints. It was more efficient for the City to annex this property so that it could become part of the urban planning boundaries. Mayor Hutchinson stated he had"pushed hard"to do some unprecedented mitigation of some of the problems because of the"unusual situation." It was not possible to give County residents the right to vote in a City election. The process that had been followed had been used for over three decades to build the City. He stated he would support the motion. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Hutchinson,Kastein,Manvel,Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Brown and Ohlson. THE MOTION CARRIED. Items Relatine to the Southeast Branch Library. Adopted The following is staff s memorandum on this item. 246 March 6, 2007 "FINANCIAL IMPACT Approximately$5.8 million is available from library capital improvement expansion fees collected from new residential construction in Fort Collins since 1996. These fees are collected to pay for the impact ofgrowth on the quality of library services. Funds must be spent within a reasonable time of collection (approximately 10 years) to provide library materials or facilities. Staff anticipates construction and furnishings, including the library's collection, will cost about$5.5 million. Recent ballot language authorized the newly formed library district to operate a southeast branch library once it is constructed. The annual operating budget would be approximately $750,000 - $1,200,000 depending on the level ofstaffing needed. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Resolution 2007-020 Authorizing an Exemption to the Competitive Process for the City to Enter into a Contract with Bayer Properties for the Construction of the Southeast Branch Library. B. Resolution 2007-021 Authorizing an Exemption to the Competitive Process for the City to Enter into a Contract with Aller-Lingle Architects to Complete Architectural Services ofthe Design and Construction Phases of the Southeast Branch Library. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 037, 2007,Appropriating Prior Year Reserves Designated for Library Improvements in the Capital Improvement Expansion Fund for Transfer to the City's Capital Projects Fund to Construct a Southeast Branch Library and the General Fund to Purchase Library Books and Materials. Resolution 2007-020 will allow the City to coordinate construction of the Southeast Branch Library at Front Range Village with Bayer Properties. Resolution 2007-021 authorizes a contract with Aller-Lingle Architects, already under a City purchasing contract, to provide comprehensive architectural services through the design and construction phases of the project. Ordinance No. 037, 2007, appropriates available library impact fees to pay for the design and construction of the Library and the collection. BACKGROUND The City is working with Bayer Properties to include a 16,000 square foot library in the Front Range Village development. The library will be located on the second floor of an attractive, centrally located building. The library will be owned by the City and will provide convenient and much needed library services for the community. 247 March 6, 2007 Area voters recently approved the new library district, including new funds nds to pay for the operation of the SE Branch Library. Existing f unds collected from impact fees are sufficient to pay for the construction and furnishing of a 16,000 square foot branch. This branch will helpmeet the goals identified in the Library Capital Improvement Plan offour books per capita and.7 square feet per capita of library space by 2015. The library is currently at 2.56 books per capita and.4 square feet per capita. Resolution 2007-020 Bayer Properties has retained a construction contractor for all the buildings in the Front Range Village development, including the core and shell of the building the library will occupy. By coordinating the construction of the library core and shell through Bayer, the City will realize efficiencies, benefit from economies of scale and expedite the completion of the library. The core and shell includes the foundation, walls, roof and associated elements of the building. Because Bayer's contractor will be constructing the first floor core and shell, it would be difficult and inefficient to bring in a separate contractor to build the core and shell for the second floor. Having two contractors working on the structure of the same building would also create significant coordination issues and cause confusion regarding responsibility for warranty work. The cost of the library's portion of the core and shell will be determined by the final design of the library space but is not anticipated to exceed$1.5 million. Under the City's agreement with Bayer, the City must approve the design and all costs associated with construction of the core and shell on a line item basis. The City has hired an independent estimator to verify the reasonableness of all costs. Staff intends to utilize a competitive process to select a contractor to finish the library space. The finish work includes the entire interior space of the library, everything from drywall and electrical to carpeting, lighting and shelving. • Partnering with Bayer on the Library project maximizes use of the impact fees designated for library services and materials. Bayer's contribution to the library project is substantial. • Bayer is providing the land for the library building and paying far the infrastructure costs associated with bringing necessary utilities and streets to the development and to the library building itself. • Bayer is also providing the adjacent parking lots and paying the associated offsite development costs and fees. Operation Services has estimated that the cost savings to the City by partnering with Bayer is approximately 2.2 million dollars compared to the cost of the City building a stand alone branch library. Resolution 2007-021 Because the City is under extreme time pressures to complete the construction of the library in conjunction with the construction of the Front Range Village, City Purchasing has made a determination per Section 8-161(d)(1)(b)ofthe Code of the City of Fort Collins, that although there 248 March 6, 2007 exists more than one (1) responsible source, a competitive process cannot reasonably be used or, ifused, will result in a substantially higher cost to the City, will otherwise injure the City's financial interests or will substantially impede the City's administrative functions or the delivery ofservices to the public. The Purchasing Agent has submitted the requisite justification to the City Manager for approval and the City Manager has reviewed and concurred in that determination for this acquisition. Section 8-161(d)(3)requires Council approval ofall exceptions to the competitive process over One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000)prior to acquisition. Bayer Properties intends to begin construction of its development next month and open the new retail center in June of 2008. Due to the aggressive timeline for construction of the building that will include the library, Aller-Lingle Architects, already under City of Fort Collins purchasing contract, was consulted for preliminary plans required by Bayer to begin the core and shell design. Aller-Lingle sub-contracted for library design expertise from Joseph Montabano of Studiotrope in Denver. Phase One was completed for$41,000 and allowed Bayer Properties architects to begin drawings for the core and shell of the building. To insure the integrity of the Southeast Branch Library project,from conceptual design through completion, City staffis asking to hire Aller-Lingle toprovide comprehensive architectural services through the design and construction phases of the project, including mechanical, electrical and library design. The estimated cost for these services is $191,300. Aller Lingle Architects P.C. 's design team is the most appropriate for continuing the design workfor the new Fort Collins branch library because: • The team ofAller Lingle Architects P.C. and Studiotrope has been working with the library staff for the programming and conceptual design phases of the project, including coordination with Bayer Properties, and has full knowledge and understanding of the functional and aesthetic needs of this library branch. • Studiotrope was selected by the library staffas the library design consultant based upon its experience and skill in library planning and design. • AllerLingle Architects P.C. has a 20-year working relationship with the City ofFort Collins, including such major projects as the Downtown Transit Center and the Northside Aztlan Community Center. • Aller Lingle Architects P.C. has experience with LEED-accredited projects, including both the Utilities Vehicle Storage facility and the Northside Aztlan Community Center for the City. • Aller-Lingle Architects P.C. has a working knowledge of the City's Design Standards Manual, specifying the design and maintenance requirements of all city facilities. 249 March 6, 2007 • Aller-Lingle has retained the services of Joseph Montalbano, an award-winning architect with ten years of experience designing libraries in Colorado and elsewhere. He has worked on public libraries in Littleton,Aurora, and Walsenburg as well as Reno,Nevada. He spent seven years working with the Denver firm Brendle AVP. Ordinance No. 037, 2007 The City would use available library impact fees to pay for the design and construction of the library and for the library collection. • The City would own the library through a condominium deed Bayer is providing. • All off-site development costs,parking, utility infrastructure to the building, streets, green space and numerous site amenities will be provided by Bayer without cost to the library project. • The City will pay for construction of the second floor library space and related infrastructure, including a first floor lobby, elevators, a stairway and book drops. • The branch library will be operated by the new Fort Collins Regional Library District under the terms worked out in the intergovernmental agreement. It is anticipated that construction of the new library will be completed by June 2008 so it can be opened at the same time the shopping center opens." Deputy City Manager Jones stated this agenda item was being brought forward to Council because the Southeast Branch Library would be part of the Bayer Properties development. Marty Heffernan, CLRS Director, stated three items were before Council for consideration. He stated the City had been working with Bayer Properties with regard to inclusion of a branch library in a project at the intersection of Harmony and Ziegler Roads. Bayer Properties was developing a retail center (Front Range Village) at that location. The City was not in a position to work with Bayer Properties on inclusion of the branch library until the funding to operate the library was realized through the passage of the Library District measure by the voters last November. Since then the City had been working with Bayer Properties on the design and making the branch library a reality. Resolution 2007-020 would give authority to hire Bayer Properties as a sole source contractor to build the shell of the library. He presented visual information showing the site and the conceptual design for the library, which would be 16,000 square feet on the second floor of the development. The City would own this space and that improvements from the building outward would be paid for by Bayer Properties. The City would pay common area maintenance expenses as part of the development. The City's contribution would be to pay for Bayer Properties to do the work for the second story of the building (the walls and infrastructure). The City would hire a separate contractor to finish the inside space. The Bayer Properties contribution to this project was worth over$2 million and that the City's costs would be in the$5.5 million range. Funding for the project would come from impact fees collected by the City since about 1996 on new residential 250 March 6, 2007 construction. He stated$1 million of the funding would be for the book collection. Bayer Properties intended to open in the summer of 2008. He stated sole source authority was needed because the City was not in a position to do a competitive bid for this part of the work. Resolution 2007-021 would authorize an exemption to the competitive process for the City to enter into a contract with Aller-Lingle Architects to complete architectural services of the design and construction phases of the Southeast Branch Library. Ordinance No. 037, 2007 would appropriate$5.5 million of impact fee money to pay for the project. About $1.5 million would go toward the shell, about $200,000 would go for design services,about$1 million would go for books and materials,and the rest would go toward finish work and furnishings. The City would save a few million dollars through this partnership. One of the key discussion items with the new Library District board of trustees would be the branch library operation. Councilmember Ohlson asked how long the City had been considering building a library in this part of town in partnership with Bayer Properties. Heffernan stated this had been in the long range plans for at least seven or eight years and that the City had been discussing the project with Bayer Properties for three to four years. Councilmember Ohlson asked about the advantages and disadvantages of a first story library and second story library. Heffernan stated the first floor location would be slightly better but that the second floor location would have good access and prominence and visibility due to the design. He stated Bayer Properties was bringing about$2 million to the project and that retail space on the first level was important to the developer. There were examples of successful second story libraries in this type of development. Staff believed that the second floor location would not be detrimental to the success of the library. Mayor Hutchinson stated the dollar savings to the City was an important consideration in Council's decision on this agenda item. He stated using a competitive process would result in a much higher cost to the City. He asked how much the City would save. Heffernan stated the savings would be due to the arrangement in which the City would not have to pay for other development costs such as parking. James O'Neill, Purchasing Agent, stated the cost savings to the City included Bayer Properties paying the cost of improvements and the City not having to go through the RFP process. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution 2007-020. Councilmember Manvel stated the City currently had a"second floor"library for adults downtown. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat,to adopt Resolution 2007-021. 251 March 6, 2007 Councilmember Ohlson stated he would vote against the motion because this had been in the works long enough for the City to use the normal bid process for the architect. It was also an issue that the architect was on the Planning and Zoning Board and this architect was also doing the design work on other large City projects. This compounded the problem of an exemption to the normal bid process. Councilmember Kastein asked if these architectural drawings had gone to the Planning and Zoning Board and if that particular Board member had a role in the discussions. Ken Mannon, Operations Services Director, stated the library plans had not gone to the Planning and Zoning Board because it was at the conceptual phase. Plans for the Northside Center would have been considered before the architect was on the Board. The practice would be for a Board member to not participate in any discussion or decision in which he had an interest. Councilmember Ohlson stated he had no issue with the individual architect. In general he believed that if someone was frequently bidding on City projects, they should be on another board or commission and not the Planning and Zoning Board. Planning and Zoning Board members worked with "high level staff' and would deal with such staff when bidding on City projects. He did not believe that someone should both bid on City projects and serve on the Planning and Zoning Board. Councilmember Kastein stated there was a policy in place that a Board member must recuse himself if there was a conflict of interest. He did not believe that there was any impropriety in any City project. It appeared that the architect was not on the Board when some of the projects mentioned by Councilmember Ohlson would have gone to the Board. Councilmember Ohlson stated he stated his comments had nothing to do with the individual. In general these kinds of situations should not be"set up." People should not apply to boards that may be considering large City projects on which they would bid. Heffernan stated the City did not know that this matter would be moving forward until the Library District was approved by the voters. Bayer's schedule became compressed and there was pressure to get the conceptual design done quickly. The City was not in a position to take this out for a full bid and that staff believed that the only alternative was to bring this agenda item forward to the Council. Mayor Hutchinson stated he was satisfied that this was the only solution to an unusual situation. Heffernan stated the only other choice was to tell Bayer to wait and throw the project off schedule. Staff believed that this was the best way to proceed. Mayor Hutchinson stated it made boards and commissions stronger to have people with expertise serving. He stated there was a conflict of interest procedure in place. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Ohlson. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Ordinance No. 037, 2007 on First Reading. 252 March 6, 2007 Councilmember Weitkunat stated this ordinance would make the branch library"real." She stated the private-public partnership would make the branch library a reality. Decisions would have to be made quickly because the new Library District had been approved. She thanked former Councilmember Marty Tharp for having the "audacity" to ask Bayer Properties if they would be willing to build a library. Councilmember Ohlson thanked former Councilmember Marty Tharp for being the"driving force" behind this idea. Councilmember Manvel stated money had been accumulated to build a library, the new Library District had been created, and Bayer Properties was moving forward with the retail project. He stated everything needed to move forward quickly at this point. Councilmember Kastein thanked the staff for its hard work on this public-private partnership. He stated he would look forward to seeing this project come to fruition. Mayor Hutchinson stated this was a"good news" item and thanked former Councilmember Tharp for the idea and staff for the hard work. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 2007-026 Ratifying Appointments to the Fort Collins Regional Library Board of Trustees Adonted. The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Last November, area voters approved the formation of the Fort Collins Regional Library District and provided 3 mills in property tax to fund it. The District cannot begin operations until its Board of Trustees is in place. The City Council and County Commissioners have formed a Library District Trustee Selection Committee comprised of Commissioners Kathay Rennels and Karen Wagner and Councilmembers Karen Weitkunat and Ben Manvel. The Committee is charged with selecting candidates to fill seven trustee positions. The selected candidates must be ratified by a two-thirds majority vote ofboth the City Council and the County Commissioners. By adopting this Resolution, the Council will be ratifying the trustee candidates selected and recommended by the Selection Committee. BACKGROUND Upon formation of a library district,state law provides a process for selecting the Board of Trustees to govern the new district. In the case of the Fort Collins Regional Library District, this process 253 March 6, 2007 calls for theformation ofa Trustee Selection Committee, composed oftwo representatives from the City Council and two County Commissioners. The Committee is charged with selecting and recommending candidates for the Board of Trustees for ratification by the full Council and the Commissioners. Ratification must be by two-thirds majority vote. The Selection Committee was formed and conducted an outreach process to solicit application for the trustee positions. Sixty-one applications were received and the Committee members reviewed and rated each one. After a comprehensive discussion the Committee selected seventeen applicants for interviews. The seventeen applicants were interviewed over the course of three days. After careful deliberation, the Committee selected seven candidates to fill the seven Board of Trustee positions. The candidates selected by the Committee and recommended for ratification by the full Council and the Commissioners are: • Nina Bodenhammer (4 years) • Robin Gard(3 years) • Michelle Kalkowski (2 years) • John Knezovich (I year) • Mike Liggett(5 years) • Mary Robertson (5 years) • Robert Viscount (4 years) The applications and associated documentation provided b the candidates to the Committee r PP P Y are included as Attachment 1. State law provides the initial terms for the trustees. One trustee serves for one year, one for two years, one for three years, two for four years and two for five years. Thereafter, trustees are appointed for the length of term specified in the bylaws adopted by the Board of Trustees. The number of terms a trustee may serve is also specified in the bylaws. After the initial term expires, recommendations to fill the position may be provided by the Trustee Selection Committee or the City and County can agree to allow the Board of Trustees to recommend candidates. Actual trustee appointments must be ratified by both the Commissioners and the Council, by a two-thirds majority. The initial term for each selected candidate recommended by the Committee is noted above. Once the trustees are ratified by the Council and the Commissioners they will begin the business of adopting bylaws and creating the operational framework for the District. State law requires the District, the City and the County to enter into an intergovernmental agreement within 90 days ofthe ratification of the trustees. " Marty Heffernan, CLRS Director, stated this item was ratification of the appointment of members of the new Library District's Board of Trustees. The Library District would be taking over library operations in the City. State law provided for formation of a committee to recommend a group of potential Trustees to the Council and the Commissioners. Councilmembers Manvel and Weitkunat and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were recommending the appointment of seven candidates to the Board of Trustees for specific terms of service ranging from one to five years. Ratification of the appointments required a two-thirds majority of the City Council and the Commissioners. 254 March 6, 2007 Councilmember Kastein asked when the issue of an elected official on the Library District Board of Trustees would be discussed. Heffernan stated the Council and the Commissioners had discussed this matter and had decided that the initial Board of Trustees would not contain a City Councilmember since the Board of Trustees would be working on an intergovernmental agreement that would set forth the rights and responsibilities of the respective parties (District/City/County). It would be difficult for an elected official to represent the interests of the District and the City or County. There would be an opportunity for appointment of an elected official when vacancies on the Board of Trustees came up in the future. Councilmember Kastein asked when the Council would see that decision in writing. Heffernan stated this could be included in the intergovernmental agreement. Councilmember Kastein strongly recommended that this be part ofthe intergovernmental agreement. His approval of the Resolution would be conditional upon the inclusion of that in the IGA. Heffernan stated staff would take that position and noted that the County and the District would both have to agree to the IGA. Councilmember Kastein stated he had an understanding that the appointments would be made with an agreement in place that would "guarantee" Council representation on the Library Board of Trustees within one year. Councilmember Weitkunat stated the County Commissioners indicated that they would not approve a Board of Trustees containing a City Councilmember. There was a"stalemate"on this issue from the beginning. Agreement had been reached that it would be difficult to have a City Councilmember on the initial Board of Trustees. She understood that the issue of an elected official on the Board of Trustees would be a"piece"of the negotiations relating to the IGA. There was also agreement that both the City Council and the Commissioners would always approve appointments to the Board of Trustees. The Council was "powerless"to do more on this at this point. Councilmember Manvel stated it would be a three-way intergovernmental agreement and that he hoped that all parties would demonstrate "flexibility" so that there could be a "meeting of the minds." The issue of an elected official serving on the Board of Trustees could not be resolved at this time. Councilmember Ohlson stated he believed that it was unlikely that an elected official would ever serve on the Board of Trustees because one of the members of the Board of Trustees would have to be replaced by a City Councilmember. He questioned whether the Board of Trustees would also have to ratify future appointments. Councilmember Manvel stated any new appointments would have to be approved by the Commissioners and the City Council. The process for making appointments would be part of the intergovernmental agreement. Councilmember Ohlson stated he did not want the Board to be able to appoint new Board members. Councilmember Manvel stated this would not be allowed under State law. 255 March 6, 2007 Councilmember Ohlson stated the key issue for him was that the City Council and the Commissioners would make new appointments. Mayor Hutchinson suggested that there may be other options for future discussion, such as the creation of an ex-officio position in which an elected official could serve. He understood from the work session the Council was in agreement that it did not make sense to have a Councilmember serving on the initial Board of Trustees. Councilmember Kastein stated he had no issue with the decision that a Councilmember should not serve on the initial Board of Trustees. The issue was that the City had a$15 million investment that would be given to the Library District. In his opinion there needed to be elected official representation on the Board of Trustees on an ongoing basis. He asked if there was any way to build in the requirement that within one year Council representation would be on the Board of Trustees. City Attorney Roy stated this could be discussed as part of the IGA negotiations. It was "problematic"to condition the appointment of the initial Board of Trustees on the appointment of a Councilmember at the end of a year. The Council could express its intention to have a Councilmember on the Board of Trustees in the future and that this could be explored within the statutory framework. There was no way to achieve that without the County's consent at this point. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution 2007-026. Councilmember Ohlson thanked Councilmembers Manvel and Weitkunat for their work on the selection process. Councilmember Manvel thanked the 61 people who applied to serve in this"major job." He noted that City operations depended heavily on volunteers and that this would be an "outstanding"group of Trustees. Councilmember Weitkunat stated "incredible" people would be building the Library District for everyone. Councilmember Roy stated different Library Districts were run under different"philosophies"and that the Board of Trustees would have a big job ahead of them in guiding how the library would perform and function in the future. Mayor Hutchinson stated people were the most important part of the process. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. ("Secretary's Note: The Council took a recess at this point in the meeting.) 256 March 6, 2007 Ordinance No. 045, 2007, Establishing Local Sanctions Upon Contractors and Subcontractors of the City Who Employ Unauthorized Aliens to Perform Work for the City Defeated on First Reading. The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "FINANCIAL IMPACT Staffhas estimated that it would require 30 to 40 hours to conduct each audit ofone firm with 100 employees that has contracted for work with the City. If the audit is conducted by City staff, the cost is estimated at$1,600 and, if the audit is outsourced, it is estimated to cost approximately$3,200. A large construction contract with 20 subcontractors and over 1,000 employees, such as the Police Administration Building project, could cost between $12,000 (City staff) and $24,000 (outside source) to audit. Based on current workloads, staff could reasonably absorb audits of two to six companies per year. If more than six audits are necessary or desired, it is likely that additional resources will be required. The proposed Ordinance may require contractors and/or subcontractors additional time and administrative costs associated with multiple sets ofsimilar tasks and responsibilities required by each tier ofgovernment. If the risk of doing business with Fort Collins(fines and/or debarment)is great enough, contractors will typically do one of two things -not bid work offered by the City or raise their prices to cover potential costs. Both of these can result in increased costs to the City. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance makes it unlawful for contractors and subcontractors who perform work on City projects to hire unauthorized aliens. It applies to major construction and service contracts. Contractors and subcontractors are required to verify the legal employment status of employees working on City contracts and must maintain copies of these records. If they fail to perform the appropriate screening and documentation, the City may terminate these contracts with the City and may prohibit future contracts with the City for a period of five years. If a contractor or subcontractor falsely identifies, or falsely certifies the legal employment status of, any person working on a City contract, a fine of$1,000 for each infraction may be imposed. BACKGROUND At the October 24, 2006 City Council work session, Council reviewed and discussed the implementation of new state immigration laws. One of the state laws enacted in 2006 requires that the City take certain steps to ensure that unauthorized aliens are not allowed to perform work on any of its contracts for services(HB 1343). A contract for services is defined as the furnishing of labor, time or effort by a contractor or subcontractor not involvine the delivery ofa specific end product other than reports that are merely incidental to the required performance. The City has adopted the interpretation that HB 1343 does not apply to construction contracts as they involve the delivery of a "specific end product. " 257 March 6, 2007 Compliance Requirements ofHB 1343 Under HB 1343 contractors must certify that they do not knowingly employ or contract with an unauthorized alien and have participated or attempted to participate in the "Basic Pilot Program" in order to verify that the contractor is not employing any undocumented or unauthorized worker. The "Basic Pilot Program"is a web-based program, maintained by the Department of Homeland Security, and allows employers to confirm the employment eligibility of all newly hired employees. Penalties ofNon-compliance ofHB 1343 Violation by contractors of the mandatory provisions ofHB 1343 can be grounds for termination of the contract, but termination is not required. If a contract is terminated by the City, the Secretary of State must be notified. City Council Direction Direction provided by City Council at the October work session was for staffto prepare and present a local ordinance that meets the following criteria: • Applies to both service and construction contracts between the City and persons, vendors, contractors, and any other type of business entity. • Enforcement will occur through "spot checks"and impromptu audits ofcompliance, as well as a complaint basis. • City contracts will go only to those persons, vendors, contractors and business entities that verify that they do not employ unauthorized aliens through the use of the most reliable indicia of legal status. Ordinance Establish ing Local Sanctions on Contractors/Subcontractors of the City Who Employ Unauthorized Aliens on City Projects The purpose of preparing a local ordinance on this subject is to complement federal and state laws that apply to employment practices on City projects. More specifically, the purpose of the Ordinance is to emphasize to contractors and subcontractors who provide the City with services, including construction services, that employment of unauthorized aliens is contrary to the interests of the City and its citizens and that any contractor and/or subcontractor that does not comply with the prohibition can and will by penalized. The following are the pertinent elements of the proposed Ordinance: • Applies to City construction contracts over$500,000, service contracts over$100,000 and major warranty work, except for those services that are exempted from the procurement provisions ofthe City Code, i.e., donations, legal and litigation services, musicals, dramatic and fine arts performances and intergovernmental agreements. 258 March 6, 2007 • Prohibits contractors and subcontractorsperforming such workfrom knowingly recruiting, hiring for employment, or continuing to employ any unauthorized aliens to work on covered City projects. • Requires contractors and subcontractors to certify to the City that they have verified the legal employment status of all employees working under the contract or subcontract by reviewing the I-9 documentation required by federal law. • Requires contractors and subcontractors to maintain, for a period of one year from completion of the contract work, all documents they relied upon in verifying the legal employment status of those who worked on the project. • Requires contractors to review the documents relied upon by their subcontractors before entering into the subcontracts. • Requires contractors and subcontractors, upon request by the City, to verify the identity of all persons working on the project and to produce for City inspection the documents relied upon in verifying the legal employment status of such persons. • Makes it a civil infraction for any contractor or subcontractor to falsely identify, or falsely certify the legal employment status of, any person working on a City project. • Requires all contractors and subcontractors to comply with Title 7 ofthe United States Code and not unlawfully discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment. • Authorizes enforcement of the Ordinance through audits of compliance, conducted pursuant to administrative regulations, or through the investigation of complaints as long as those complaints are in writing and include a recitation of the facts establishing the alleged violation. • States that complaints based primarily on the basis of race, color, national origin, ethnicity or other constitutionally or statutorily protected status will not be investigated. • Requires the City to give contractors and subcontractors notice and an opportunity to be heard if the City suspects a violation of the Ordinance, unless the contractor or subcontractor has previously violated the Ordinance. • Authorizes, but does not require, the City to terminate a contract and prohibit the violator 9 t1' p from entering into future contracts with the City for a period of five years. • States that the violator will be liable to the City for any actual, consequential damages the City may experience as a result of the termination of the contract. • States that if any portion of the Ordinance is invalidated by a court, the remaining portions will remain in effect. 259 March 6, 2007 Comparison Between State Law and the Ordinance The state law that addresses this same subject is House Bill 06-1343, which has been enacted as C.R.S. §8-17.5-101. That law applies only to "contracts for services." Thus, the scope of the proposed Ordinance is broader than the state law. (However, at least one state agency has interpreted the state law as applying to construction contracts as well as contracts for services.) The purpose of the state law is similar to the proposed Ordinance but the state law is directed towards the government entities rather than their contractors and subcontractors. The state law essentially prohibits state agencies and political subdivisions from entering into or renewing a public contract for services with a contractor who knowingly employs or contracts with an unauthorized alien to perform work under the contract or who knowingly contracts with a subcontractor who does so. It also states that all covered contracts must contain provisions prohibiting the employment of unauthorized aliens;prohibiting subcontracts with subcontractors who have failed to certify that they will not knowingly employ unauthorized aliens; requiring the contractor to verify or attempt to verify, through participation in the basic PILOTprogram, that the contractor does not employ unauthorized aliens; and requiring contractors to terminate subcontracts with subcontractors who, after notice, continue employing any known unauthorized aliens. Like the Ordinance, the state law authorizes governments to terminate contracts with contractors who violate the law, and they may recover any actual and consequential damages that they may incur in doing so. Governments terminating contracts under the law are to notify the Secretary of State of any contracts terminated under the law, so that the violators will be placed on a statewide list. In comparing the state law with the proposed Ordinance, the significant differences and similarities are as follows: (a) The state law pertains only to service contracts, while the Ordinance refers to both service and construction contracts. (b) The state law pertains to all public contracts for services, regardless of the amount. The Ordinance pertains to only those contracts which meet a threshold amount and are subject to the procurement provisions of the City Code. © The state law requires that certain provisions be placed into a public contract for services as more fully discussed above. The Ordinance does not require particular contract language but instead makes it unlawful to hire unauthorized aliens to work on contracts, subcontracts or major warranty work of the City, requires a verification process, and requires contractors and subcontractors to maintain copies of their records. (d) The state law imposes no civil or criminal sanction for a violation of the statute. The Ordinance imposes a civil penalty of$1,000 per infraction ifa contractor or subcontractor falsely identifies, or falsely certifies the legal 260 March 6, 2007 employment status of, any person working for the contractor or subcontractor on a City contract, subcontract or major warranty work. (e) Both the state law and the Ordinance provide for the termination of a contract if a contractor fails to abide by the law, and for the recovery of consequential damages. Enforcement City staff will be responsible for enforcing the Ordinance. Enforcement will be carried out through audits of compliance and written complaints. More specifically, enforcement activities would consist of: 1. making sure, when contracts are let, that contractors and subcontractors certify that they have reviewed the I-9 documents and verified the legal employment status of their employees; 2. conducting periodic "spot checks"or audits, reviewing the documentation that the contractors and subcontractors are required to maintain; 3. going onto a job site if there is a complaint and trying to determine the identity (though not the legal employment status) of all persons on the site and then checking the contractor's records to see if the contractor has checked the employment status of a particular employee and has documents on file verifying such status. City personnel generally do not have the training needed to determine the legal employment status of individual workers. Federal officials are usually in charge of investigating the status of individual immigrants. However, if staff can identify who the people are at a particular site, they may be able to determine whether the contractor has checked and verified their status as required by the Ordinance as well asfederal and state law. The difficultly is that staffmay not always be able to match a person's identity with the paperwork maintained by the contractor or subcontractor. Staff has estimated that it would require 30 to 40 hours to conduct an audit for a service contract. This includes preparation, review of files/documentation and preparation of the audit report. Calculating staff time, the estimated average cost for each service contract audit, whether by complaint or spot check, is $1,600. Based on current workloads staff could absorb two audits per year. If more than two audits are desired or required, it is likely that additional resources will be required. An audit on a large construction project,such as the Police Administration Building which involves one general contractor and 20 subcontractors for a total of 1,000 employees, would take an estimated 300 hours to complete. For staff to do the audit, it would cost approximately $12,000 (based on $40/per hour) and if the audit was outsourced, the estimated cost is $24,000 (based on $80/per hour). 261 March 6, 2007 Based on current workloads, staff could absorb two to six audits per year. If more than six audits are desired or required, it is likely additional resources will be required. Effect On City Contracts/Contractors Staff believes that most, if not all, of the City's contractors comply with the State of Colorado and Federal PILOT program. Though staff did not conduct an extensive outreach effort, a few contractors voiced their concern that the Ordinance may require additional time and administrative costs associated with multiple sets of similar tasks and responsibilities required by each tier of government. While confident about the ability to comply with federal, state and, if the Ordinance is approved, City requirements that prohibit hiring unauthorized aliens, contractors are concerned that they could be tripped up on a technicality and face, as a result, significant time and cost to work through theprocess and defend their documentation and/or employees. This concern is exacerbated by thefact that most subcontractors are small firms with limited resources,and these subcontractors are less certain about their capacity to meticulously and thoroughly completed the required documentation for and respond to an audit. As the risk of doing business with Fort Collins (fines and/or debarment) increases, contractors typically do one of two things — not bid work offered by the City or raise their prices to cover potential costs. Both can result in increased costs to the City. The City competes regionally for qualified firms. Some firms may elect not to bid on City contracts because of the added regulation. At the present time there is more than enough business for these firms with others who will not have these regulations. Staff does not have specific data that addresses the degree to which contractors and subcontractors—ones that are currently doing business with the City as well as those that are potential contractors—comply or don't comply with existing federal and state laws related to employing unauthorized aliens. Consequently, it is not possible to determine the extent to which the proposed Ordinance will help prevent the employment of unauthorized aliens on City projects in Fort Collins. On the other hand, adoption and enforcement of the Ordinance will send a strong message to businesses that positions of employment in the City should be reserved for persons who are legally authorized to work in this country. Ultimately, the question presented by the proposed Ordinance is whether the additional requirements and penalties presented by the Ordinance are needed to better ensure that no unauthorized aliens work on City contracts." Deputy City Manager Jones presented background information relating to the agenda item. She stated this was First Reading of an ordinance that would establish local sanctions on contractors and subcontractors of the City who employed unauthorized aliens to perform work for the City. The purpose was to ensure that unauthorized aliens were not working on City contracts. This ordinance would complement existing federal and state laws. Contractors and subcontractors would have a responsibility to check and verify that they were not hiring and employing unauthorized aliens. The ordinance would affect anyone who was not a citizen or national of the United States, anyone not in the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident,and anyone who did not have appropriate documentation 262 March 6, 2007 to work in the U.S. It would affect contractors and subcontractors who enter into a contract with the City of Fort Collins to provide a service in the amount of$100,000 or more or construction or warranty work involving$500,000 or more. The City purchasing code exempted certain services. Contractors and subcontractors working on City service or construction projects must verify the legal employment status of their employees and must maintain copies of those records for one year after completion of work on City contracts. There would be penalties for two types of violations: (1) improper screening and documentation,and(2)false identification and certification. The City's role relating to enforcement would be responsibility for spot audits and responding to written complaints. It would require 30-40 hours of staff time to conduct an audit for a service contract at an estimated cost of about $1,600 and that a large construction project could require up to 300 hours at a cost of $12,000 if done by City staff or $24,000 if outsourced. Approximately two to six audits could be performed by City staff. HB 1343 applied to contracts for services provided to government entities, required that contractors and subcontractors attempt to verify employment status,and provided that violations could result in the termination of a contract and a report to the Secretary of State. She provided a comparison between the requirements of HB 1343 and the proposed City ordinance. Federal and state requirements and the proposed ordinance would all prohibit public contractors from hiring and employing persons who are not authorized to work in the U.S. Federal requirements provided that employers must check; that state requirements provided that contractors must check and certify that unauthorized persons are not knowingly hired and allowed for contracts to be terminated; and that the proposed ordinance would require checking and certification, the maintenance of documents for a specified period of time and fines if the information is found to be false. The primary question was what level of oversight are necessary and desired to ensure that unauthorized aliens are not working on City contracts. Mayor Hutchinson stated each audience participant would have two minutes to speak. Jim Moody, 1917 South Shields Street, Director of Owner/Agency Relations for the Colorado Contractors Association, spoke in opposition to the ordinance because of the existing state and federal laws. Greg Snyder, 619 Bear Creek Drive, asked the Council to consider lowering the contract amount to ensure that everyone would be "playing by the rules." He stated the biggest issue would be verification since the government did not provide business owners with the "tools"to do that. Gloria Balderrama, 1400 Casa Grande Boulevard, opposed the ordinance and noted that federal legislation was pending for comprehensive immigration reform. She expressed concerns that the ordinance could contribute to profiling. James Ross, Human Relations Commission member, stated the Commission had reviewed the proposed ordinance and was recommending that the Council not support the ordinance. There was no clear purpose in going beyond the state and federal law. There was no clear benefit and that there were"red flags" and costs to the City. The ordinance would send a"message" of intolerance and could create a human rights issue by potentially infringing on personal liberties. The Commission was suggesting that before an ordinance was adopted a study should be undertaken to determine the scope and consequences of the existing situation. 263 March 6, 2007 Betty Aragon-Mitotes, 140 2nd Street, spoke in opposition to the ordinance. She pointed out the costs of enforcement of the ordinance. She stated the ordinance would contribute to"divisions"in the city and expressed concerns about "racial profiling." This proposed ordinance would "go too far." Don Flick,520 North Sherwood Street,opposed the ordinance. He stated adoption of this ordinance would be"harmful"because it would "cut off the debate" about the issues. Allison Shaw, 633 Remington Street, stated this ordinance would "send the wrong xenophobic message"that Fort Collins was"not welcoming of diverse cultures." She stated the ordinance would create more "red tape and big government." Charlotte Miller, 2875 Blue Leaf Drive, agreed with the statement made by the Human Relations Commission and opposed the ordinance. She stated eve human being deserved a"life of dignity' PP rY g and that ways should be found to "welcome strangers among us." This kind of legislation was "morally corrupt." Paul Bame, 520 North Sherwood Street, spoke in opposition to the ordinance and stated it would "levy an unfunded mandate"on small businesses to do the required verifications. He expressed a concern that businesses could"run afoul of the EEO law." He stated"extraordinary training"would be required for City employees in charge of enforcement. He did not want Fort Collins to become the "show me your papers" city and that he did not want local businesses to become the "immigration police." Bill Simpson, 331 Park Street, supported the HRC's statement on the ordinance. There were more "pressing issues" facing the community, that there would be a danger of"racial profiling"during a "period of hysteria"in which"hate groups"aligned with"anti-immigrant"groups,and the he would like the Council to defeat the ordinance. David Lipp, 1916 Springfield Drive,urged the Council to stay out of immigration issues and defeat the ordinance. Matt Lawrence, 318 West Laurel Street, spoke in opposition to the ordinance and stated the community should be welcoming to everyone. Lisa Olivas, 825 East Elizabeth Street, asked the Council to defeat the ordinance. It would not accomplish the stated objectives and that there were already state and federal requirements in place. Bart Verron, Fort Collins resident, expressed concerns regarding the cost of enforcement and how the ordinance would affect contractors bidding on City projects. This could increase the cost of City projects. Cheryl Distaso, 135 South Sunset Avenue,had many concerns about the ordinance, including how complaints and enforcement would happen. She expressed concerns that complaints could be made by"competitors" or could be made based on few facts. She urged the Council to vote against the ordinance. 264 March 6, 2007 Roberto Valdez, southwest Fort Collins resident, spoke against the ordinance and stated a comprehensive study of immigration needed to be done before such an ordinance was considered. He spoke regarding "displaced populations" and the effects of free trade acts. The "root of the problem"needed to be dealt with and "better information" should be obtained. John Alvarez, Fort Collins resident, stated the word "alien" was "disturbing" to many people. Spending money on an ordinance such as this would be expensive in a time of"shrinking budgets." Kimberly Medina,2436 Charolais Drive,stated the federal immigration policy had failed but a local ordinance was not the way to address the issue and that it would not make a difference. Marwan Achila, American citizen from Beirut, Lebanon, spoke in support of the ordinance. He believed that many people wanted to hire illegal aliens to"save money." It was wrong to hire illegal aliens and that people needed to follow the law. Walter Peeples, 1523 Miramont Drive, business owner and subcontractor, spoke regarding the possible consequences of the ordinance for the community. It was"scaring"the Mexican-American community and the construction,housing,restaurant and food service industries. He questioned the "rationality"of this "intimidating" ordinance. Shirley Malin,2013 Custer Drive,legal alien,spoke in support of the"rule of law"and stated"unity should trump diversity." The"nonsense"about racism was a"smokescreen"and the word"alien" was a legal term. It was a cop-out to leave this up to the federal government and people should "take a stand" in their own community. Many Americans were "so comfortable that they did not know what was going on." She supported the ordinance. Mary Detweiler, 4255 Westshore Way, she stated immigration was a"complex situation"and that "strict enforcement of the law" could be "inhumanitarian." The immigration law needed to be "totally revised"by the federal government. Kimi Jackson, 1112 Kirkwood Drive, attorney, stated there would be little to no benefit from this law and the cost would be great for taxpayers, workers and local businesses. The City could face legal challenges for preemption and under federal law,businesses did not have the right to request documentation beyond the information required on the 1-9 form. Businesses that require additional documentation could face fines or lawsuits. Businesses were already subject to the complicated requirements of federal law and should not be subject to further local immigration requirements. She asked the Council to vote against the ordinance. Stan Weeks,Boulder resident,Director ofthe Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform,stated this was an identification rather than immigration issue. Mike Wise, 2812 North Overland Trail, supported immigration reform at the local level but that it was "premature"to adopt this ordinance right now. This issue was a"matter of illegality" and he would support taking local action at some point. 265 March 6, 2007 Vivian Armendariz, 820 Merganser Drive, stated the terms "illegal alien" and "illegal immigrant" were"degrading"to Hispanic persons. The cost of enforcing the ordinance would be too high at a time of budget cuts. Chris Woodward,CSU graduate student,stated there was a"flaw"in the verification system and that about 10% of verifications had errors. He opposed the ordinance. Mayor Hutchinson thanked those who spoke. Councilmember Brown asked staff to explain the I-9 verification process. City Attorney Roy stated the I-9 verification was required under federal law. The form was completed by the prospective employee and the employer and the intent was to determine the legal employment status of the applicant. Certain documents were listed as acceptable on the back of the I-9 form. Federal law prohibited the employer from requiring other documents if the documents submitted by the prospective employee appeared to be genuine. The verification ofdocumentation must be completed within three days of the date of hire. The basic requirement to verify the legal employment status of a job applicant therefore existed under federal law. This ordinance was an attempt within the context of government contracts to ensure to the City that its contractors had followed the federal law. Councilmember Brown asked if the federal, state and local laws all required the same paperwork. City Attorney Roy stated the ordinance did not require contractors to verify employment status in any other way than the way required under federal law. The contractor would be required to submit an additional certification. Councilmember Manvel stated the City ordinance would require a certification by the contractor and maintenance of records. His understanding from the presentations that were made was that the state law also required the certification but not the maintenance of the records. City Attorney Roy stated both the state law and the ordinance would require a certification from the contractors that they had verified or attempted to verify in one way or another the legal employment status. Federal law required retention of the I-9 form and neither federal or state law required the employer to retain the documents that were reviewed to verify the legal employment status of the applicant. The ordinance would require the contractors to retain those documents for a period of at least one year after the end of the contract. Councilmember Kastein asked for clarification that the documents must be produced and reviewed at the time a person was hired. City Attorney Roy stated federal law required the I-9 verification of legal employment status to be done within three days of the date of hire. The employer must retain the I-9 form for a specified retention period and it was optional whether to retain the identification documents (what was presented by the applicant to verify legal employment status). Councilmember Kastein asked what HB 1343 required for the I-9 and identification documentation. City Attorney Roy stated HB 1343 did not address the 1-9 requirement and this was set forth in the federal law. Under HB 1343, prior to executing a public contract for services, each prospective contractor was required to certify that at the time of the certification it did not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien and that the contractor has participated in or attempted to participate 266 March 6, 2007 in the basic pilot program in order to verify that it does not employ any illegal aliens. The basic pilot program referenced in the state law was authorized under federal law and was a means of verifying after the fact of employment and at the time of entering into a public contract that the contractor was not employing illegal aliens. Councilmember Kastein asked if the local ordinance would require the contractors to"jump through any additional hoops" beyond those specified in HB 1343 i.e., would there be any additional requirement besides holding on to the records for a year. City Attorney Roy stated nothing additional was being required in terms of verifying identification. The ordinance would require the retention of documents that neither the federal or state law required to be maintained and would require that subcontractors had complied with federal law. The contractors would also be required to cooperate with the City to verify legal employment status if there was a complaint or an audit. Councilmember Kastein stated it appeared that the main additional requirement was for contractors to verify that the subcontractors were following the law. City Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative and stated the ordinance would not impose any additional burden on employees. There would be an additional burden for contractors to certify that they and their subcontractors had gone through the necessary steps required by federal law to verify the legal employment status of their employees. Councilmember Kastein asked if the contractor must retain the records for the subcontractors. City Attorney Roy stated each contractor and subcontractor must retain their respective records. The contractors must request from the subcontractors the documents relied upon for verification of legal employment status and then make the required certification. Councilmember Kastein asks if the contractor would be required to produce the subcontractor's documentation if the City did an audit. City Attorney Roy stated this issue would need to be addressed if the ordinance was adopted on First Reading. The subcontractor would be required to retain the records and make them available for inspection. Councilmember Weitkunat stated the I-9 form was standard practice for all organizations. It was difficult for the average person to know whether identification documents were valid. Certification and verification raised new questions for employers. She asked ifthe"certification"would be a legal statement. City Attorney Roy stated a certification was not necessarily the same thing as an affidavit. The certification would be a statement that the required verification had occurred. Councilmember Weitkunat stated it was difficult for small businesses to know that workers were providing legitimate documents. The problem in Fort Collins included university students who were here legally but were not allowed to work. Enforcement was difficult. City Attorney Roy stated under the federal law,the I-9 form must be retained in the case of recruiting or referral for a fee, without hiring, for three years after the date of recruiting or referral and in the case of hiring for three years after the date of hiring or one year after the date the individual's employment is terminated, whichever is later. Councilmember Brown stated the key word was "knowingly" hiring someone with false ID. He asked who would be responsible for a subcontractor knowingly hiring unauthorized aliens. He 267 March 6, 2007 assumed the contractor would not be held responsible because the subcontractor would have presented a certification. Jim O'Neill, Purchasing Agent, stated the City's contract would be with the contractor rather than the subcontractor. City Attorney Roy stated the City was specifically preempted from imposing a civil or criminal penalty on an employer for knowingly hiring an unauthorized alien. A fine would be possible for falsely identifying someone if there was an investigation of a complaint or falsely certifying that the documents had been reviewed. The City would have to bring an action against the subcontractor rather than the contractor if the contractor was not found to have falsely identified someone or employed an illegal alien. The City would have recourse against the contractor if the contractor failed to remedy the problem with the subcontractor within the requisite period of time. Councilmember Brown asked if the City would become involved if a contractor for a City project was caught employing illegal aliens within another jurisdiction. City Attorney Roy replied in the negative. Councilmember Manvel noted that many of the speakers spoke in support of HB 1343. He asked if the City was bound to follow HB 1343. City Attorney Roy stated there was a question regarding whether HB 1343 applied to construction contracts and that to this point the City had taken the position that it did not apply to construction contracts, although the State Controller had taken a contrary position. There was also a question about whether HB 1343 constituted an unfunded State mandate, and if it does, whether compliance was optional for the City. Councilmember Manvel stated he wanted to make it clear that the City had quite a bit of latitude on this. Councilmember Kastein asked if the City found that a contractor was in violation of the proposed ordinance and the contract was terminated, whether the City would pay for the work done to that point. City Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative. The City would be entitled under the ordinance to recover any consequential damages of having to terminate the contract and contracting with someone else. Councilmember Kastein asked for the rationale for setting $100,000 and $500,000 thresholds. O'Neill stated approximately 62% of City service and construction contracts were at those levels. Deputy City Manager Jones stated staffalso considered the feasibility of doing audits and responding to written complaints. Staff had determined these thresholds would "capture" most of the City's major contracts. Councilmember Kastein noted that HB 1343 did not set a threshold and that all government contracts were covered under that legislation except construction. Mayor Hutchinson asked if one of the rationales for the thresholds was the amount of workload. Deputy City Manager Jones stated staff looked at the practicality of doing audits and responding to written complaints and looked at the dollar amounts of the current contracts. Staff was looking at the staff s capacity to do the work and capturing most of the large service and construction contracts. 268 March 6, 2007 Councilmember Kastein asked about the possibility of"frivolous complaints"and contractors using the complaint process against each other. He asked if there was any way to avoid allowing complaints. City Attorney Roy stated there had been concerns that the verification process under the federal law and this ordinance could give rise to discrimination, and this was the reason the federal law included a provision similar to a provision in the proposed ordinance specifically prohibiting discrimination. Both laws then built on that by saying that in the instance of complaints none would be investigated if based on a discriminatory kind of allegation i.e., there must be facts supporting the complaint. It would be possible to write this ordinance without a specific reference to complaints although all City ordinances were subject to investigation with regard to potential violations and those generally were based on complaints. If there was no specific provision dealing with complaints in the ordinance this could lead to improper kinds of complaints that the City wanted to guard against. Councilmember Kastein asked if the intent was to "set the bar very high" with regard to the complaint process. City Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Kastein asked if legal staff had time to research all of the facets required or if more time was needed. City Attorney Roy stated he did not believe that more time would be helpful to the staff analysis or the drafting of the ordinance. He had conferred with an immigration attorney in preparing and researching the ordinance. Staff did its best to draft an ordinance that met Council's needs and was legally defensible. Immigration law was extremely complex and more time would not change that. Councilmember Kastein asked if other cities had enacted similar ordinances. City Attorney Roy stated he was not aware of any in Colorado. Some cities around the country had enacted ordinances relating to regulation of members of the public regarding harboring illegal immigrants. One other city had enacted a similar ordinance. Jenny Lopez-Filkins, Assistant City Attorney, stated Suffolk County,New York had enacted an ordinance that was similar to the proposed City ordinance but no litigation had been forthcoming when she last spoke with the Suffolk County Attorney. Councilmember Kastein asked about the intent behind HB 1343 covering"service contracts" and noted that the City was going further than that to include construction contracts i.e., he wanted to know whether the state law really intended to include construction contracts under "service contracts." Lopez-Filkins stated the State Controller's Office produced a question and answer document that indicated that capital construction contracts were"service contracts"without offering any explanation on that point. Councilmember Kastein asked about the role of the State Controller's Office with relation to the legislature. Lopez-Filkins stated the State Controller audited monies and dealt with finances between State agencies and others. Councilmember Kastein asked if the State Controller's position was considered to be clarification of HB 1343. City Attorney Roy stated the State Controller's position was not binding on municipalities and the majority of municipalities he had contacted had construed the term"contract for services" in the same way the City of Fort Collins had i.e., that the term did not apply to construction contracts. 269 March 6, 2007 Councilmember Manvel noted the cost for enforcement would vary depending on a number of factors. He asked if there was any way to know whether this would change anything in terms of who was employed by City contractors. He asked if the City had any evidence of employment of illegal aliens by City contractors at this time. O'Neill stated there had not been any complaints by contractors about other contractors. Contractors had indicated to him that they were trying to follow the federal law by looking at I-9 forms. One complaint filed last year was based on"national origin" and would not have come forward under this ordinance. When that complaint was investigated the City determined that the people hired did have proper documentation. Councilmember Kastein asked how the audit process would work in the case of a contractor with many subcontractors and many employees. City Attorney Roy stated under the ordinance it would not be the task of City employees to actually determine whether or not a particular employee was eligible for employment in this country. The City would be checking to see whether or not the contractor could produce paperwork verifying that the contractor had complied with federal law in attempting to determine whether employees were eligible for employment. The City would be looking at the contractor's compliance rather than at the legal employment status of the individual employee. Deputy City Manager Jones stated it would take time to set up an audit process for a specific contractor. The City would likely go through records on-site and an analysis would then have to be done. O'Neill stated the City would ask for payroll records regarding the City job and could audit a sampling of the subcontractors. Councilmember Kastein asked for more clarification about what it would mean to audit"on-site." Deputy City Manager Jones stated the City may have to go on-site to access the records to determine compliance with federal law. Councilmember Kastein asked if"on-site"meant at the corporate headquarters rather than at the job site. Deputy City Manager Jones replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Kastein asked what would happen in the case of an undocumented worker who was paid when no records would be kept of that transaction. City Attorney Roy stated the task would be to match workers with papers to determine whether the contractor had in fact reviewed papers for the people working on the job. This could entail an in-person identification of the person (false identification)or a review ofpaperwork. O'Neill questioned whether the City or anyone would have the right to ask for identification on a job site. City Attorney Roy believed that this could be done if an individual was employed on the City's job site. Mayor Hutchinson asked if the staff estimate of the work required to do an audit was based on examining the records. His understanding had been that there would be matching of"faces" to records. Deputy City Manager Jones stated the estimate was based on looking at the paperwork i.e., matching the paperwork with the identification records in the files. Councilmember Manvel noted HB 1343 required certain provisions in contracts for services and asked if the City was now doing that with service contracts i.e.,whether the City was complying with HB 1343 for new contracts. O'Neill stated a statement was included in all service agreements to comply with State law. 270 March 6, 2007 Councilmember Manvel asked if that was being done only in"service contracts"or if it was being done in all contracts. O'Neill stated it was being done in all "service contracts." City Attorney Roy stated the ordinance would impose aburden on the contractor or the subcontractor to identify the employees working on the site. City employees would not be put in the position of approaching workers individually. Councilmember Manvel asked for confirmation that the contractor would keep a copy of the documentation that was reviewed for I-9 verification and whether this would raise some questions about identity theft. O'Neill stated the City had heard this concern from some City contractors. Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adopt Ordinance No. 045, 2007 on First Reading. Councilmember Ohlson stated his name was closely associated with initiating this ordinance and that he had heard from many people opposed to the ordinance. One "common theme" was that many people did not understand his "politics." He was not"to the right of the KKK" on this and people from all political persuasions including the"center and left"had issues and concerns about illegal immigration. Many different people were concerned about the effects of illegal immigration to the countries of origin and to the United States. The federal and state governments had"failed to act" and there was no indication they would"do anything responsible any time soon." The State law had "many holes in it." Local governments often had to act to get the states and the federal government to act. The essence of the ordinance was that City dollars and jobs on City projects should go to legal workers,most of whom will be local residents. He would stand by this intent. This had to be extended to subcontractors because much of the work on large City projects was done by subcontractors. There were misconceptions about the cost of enforcement. He understood that the cost for the 3-6 possible audits were for people already on the City payroll i.e.,that work would be absorbed by the current structure. This would not take money from other things such as Dial-a-Ride. The ordinance would largely be"self-enforced"because contractors would not want to risk losing a large City contract. The local ordinance would have"real consequence"while the federal and state laws did not. Everyone should be concerned about a"flawed status quo situation" with regard to illegal immigration and the impacts of"deflating wage rates" for working people in this country (including legal workers and minority populations). Moderates should speak up on the issue of illegal immigration. The United States,with a population of 300 million,could not be the"sponge for the rest of the world."The City government had a role in determining that City dollars and jobs should only go to legal workers. Councilmember Brown stated the federal and state laws were "paper tigers" without any"teeth." The City ordinance would be stronger and would send a message to the State legislators and the federal government that this problem needed to be addressed. There would be costs for not implementing this ordinance and there would be costs if the country continued to allow illegal immigrants to"take jobs away from legitimate citizens." This was not an issue of"discrimination" and it was an issue of "leveling the playing field" for contractors doing work for the City. A contractor who hired illegal immigrants in order to underbid the competition should not do work for the City. Those working for the City should be"treated fairly" when they bid a contract. 271 March 6, 2007 Councilmember Weitkunat stated she "strongly disagreed" with Councilmembers Ohlson and Brown. This was a "governance" issue and this was a federal government issue. She questioned whether local government should be in the business of"strengthening state and national laws" through the enactment of local laws. Another "layer of bureaucracy" was not needed to enhance what was already law. The State adopted HB 1343 less than a year ago and the impacts and "repercussions" of that law were not yet known. She did not believe there was a need for local government to push for stronger enhancement of state and federal law. Citizens had other means to convey their thoughts to federal and state government. Mayor Hutchinson stated he did not see a WHEREAS clause that indicated this was all about controlling illegal immigration. He noted the City Attorney had advised the Council that there was a"line"that should not be crossed and that there had been several references to"preemption." City Attorney Roy stated it was permissible for Councilmembers to have positions with regard to the enforcement of national immigration laws. The local ordinance was about addressing City practices regarding its contractors. Mayor Hutchinson stated there was confusion that the ordinance was trying to address the illegal immigration problem. City Attorney Roy stated this would be a topic for Council discussion. The purpose of the ordinance was stated in the WHEREAS clauses and had to do with addressing a matter of local concern. It was not an attempt to regulate immigration and was an attempt to regulate the manner in which the City contracts for services. Councilmember Ohlson stated his statement was that the ordinance was in essence about City jobs and tax dollars going to legal workers,many of whom will be from the local area. The context was the national discussion about illegal immigration. He brought forth this issue because he believed that City jobs and tax dollars should go to legal workers. Mayor Hutchinson stated there was confusion about the call to have local government act about the national immigration law. Councilmember Ohlson stated the context was that when the federal and state governments failed to act, it was the job of the City government to act to ensure that City contracts and jobs would go to legal workers. Councilmember Manvel stated the State law had the same provision as the proposed ordinance about losing the contract. Councilmember Ohlson stated the State had no intention of taking action under that provision. The "real penalty"under the City ordinance would be an inability to bid on City projects for up to five years. It was unlikely that the City would cancel an existing contract in the middle of a project. Councilmember Manvel believed the City would be willing to cancel a service contract and go to another service provider. Councilmember Roy stated he did not support the ordinance because it would be"a law to enforce a law to enforce a law." This would be"governance at its worst." Municipalities across the country 272 March 6, 2007 were attempting to work through a national issue in the context of"City boundaries and townships." There was no ability at the local levels to create a"cohesive plan" to deal with the national issue. There was a need for a"coherent national policy." Local efforts were "fracturing the discussion" and making it more difficult to find a solution that would work for the long term. There had not been any analysis showing the cost/benefit of this ordinance. There needed to be a discussion at the national level. Councilmember Kastein stated this was a complicated issue. The local ordinance would expand on existing law and would include construction contracts under "service contracts." It would also require contractors and subcontractors to retain their documentation. He agreed with the principles of HB 1343 and would support this ordinance. He did not like it being part of a"political agenda." The ordinance would create no additional work for contractors and subcontractors beyond holding onto the documentation. He would support the ordinance even though he had some concern about how it was being`leveraged." Councilmember Manvel stated he was looking at this from a cost/benefit standpoint, whether it would solve problems,and whether it would create new problems. There was no evidence that there was a lot of employment of illegal workers in City contracts and subcontracts. The cost would be that the City workers needed to work on enforcement would not be doing something else they should be doing. He was willing to ask City workers to do more only if he saw a"real pay-off' for it. It may be possible to address this without an ordinance by making policies regarding whether or not to pay attention to the State law and whether construction contracts should be included under service contracts. This ordinance could lead to "profiling"as contractors worked toward compliance with the law. The federal system for checking documentation was "very poor" and contractors may choose not to hire anyone who "looks Hispanic." He would not support the ordinance. Councilmember Ohlson stated he did not have a"political agenda"on this issue. He wanted people to understand that it was possible to take a position on illegal immigration without being "to the right." Councilmember Roy stated he did not have a political agenda on this issue. Councilmember Kastein stated the goal for the Council should be what was best for the City and that in some cases it made sense to talk about issues that were "bigger than Fort Collins" and in some cases it did not make sense. On this issue the Council was "nibbling at the leaf' when the root of the problem was out there. Mayor Hutchinson stated there would be more required by this ordinance than keeping records. The City would be doing something that it was not "equipped" to do. This issue was difficult to understand and the Council was taking on something that he"totally agreed with in principle"but was difficult to understand even after concerted study. He questioned whether it was the business of the City to do this and that he did not believe that it was an appropriate role for the City. There was no information about the scope of the problem. The vote on the motion was as follows:Yeas: Councilmembers Brown,Kastein and Ohlson. Nays: Councilmembers Hutchinson, Manvel, Roy and Weitkunat. 273 March 6, 2007 THE MOTION FAILED. Councilmember Kastein asked if the City's position would continue to be that construction projects were not covered by the HB 1343. City Attorney Roy stated absent some direction from the majority of Council,it would be up to the City Manager as the person who administers contracts,to make that determination. To date,the decision had been to not apply it to construction contracts. This was the prerogative of the City Manager or Council could provide direction. Councilmember Kastein requested a one-page memo on the implications of applying HB 1343 to construction contracts. City Attorney Roy stated staff could provide a memo to Council on that subject. Mayor Hutchinson stated he would support receiving such a memo. He had an issue with the City dispatching teams for on-site audits. Councilmember Weitkunat stated, as noted by Councilmember Manvel, there were ways the State law could be strengthened through City policy. She preferred stronger policy direction rather than new laws. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 274 March 20, 2007 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,March 20,2007, 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 and Roy. Citizen Participation Mayor Hutchinson stated that each audience participant would have five minutes to speak. Ray Smith, 1618 Sagewood Drive, expressed concerns about trash hauling and in support of trash hauling districts. He stated that there should be "one street, one trash hauler, one recycler" to improve fuel efficiency, reduce waste, reduce air and noise pollution, minimize street damage, improve safety, and reduce costs for the haulers. Ann Hutchinson, Chamber of Commerce Executive Vice-President, representing the Northern Colorado Legislative Alliance, spoke regarding transportation issues and in support of a regional transportation authority. Clint Skutchan,719 Great Plains Court,thanked outgoing Councilmembers Kastein and Weitkunat. He stated that he was a member of the RTA steering committee and that there were many regional issues relating to transportation and transit. Al Baccili, 520 Galaxy Court, spoke against vendor fees and taxes and urged voters to vote to stop the Southwest Enclave Annexation. He equated it with a"taking" of property. Vivian Armendariz,820 Merganser Drive,thanked outgoing Councilmember Kastein for his efforts with regard to Dial-a-Ride and his service as a Councilmember. Citizen Participation Follow-up Mayor Hutchinson thanked those who spoke during Citizen Participation. Councilmember Roy stated that the City Council recently set a goal of 15% for renewable energy for its power source and that the City had made progress on fuel for the City fleet. He thanked Mr. Smith for speaking on the trash hauling issue. 275 March 20, 2007 City Manager Atteberry stated the City had converted the diesel fleet to biodiesel and had an active program to acquire hybrid vehicles. He would be happy to talk more with Mr. Smith. Agenda Review City Manager Atteberry stated that there were no changes to the published agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the December 19 2006 Regular Meeting 7. Second Reading ofOrdinanceNo 037 2007 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves Designated for Library Improvements in the Capital Improvement Expansion Fund for Transfer to the Citv's Capital Projects Fund to Construct a Southeast Branch Library and the General Fund to Purchase Library Books and Materials. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 6, 2007, appropriates available library impact fees to pay for the design and construction of the Southeast Branch Library at Front Range Village, as well as for the Library collection. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 038 2007 &12rol2riating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund - Pedestrian Plan Capital Project for Improvements Associated with the Safe Routes to School Program. The City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning office has received a grant from the CDOT Safe Routes to School Program to widen the existing sidewalk along the south side of Mulberry Street from 2.5 feet to 6 feet, from Dunn Elementary to Shields Street. The widened sidewalk will greatly improve safety and connectivity between Dunn Elementary and the surrounding neighborhoods. This Ordinance,unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 6, 2007, appropriates unanticipated revenue in the Capital Projects Fund- Pedestrian Plan Capital Project for this improvement project. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 039 2007 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue and Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for the Restorative Justice Program The Restorative Justice Program(the"Program")is an alternative method ofholding a young offender accountable by facilitating a meeting with the young offender, the victim and members of the community to determine the harm done by the crime, and what should be done to repair the harm. This Ordinance,unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 6, 2007, appropriates funds from two grants that have been received for the purpose of continuing this program. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 040, 2007 Amending Chapter 25 of the City Code to Create a Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate 276 March 20, 2007 The Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate Program is an important economic incentive for retaining and supporting local manufacturers. Manufacturing concerns are a very important element of the City's tax base. They also serve as a primary engine for both job creation and commercial investment in the community. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 6,2007,adds the Program to the City Code to ensure that the Program provides an important economic incentive on an ongoing basis. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No.041 2007 Authorizing the Execution and Delivery bythe City of an Amended and Restated Site Agreement and Lease Agreement a Continuing Disclosure Undertaking, an Official Statement and Related Documents Concerning the Leasing of the Mason Office Building and the Mason Street Parking Structure: Ratifying Action Previously Taken: and Providing Other Matters This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 6, 2007, approves and authorizes the legal documents necessary to complete a lease purchase certificate of participation transaction to effectively refund the 1998 and 1999 COPS that were originally issued for the construction of the City's Mason Street Parking Structure,the 215 North Mason Office Building and an off-site Police Facility. 12. Second Reading ofOrdinanceNo 042 2007 Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property at 321 Maple Street For Up to Five Years The Fort Collins Technology Incubator (FCTI) provides critical business assistance to the most promising high tech startup companies in the community. As part of its service,FCTI offers below market lease space to its client companies. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 6, 2007, allows FCTI's various participants to lease space for up to five years. 13. Second Reading of Ordinance No 043 2007 Authorizing the Execution of Ouit Claim Deeds and a Temporary Construction Easement for the Improvement ofNorth Taft Hill Road by Latimer County. Larimer County is improving North Taft Hill Road between LaPorte Avenue and the Poudre River. To accomplish this project,Larimer County is requesting that the City of Fort Collins dedicate certain property interests to Latimer County. This Ordinance,unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 6, 2007, authorizes the conveyance of a temporary construction easement and two Quit Claim Deeds. 14. Second Reading of Ordinance No 044 2007 Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary for the Construction of Public Improvements in Connection with the Street Oversizing Ziegler and Kechter Intersection Project. Intersection improvements were constructed for Ziegler Road and Kechter Road. These 277 March 20, 2007 improvements included the construction of a modern roundabout at the Ziegler and Kechter intersection. Because of the round configuration of the improvements and the square shape of the existing right of way, two small slivers of property are needed on the west side. One of these properties has been purchased. Over the past year, staff has been in negotiations with the owner of the other property,Hearthside Homeowners Association of Fort Collins, Inc. (the "HOA"). The HOA Board has accepted, in principle, the City's offer to purchase the necessary interests for the project for the sum of$1,000. Under the Bylaws of the Association,however,80%of all homeowners in the HOA and 67% of all lending institutions holding deeds of trusts would need to execute the conveyance document. Given the expense and time required to obtain the necessary document,the HOA Board has requested that the City proceed with a"friendly" condemnation to complete the transaction. As requested, City staff is seeking authorization to use eminent domain proceedings to move forward with the acquisition of the property through the condemnation process. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 6, 2007, authorizes eminent domain proceedings. 15. First Reading of Ordinance No 046 2007 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for E911 and Emergency Medical Dispatch Systems at Fort Collins Police Services Dispatch Center. The Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority(LETA)collects a monthly fee from all county telephone users to purchase equipment, train users and maintain equipment used to process E911 phone calls and dispatch appropriate Emergency Services Providers. In 2003, LETA developed a formula for the anticipated annual budget for these services for each Public Safety Answering Point (Emergency Services Dispatch Center) based on the number of Dispatchers and the number of E911 phones calls received in the Center. Based on the formula, LETA provides the funds to the individual Centers for payment of expenses. The 2007 amount based on 2006 expenditures for Fort Collins Police Services is $12,919. In the same manner, a formula was developed for each Public Safety Answering Point for Emergency Medical Dispatch (EMD) based on the number of dispatchers and the number of EMD calls handled by the Center. The 2007 amount based on 2006 expenditures for EMD based on the formula for Fort Collins Police Services is $46,526. The total amount to be appropriated from these two budgets is $59,445. 16. First Reading of Ordinance No 047 2007 Appropriating Funds for the Harmony and Ziegler Roads Front Range Village Improvements Project Arterial street improvements are necessary to support the development of the Front Range 278 March 20, 2007 Village. There are extensive improvements to Harmony Road to widen it to a 6-lane arterial from Timberline to Ziegler, including the construction of a new signalized intersection at Harmony and Corbett. There are also extensive improvements to the Ziegler/Harmony intersection. The widening of Ziegler to a 4-lane arterial between Harmony and Horsetooth will be completed, along with intersection improvements to Ziegler/Horsetooth, proposed to be a modern roundabout. Roadway improvements include the installation of curb-and- gutter, asphalt paving,bike lanes,landscaped medians, and storm and sanitary sewers. The construction is planned to begin in June 2007 and be completed on May 15, 2008. 17. First Readine of Ordinance No 048 2007 Authorizing the Conveyance of a Pemetual Easement for a Sanitary Sewer Line and Temporary Construction Easement for the Registry Ridge, 5th Filins PDP Project. The developer of Registry Ridge, 5th Filing PDP, Lennar Colorado, LLC wishes to acquire an 8,850 square foot easement for a sanitary sewer line and a 10,256 square foot temporary construction easement through a future City park site for the benefit of the development. 18. First Readine of Ordinance No 051 2007 Authorizing the Lease of a Portion of the Resource Recovery Farm for A 'cultural Use This Ordinance authorizes an agricultural lease on approximately 110 acres located within the Resource Recovery Farm for a period of time starting January 1, 2007 and ending December 31, 2011. 19. Resolution 2007-027 Authorizing the Lease Back to the Seller of the Residence on Ranch Property to be Purchased as an Addition to Coyote Ridge Natural Area for Up to One Year. Natural Areas and Real Estate staff have negotiated the purchase of the Coyote Ridge Stables property, including all improvements, from Robin Jones. To allow Mr. Jones time to find and purchase a suitable substitute residence, the seller has requested that the City lease the existing residence and surrounding three acres to Jones for up to one year, as a condition of the sale. 20. Resolution 2007-028 Establishine Rental Rates and Delivery Charges for the City's Raw Water for the 2007 Season. This Resolution approves rates for the rental and use of the City's raw water supplies. The Water Utility uses these rates to assess charges for agricultural use, for various contractual raw water obligations and for raw water deliveries to other City departments. Each year prior to the irrigation season, the City's Water Board ("the Board")makes a recommendation to the Council regarding the raw water charges. The Board discussed the proposed rental rates and charges at its February 22, 2007 meeting. The proposed rate for each type of water is based on several factors including market conditions and assessments charged by irrigation companies. 279 March 20, 2007 21. Resolution 2007-029 Adopting the Fifth Amendment to the City's General Employees' Retirement Plan for the Purpose of Shortening the Length of Time Between an Employee's Retirement Date and the Initial Benefit Payment. By adoption of this Resolution, Council would shorten the amount of time that lapses between an employee's retirement date and the date upon which he/she receives the initial payment from the General Employees' Retirement Plan ("Plan"). Currently, when an employee retires from the City, his/her retirement date is established as the first day of the subsequent month. Then,in accordance with Section 4 of Article VIII of the Plan,the benefit payments commence on the last day of the month following the month of the Retirement Date. For example, if someone retires from the City on the 5th of March, his/her retirement date will be established as Ap ril 1st and he/she will receive the first p benefit payment from the Plan by May 31 st. As a result, eighty seven days will have lapsed between the last day of employment with the City and the first benefit payment. By adoption of this resolution, the first benefit payment under the above scenario will be received by April 30th, as opposed to May 31st. Instead of eighty seven days, the retired employee would only have to wait fifty six days between his/her last day of employment with the City and the day he/she received the first benefit payment from the Plan. 22. Resolution 2007-030 Making Apnointments to the Economic Advisory Commission. Ordinance No. 020,2007, adopted on Second Reading on February 20, 2007,created a new Economic Advisory Commission. Vacancies were advertised during February and March. Mayor Hutchinson and Councilmembers Weitkunat and Ohlson interviewed applicants. The Council interview team recommends the nine individuals listed in the Resolution to fill the newly created Commission. 23. Resolution 2007-031 Making Appointments to the Citizen Review Board and the Commission on Disability. A vacancy currently exists on the Citizen Review Board which was not filled during the annual appointment process. Applications were solicited and City Manager Dann Atteberry and Councilmembers Diggs Brown and Ben Manvel conducted interviews. The interview team is recommending Anne Berry to fill the vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2010. Vacancies currently exist on the Commission on Disability due to the resignation of William Livingston-Holt and the vacancy which was not filled during the annual appointment process. Applications were solicited and Mayor Doug Hutchinson and Councilmember Karen Weitkunat conducted interviews. The Council interview team is recommending Kimberlee Imig and Tim Effinger to fill the vacancies with terns to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2010 respectively. 280 March 20, 2007 ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 7. Second Readingof OrdinanceNo.037,2007,Appropriating Prior Year Reserves Designated for Library Improvements in the Capital Improvement Expansion Fund for Transfer to the City's Capital Projects Fund to Construct a Southeast Branch Library and the General Fund to Purchase Library Books and Materials. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 038, 2007, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund- Pedestrian Plan Capital Project for Improvements Associated with the Safe Routes to School Program. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 039,2007,Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue and Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for the Restorative Justice Program. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 040, 2007, Amending Chapter 25 of the City Code to Create a Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No.041,2007,Authorizing the Execution and Delivery by the City of an Amended and Restated Site Agreement and Lease Agreement, a Continuing Disclosure Undertaking, an Official Statement, and Related Documents, Concerning the Leasing of the Mason Office Building and the Mason Street Parking Structure; Ratifying Action Previously Taken; and Providing Other Matters. 12. Second Reading ofOrdinance No.042,2007,Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property at 321 Maple Street For Up to Five Years. 13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 043, 2007, Authorizing the Execution of Quit Claim Deeds and a Temporary Construction Easement for the Improvement ofNorth Taft Hill Road by Larimer County. 14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 044, 2007, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary for the Construction of Public Improvements in Connection with the Street Oversizing Ziegler and Kechter Intersection Project. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 046, 2007, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for E911 and Emergency Medical Dispatch Systems at Fort Collins Police Services Dispatch Center. 16. FirstReadingof OrdinanceNo.047,2007,Appropriating Funds for the Harmony and Ziegler Roads Front Range Village Improvements Project. 281 March 20, 2007 17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 048, 2007, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Perpetual Easement for a Sanitary Sewer Line and Temporary Construction Easement for the Registry Ridge, 5th Filing PDP Project. 18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 051, 2007, Authorizing the Lease of a Portion of the Resource Recovery Farm for Agricultural Use. 27. Items Relating to Adoption of the North College Corridor Plan. D. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 049, 2007, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Conifer Street Rezoning. E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 050,2007,Amending Division 4.19 of the Land Use Code by Adding Large Retail Establishments to the List of Permitted Uses. Councilmember Manvel made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Brown,to adopt and approve all items on the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Consent Calendar Follow-up Councilmember Weitkunat highlighted item#22 Resolution 2007-030 Making Appointments to the Economic Advisory Commission. Councilmember Ohlson spoke regarding item 419 Resolution 200 7-02 7A uthorizing the Lease Back to the Seller of the Residence on Ranch Property to be Purchased as an Addition to Coyote Ridge Natural Area for Up to One Year. Mayor Hutchinson spoke regarding item #22 Resolution 2007-030 Making Appointments to the Economic Advisory Commission and thanked Councilmembers Ohlson and Weitkunat for participating with him in the selection process. Staff Reports City Manager Atteberry reported that the City had received the 13th Annual Asphalt Pavement Award from the Colorado Asphalt Pavement Association for the Timberline Road project. Tom Peterson, Executive Director of the Colorado Asphalt Pavement Association, presented the award to Matt Baker,the street oversizing program manager,and Mark Laken,the project engineer, for the Timberline Road widening project. He stated Timberline Road was an example of "excellence" in the roadway construction industry and recognized the high level of partnering between the contractor(Connell Resources) and the City. 282 March 20, 2007 City Manager Atteberry asked the following staff members to present a street conditions, maintenance and pavement management update to the Council: Mark Jackson, Transportation Planning Manager;Larry Schneider,Streets Superintendent;and Rick Richter,Acting City Engineer. Councilmember Brown asked how the City determined what deicing agent to use i.e.,price or impact on environment. Schneider stated both price and environmental impact were considerations and sand was more environmentally damaging than the deicing agents. Councilmember Manvel asked about the cost of the deicing agent. Schneider stated the granular product was more corrosive than liquids. Councilmember Manvel asked if the deicing agent was damaging to concrete. Schneider stated there was no scaling when the product was used on concrete interstate highways but there were issues if the concrete was not done right. Councilmember Ohlson stated he would like to see a two-page memo on the environmental (non- human) impacts of the materials used for deicing. He asked if potholes and"alligator skin"on the streets were partly due to the use of chemicals. Richter stated those conditions showed up more in the spring than at other times. The City tried to do major maintenance when the"alligator"pieces were a foot or larger. The potholes were a result of the "alligator"problem. Councilmember Ohlson asked why the"alligator skin"was more noticeable now than it would be later. Richter stated in the spring the moisture comes up through the pavement and makes those sections darker where the moisture follows the cracks. As the moisture dried later in the summer it becomes less evident. Councilmember Roy requested the follow-up report use the names of components rather than the proprietary names of the chemicals used. Councilmember Kastein thanked staff for its hard work to fix potholes. He asked if the contact information for general traffic issues could be made more readily available to the public. Jackson stated the off-hours number to call for signal outages was the police non-emergency dispatch number. City Manager Atteberry noted the City did not maintain streets or parking lots in private developments. He thanked the street crews for their excellent work during the difficult winter. Councilmember Weitkunat thanked staff for the presentation and expressed appreciation for the information staff provided on the magnitude of the problem and the costs. The Council should look at what was being put in the budget for street maintenance. Councilmember Ohlson thanked staff for the"passion"shown about the work they do. Mayor Hutchinson stated the time spent on this was valuable to give the Council some idea about the"heroic efforts"that were going on. The City had a dedicated and professional staff that provided a wide range of services. 283 March 20, 2007 Councilmember Reports Councilmember Manvel reported he attended a FEMA meeting on the Dry Creek Project and FEMA would be remapping the area to finalize the work that had been done. This "complicated final administrative approval process"would be expedited by the work the City had done on the project and the report. Many on North College Avenue would no longer have to pay for flood insurance when the final step was completed. Items Relatin¢to Adoption of the North College Corridor Plan Adopted The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Resolution 2007-032 Adopting the Updated North College Corridor Plan as an Element of the Comprehensive Plan of the City. B. Resolution 2007-033 Amending Figure GM-8 of the City Plan Principles and Policies to Comport with the North College Corridor Plan. C. Resolution 2007-034 Amending the City's Structure Plan Map to Comport with the North College Corridor Plan. D. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 049, 2007, Amending the Zoning Map of the City ofFort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Conifer Street Rezoning. E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 050, Amending Division 4.19 of the Land Use Code by Adding Large Retail Establishments to the List of Permitted Uses. The proposed update to the North College Corridor Plan (NCCP)has been developed by City staff with extensive public input over the past year. The main elements of the Plan are an updated vision, goals,policies, Framework Plan map, and recommended actions with possible funding sources. Several related items are being proposed in conjunction with the proposed updated Plan: Based on the NCCP, a minor amendment to the City Structure Plan is needed to change the land use designation along the north side of Conifer Street, east of North College Avenue and west of Redwood Street,from Industrial to Community Commercial. Accordingly, to further implement this minor change, a corresponding rezoning is proposed. • The NCCP recommends an amendment of City Plan's Targeted Redevelopment and Inf:ll map to add more area near North College and Downtown. The area is located east of Redwood Street, south of Conifer Street, north of East Vine Drive, and extending slightly further east of the proposed realignment ofLemay Avenue. 284 March 20, 2007 • The Plan recommends a specific change to Permitted Uses in the Community Commercial- North College zone district (C-C-Nzone) which is being proposed in conjunction with the Plan adoption hearing. The change would add Large Retail Establishments to the C-C-N zone. BACKGROUND In 1995, the City of Fort Collins adopted the North College Corridor Plan as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Implementation of the Plan included the creation of new zoning districts now known as the C-C-N, Community Commercial-North College District and the C-N, Commercial-North College District. In 1997, the City Council adopted City Plan as the City's new Comprehensive Plan, with an update in 2004. The 2004 City Plan update called for the update of the North College Corridor Plan to deal with a list of issues and changes that had accumulated over the years. The primary objective of the NCCP is to tailor City Plan principles to the specific circumstances of the corridor. If adopted, the updated Plan will remain an element of City Plan. The updated Plan is divided into chapters covering the following topics: Chapter 1 —Introduction Chapter 2—Issues Chapter 3 — Vision Chapter 4— Goals Chapter 5—Framework Plan Chapter 6—Implementation Actions &Financing, Some Details Presented below is a brief summary of each chapter. Chapter I -Introduction The Introduction sets the context for the 2007 update to the 1995 version of the North College Corridor Plan, describing the Plan area, the Plan's relationship with City Plan, and the transportation role of North College Avenue, and brief historical background of the corridor. Chapter 2-Issues The second chapter lays the foundation for the updated Plan by describing the major issues that have emerged over the years that have led to this update and are addressed in the Plan. These key issue areas are: • Identity and Community Design • North College Avenue Itself • Retrofitting Streets Into the Corridor Existing Development 285 March 20, 2007 • Land Use and Business Mix • River and Connections to Downtown • Transportation • Drainage & Utilities • Financing All of the above issues interrelate and overlap and all have contributed to the state of the corridor today. Chapter 3- Vision In general, the vision includes the following for the "urban evolution"of the corridor: • more efficient use of land • higher values • more complete public infrastructure, and • more economic activity; while keeping the strong sense of civic ownership that led to this Plan. The Vision addresses the issues listed in the previous Issues chapter, with sketches and photos. This update, thus, is geared to giving the area an overall positive identity and renewed sense of place, taking advantage of the corridor's proximity of the Poudre River and the Downtown, establishing new street patterns, and dealing with existing uses while fostering changes to a more desirable business mix, dealing with infrastructure shortcomings and drainage issues, and finding financial resources for needed capital improvements. Chapter 4- Goals The Goals are intended to organize,guide, and stimulate efforts to implement the vision and address issues. Goals are categorized to correspond to the facets of the Vision. Also, the Plan states: " There is one overarching goal which does not fit any one category:Improve Public, Consumer, and Investor Perception of"North College. " Goals in all categories significantly contribute to this goal in particular, as it involves a number ofinterrelated elements:development andredevelopmentprojects, property upgrades, street improvements, beautification efforts, maintenance, an image and identity program, utilities to support all of the above, and financing and administration of all the above. " The Goals are as follows: LIST OF GOALS 286 March 20, 2007 The Highway Itself—North College Avenue/SH 141US 287 • Improve the safety, image and identity of North College Avenue. • Find Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS)with the CDOT for street design, as needed to reflect unique circumstances and the City's vision and goals. More Complete Street Network • Evolve a more complete pattern of streets, drives, and alleyways forming interconnected blocks ofdevelopment,serviced bypublic access and utilities, behind highway frontage. • Adapt the pattern and details of new streets to fit circumstances and facilitate development projects consistent with the vision and goals. Connections to Downtown Across the Poudre River Corridor • Capitalize on the river corridor as an attractive, more active connection with downtown, eliminating perceptions of an edge and a separation. Community Appearance and Design • Establish a distinct image and identity along the highway with streetscape improvement. • Build up a distinct image and city character in evolving places along the corridor • Highlight exceptional gateway locations. • Promote the positive attributes of the whole North College corridor area with a unique image and identity program. Land Uses and Activity • Strengthen market underpinnings and economic activity, • Support and complement the Downtown core. • Maximize multiple story buildings. Financing and Administration • Solve drainage system needs where required to allow street and development projects. • Leverage and stimulate further investment with infrastructure projects. • Leverage City investments with additional financing derived from land value, as needed to make necessary infrastructure feasible. • Foster a positive investment climate for projects that contribute to the vision and goals. • Assemble key properties where needed to allow development projects and urban upgrading to proceed. 287 March 20, 2007 Community Support/Dealing with Change • Continue the broad public support which prompted this Plan and much of the progress in the corridor since 1992, will continue. • Increase collaboration and mutual understanding among multiple owners and City Departments. • Public support, civic discussions, and citizen initiative will continue to lead to financing solutions and other property agreements to implement goals. Chapter 5-Framework Plan Chapter 5 presents the revised Framework Plan map. The map illustrates the general,preferred land use and transportation framework for development and redevelopment projects in the North College corridor, consistent with the vision and goals. Its land use pattern is a guide for zoning regulations; and its recommended street network will be required or encouraged as part of(re)development projects. The Framework Plan map includes one minor change to a current land use designation, along the north side of Conifer Street, east of North College Avenue and west of Redwood Street. The map shows a change from Industrial to Community Commercial designation. The Framework Plan also shows a "New Vine Drive Inf uenceArea"extending east from the North College Corridor, along the proposed realignment of Vine Drive, to the proposed realignment of Lemay Avenue. These proposed realignments involve major transportation implications which directly affect the North College Corridor. Chapter 6-Implementation Actions & Financing,Some Details The final chapter, Implementation Actions & Financing, is to provide a basis for crucial conversations on the next generation ofprojects and efforts to accomplish the vision,goals,policies, and Framework Plan of the updated North College Corridor Plan. In order for the Plan to be implemented, it requires a broad acceptance and collaboration among multiple property and business owners, City departments,and other agencies. The chapter lists the implementation actions, and identifies why the action is necessary, who should be responsible for the action, when the action needs to be undertaken, and how the action could be financed. Public Process Thepublic process for the update to the North College Corridor Plan consisted oftwo majorgeneral open houses and monthly updates at meetings of the North Fort Collins Business Association (NFCBA), including two meetings devoted to review and discussion of the Plan. The open houses were conducted on May 31, 2006, and November 1, 2006 The monthly meetings with the NFCBA were conducted throughout 2006 and into 2007. A series of eight property-owner focus group meetings were held in July and August of 2006, along with a few additional individual meetings, visits, and phone calls. The primary purpose of these 288 March 20, 2007 meetings was to inform owners of the plan, discuss a vision and goals, and explore needs for new streets, utilities, and redevelopment involving groups ofproperties. In addition, the plan's progress was reviewed by the Transportation Board and the Natural Resources Advisory Board. RELATED ITEM. PROPOSED CHANGES TO CITY PLAN Proposed changes to City Plan are a change to the City Structure Plan map, and a change to the Targeted Redevelopment Areas map. Structure Plan Change The vision for North College emphasizes cross streets leading to and from North College Avenue to foster active, attractive,pedestrian friendly places. Properties along the north side of Conifer Street offer a very good opportunity to achieve this in conjunction with development along the south side of Conifer, which is already zoned C-C-N. The Industrial zone allows a number of land uses that would be incompatible with the vision due to low visual quality, low levels of human activity, and low levels of improvement(e.g.,junk yards, outdoor storage, warehouses.) Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map During development of the update to the NCCP, the influences of the proposed realignment of Vine Drive were integrated into the Plan as a major factor. The Plan update process highlighted the magnitude of changes introduced by the proposed realignment of"New Vine Drive" through the middle of the largest area of undeveloped land in and adjacent to the corridor. The effects of the realigned arterial street are further magnified by two major water lines proposed to parallel the roadway, and a major channel or pipe to carry stormwater flows. Influences of these facilities are tied to the entire stretch from North College Avenue to Lemay Avenue. Influences include extraordinary costs and significant impacts on land use and transportation. Specifically, some of the influences of the realigned Vine depend on how and when it intersects with Lemay Avenue, and on the required replacement of the existing Vine/Lemay intersection with a completely new intersection based on realignment of both streets into open land to accommodate a full size arterial intersection. Conifer Street and the stretch of North College Avenue from Conifer south are currently designated as an Enhanced Travel Corridor at the time of this Plan. However, the proposed realignment of Vine Drive has launched conversations about whether that designation may shift from Conifer Street to the New Vine Drive, with implications for the North College Corridor. Another consideration in expanding the "North College Redevelopment and Infill Area"eastward along realigned Vine Drive came from market analysis done in 2005 as an input to the NCCP. That analysis highlighted a very important need to increase residential development in the trade area. While the introduction of "New Vine" has raised questions about a greater potential for non- residential uses, the proposed area to be added is still envisioned as a good opportunity for 289 March 20, 2007 residential development directly tied to the North College corridor by the new roadway. For all these reasons and more, inclusion of the area on the Infill and Redevelopment Map is integral and essential to the North College corridor. Inclusion on the map generally means there is an increased policy basis for the City to help fund extra-ordinary infrastructure needs due to deficiencies in existing infrastructure, and to provide special features or assistance needed to accommodate the impacts of major changes which are envisioned. RELATED ITEM. PROPOSED CONIFER STREET REZONING This is a proposal to rezone nine parcels of land containing approximately 4.1 acres located along the north side of Conifer Street and just west of Redwood Street. The requested zoning change is from the Industrial District(I) to the Community Commercial-North College, District(C-C-N). The three property owners who are affected, support the change. Land Use Code Requirements for Rezonings The regulations covering rezonings in the City of Fort Collins are contained in Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code. Section 2.9.4 (H) (2) indicates the following: Mandatory RequirementsforQuasi-JudicialRezonings. Any amendment to the Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning of six hundred forty (640) acres of land or less (a quasi- judicial rezoning)shall be recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board or approved by the City Council only if the proposed amendment is: (a) consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan; and/or (b) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. Section 2.9.4 (H) (3) of the Land Use Code indicates the following: Additional Considerations for Quasi-Judicial Rezonings. In determining whether to recommend approval ofany suchproposed amendment, the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council may consider the following additional factors: (a) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district for the land; (b) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and natural functioning of the environment; 290 March 20, 2007 (c) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. Justification for the proposed rezoning The proposed rezoning is being made in conjunction with the update to the North College Corridor Plan to help implement its vision and goals, along with the related change to the City Structure Plan. Thejustification matches thejustifzcationfor the Structure Plan change. As notedpreviously, the vision for North College emphasizes cross streets leading to and from North College Avenue to foster active, attractive,pedestrian friendlyplaces. Properties along the north side of Conifer Street offer a very good opportunity to achieve this in conjunction with development along the south side of Conifer, which is already zoned C-C-N. The Industrial zone allows a number of land uses that would be incompatible with the vision due to low visual quality, low levels of human activity, and low levels of improvement(e.g.,junkyards, outdoor storage, warehouses) Therefore, the justification for this rezoning lies within the North College CorridorPlan,specifically its Framework Plan map, which shows the subject area to be appropriate for inclusion in the Community Commercial District on the City's Structure Plan Map. Consistency with City Plan, The City's Comprehensive Plan As indicated above,any request to rezone less than 640 acres is considered a quasi-judicial rezoning and the first "criterion"for approving the request is consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The main consideration in this regard is the City Structure Plan map, which sets the basic land use framework showing how Fort Collins should grow and evolve. Since the Structure Plan map is proposed for amendment as part of the update to the North College Corridor Plan, the proposed rezoning is a consistent part of the same package. Findings of Fact In evaluating the request for rezoning, staff makes the following findings offact: A. In 1997, the City adopted City Plan as City's the new Comprehensive Plan. And in 2004 an update to City Plan was adopted by the City Council. The 2004 City Plan update did call for the update of the North College Avenue Corridor Plan to deal with a list of issues that had accumulated since the initial adoption of the Plan. B. The update of the North College Avenue Corridor Plan is also proposed as an element ofthe City's Comprehensive Plan and the Framework Plan map in the Plan shows the subject area changing from the "Industrial" classification to the "Community Commercial-North College"classification. C. The requested rezoning is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and thus meets the requirement of Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code Section 2.9.4 (H) (2), by directly implementing the North College Corridor Plan. 291 March 20, 2007 RELATED ITEM:PROPOSED CHANGE TO GGNZONE This is a proposed revision to Division 4.19, the Community Commercial North College Zone District(C-C-N) of the Land Use Code. The revision would add "Large Retail Establishments"to the list ofpermitted uses in the C-C-NZone District, Section 4.22(B)of the Land Use Code, subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. In 2000, the City Council added Supermarkets to the zone district,finding that large footprint uses can be appropriate in the zone if they provide responsive design and needed infrastructure. The reasoning was that large uses bring a special ability to deal with costly infrastructure needs in the corridor, and size impacts can be adequately addressed in the design process and the publicprocess of development review. The proposed realignment of Vine Drive introduced another change following the C-C-Nzoning, by introducing a large scale trafcfacility through the center of the largest contiguous area of C-C- Nzoning. Then, market analysis done in 2005 as an input into the updated NCCP, indicated that a large "destination retail"establishment(s) would be a crucial boost in helping rejuvenate the economic vitality of the North College corridor. A "big box" retail establishment could fill the need for a destination retail use to draw customers into the corridor. Changed conditions and new information combined with public discussion in the Plan process have led to the proposed change to allow the use. " Clark Mapes,City Planner, stated this was an update of a plan done in 1994 and had been discussed at a work session in December. He stated the number one obstacle to making improvements in the area had been removed with the$10 million in Dry Creek flood facilities. The agenda item included five items. Resolution 2007-032 would adopt the updated North College Corridor Plan as an element of the Comprehensive Plan. Resolution 2007-033 would amend the targeted redevelopment and in-fill map in City Plan to reflect the influence of the proposed Vine Drive realignment. He presented visual information showing the proposed Vine Drive realignment. Resolution 2007-034 would amend the land use designations on the City Structure Plan to allow for a modest rezoning of property along Conifer Street on the east side of North College Avenue and west of Redwood Street. Ordinance No. 049,2007 would amend the zoning map for the Conifer Street rezoning,and Ordinance No. 050, 2007 would amend the zone district called Community Commercial North College to add large retail establishments as a permitted use in the zone. He highlighted elements of the original Plan and noted there had been significant projects and changes since the original Plan. The update was needed to incorporate those changes, convene crucial discussions among multiple owners and service providers who must work together to make progress,clarify the vision and goals, clarify priorities and start a new set of conversations on the "next generation" of projects. He outlined the public process and the City's work with the North Fort Collins Business Association and the Urban Renewal Authority citizen advisory group. There was a series of property owner focus group meetings. The Plan had also been taken to the Transportation Board,Natural Resources Advisory Board, and Planning and Zoning Board. He highlighted the following main points in the 292 March 20, 2007 Plan: clarification of the vision for the highway(North College Avenue), which would remain the natural focus of the area, and improving the safety and attractiveness of North College Avenue;and places that have a neighborhood or downtown-like feel along the new cross streets and side streets and new and improved intersections to bring visibility and access to those places. The ideas for North College Avenue had to do with the streetscape, a theme to highlight the outdoor recreation aspects of the Colorado Scenic Byways designation,and highlighting the Poudre River as a gateway and a destination. There were also ideas about a more complete street network to bring access and utilities into some of the vacant rear areas. Properties along College Avenue would no longer have direct access from the highway and that access would be provided by the new cross streets and side streets. He presented visual information showing the vision relating to possible larger footprint uses. Another big idea in the Plan was to improve connections to downtown across the Poudre River corridor. There was a complex set of issues relating to the River and the vision was to have more active and attractive connections across that "divide." He presented visual information showing the River's floodway and floodplain. The streetscape along College Avenue and the Vine intersection would be good opportunities formore attractive and active connections between North College and downtown. A balance between activities of people and vehicles,flood flows,natural areas and the crucial habitat corridor had been discussed at length. He presented visual information showing the Lake Canal irrigation ditch diversion running parallel to the River. Sidewalks would have to cross that canal and plans were mentioned for consideration. Vertical elements such as pedestrian bridges could contribute to the desired image and identity of the area. Another main aspect of the Plan reflected a strong desire and support for evolving a unique and interesting character that would be distinct from generic or typical suburban development. One of the recommendations of the Plan was to explore an updated set of standards and guidelines for the area centered around architectural style that might be more informal than other parts of the City. The Plan addressed a need for stronger underpinnings in the corridor i.e., uses that would bring people and economic activity to the area, starting with housing and jobs and going on to mixed neighborhood and commercial activity. There was a tie between land use and community design ideas. The Plan would accomplish what it set out to do and built a base of understanding about the needs in the area and the vision and goals for the area. This update had started new conversations about projects. Mayor Hutchinson stated each audience participant would have five minutes to speak. Dean Hoag,President of the North Fort Collins Business Association, small business owner, spoke in support of the Plan and stated it would give positive direction to the area. He encouraged the Council to allow the addition of large retail establishments to the CCN zone district. He urged the Council to adopt this Plan. Ron Lautzenheiser, 7423 Couples Court, small business owner at 1506 North College Avenue, supported adoption of the Plan. The greatest impediment to development was the Dry Creek floodplain and that had now been removed. North College Avenue was"building community"and "pride"in the area. North College could be brought up to the standards of the rest of the City and could become a"great contributor"to Fort Collins. 293 March 20, 2007 Mickey Willis, Fort Collins resident, supported the vision of the North College Corridor Plan and stated he had some issues with expanding the Urban Renewal District to cover the area just past Lemay Avenue. None of the property owners received notice of this "annexation process." There had been "consistent abuse" in other parts of Northern Colorado of the urban renewal laws. Mayor Hutchinson noted the Council was not addressing the issue of the Urban Renewal District expansion at this time and the matter had been postponed. Mr. Willis stated this was briefly addressed in the North College Plan. Mayor Hutchinson stated the annexation issues had been postponed to allow more time for the public outreach processes. Mr. Willis stated the Alta Vista neighborhood was an historic neighborhood because of its large collection of adobe-constructed houses at this latitude in North America. This was also an area neglected by City policies because it had been in a floodway. A "floodway effect" on this neighborhood would mean the payment of$800-$900 in flood insurance by those in the area. This area was not proposed for inclusion in the annexation area and many improvements rovements were needed in the area. The North College Plan did not talk much about the Vine Drive realignment moving up on the capital improvement project list. The expansion of these areas into an annexation area would draw those property taxes generated by the properties from the area to fund improvements on North College Avenue. The lack of transportation capacity at Vine and Lemay was stopping growth from downtown to Mountain Vista. If the area was to be annexed the Vine intersection must be made a priority so that truck-deterrent mechanisms could be put into place. Councilmember Manvel stated he had questions about the Vine and Lemay intersection realignment. He asked the timing of that project and the effects it would have on this process. Mark Jackson, Transportation Planning Manager, stated the Vine relocation was on the City's Master Street Plan and the entire intersection project,including the realignment of the portion of Lemay to the east,was on that Master Street Plan and was reflected in the City's capital improvement project list. It was not officially ranked as a high priority project and that could change due to the "groundswell of opportunity" and interest in the North College corridor and the northeast quadrant of Fort Collins. There could be other opportunities for the Vine project to become a higher priority, such as the Greeley waterline project. Staff was working collaboratively with Stormwater on some preliminary design work. Councilmember Manvel asked if the coordinated Plan included new stormwater and roadway construction that would help some of the problem with Alta Vista. Jackson stated the current collaboration was on the design work and acquisition of right-of-way. The preliminary design work would"tie down"the alignment and allow the City to give people more precise information. Councilmember Manvel stated he saw this as a"huge new project"and understood the current Vine and Lemay intersection alignment would not allow the kinds of improvements that were needed. He asked if the current alignment would be left as"local streets"and the traffic moving segments would be moved away to allow the improvements to be made. He suggested the expense may not be much more to do the realignment than to make improvements at the current intersection. Jackson stated this was an accurate assessment. He stated right-of-way was being acquired at every possible opportunity and the City would not have to "start from ground zero" on the project. Staff was 294 March 20, 2007 looking at every opportunity to move the project forward. Councilmember Manvel asked if the people of Alta Vista and Buckingham had been consulted in the process. Jackson stated the changes to the Master Street Plan reflecting the Vine Drive realignment were made in 1999 or 2000 and there was extensive public outreach done at that time. Joe Frank,Advance Planning Director,stated now that the floodplain had been removed and activity on North College was being generated the Vine realignment project would be sooner than previously anticipated, possibly less than 10 years. Councilmember Weitkunat noted that transportation issues affect the North College Plan and it was important to stress the new Vine alignment during the discussions. A critical piece would be the closure of Vine as it is now as a through street. There would be an opportunity to "urbanize" the current Vine/College intersection to make it pedestrian friendly. One of the most important pieces of the North College Plan was to integrate that section of the City into the community by reducing barriers. The current streets, the River and the train tracks created a barrier and it was necessary to "mitigate that barrier." The new alignment of Vine Drive would be critical to the function of North College Avenue in the future. The City needed to look at the priorities of the whole transportation network. This did not mean "bypass"but did mean"transportation corridors." This would benefit the people in the Alta Vista and Buckingham neighborhoods because it would "create a neighborhood"rather than"divide a neighborhood." The Greeley-Weld waterlines that were being put in along the new Vine corridor were critically important. This could be an opportunity for the City to "jump onto the construction that was happening" in connection with those waterlines. Dealing with east-west transportation connections would be important for North College. Jackson stated the current Vine Drive would revert back to a localized road and Conifer was identified as a potential enhanced travel corridor. A critical piece of the transportation"skeletal network"was the concept of"parallel corridors." The North College Plan was in concert with previous work done on access control plans, the Master Street Plan, the transportation master plan, and parallel corridors. The parallel corridors would provide another outlet to make short internal trips without having to get onto a congested corridor. Ken Waido, Chief Planner,stated one of the north-south connections was the Linden Street/Redwood Street connection that would go up the center on the east side of College Avenue and have a direct connection into the heart of the downtown. Councilmember Manvel asked about north-south connections on the west side(Mason Street) and the barrier of narrow deep lots running west from College Avenue. He asked about the process to get buy-in from the property owners, noting that this would make their land more accessible with more frontages. Jackson stated the access control plan was done in phasing so there would be a short term immediate phase and a long term phase involving redevelopment. It was early to say what the Mason Street corridor would look like. The intent was to do corridor plans for the remaining enhanced travel corridors, including Harmony Road, Timberline and the Mountain Vista area. Councilmember Roy stated one problem for development appeared to be the two different sewer lines i.e.,a constrained clay line under a lot of development and a six-inch line. He asked about the cost to modernize the sewer line system early in the redevelopment. Mapes stated the issues section of the Plan noted the problem with the sewer lines. The main issue was the area along the west side where the Mason Street parallel street system would be. The Utilities Department was not sure about 295 March 20, 2007 the current state of disrepair of the sewer line that runs beneath multiple properties and buildings with no easement or right-of-way. The Utilities were supportive of the idea of a parallel street, which would include a new sewer line. It would be done in connection with development or with the property owners paying for it. The Urban Renewal Authority could help with tax increment financing. This was one more reason the new street was needed on the west side of College Avenue. This was an example of a"blight factor." Councilmember Roy asked for a schematic showing where the railroad tracks cross College Avenue diagonally to the north. Mapes presented visual information showing the Union Pacific spur to the north. Councilmember Roy asked if that spur was used any more. Mapes stated the spur was used for several businesses and the cement plant. Councilmember Roy asked if consideration had been given to using the right-of-way on those rail lines as an amenity i.e., for races, activities and a pedestrian walkway. Mapes stated efforts were made to explore the issue with the railroad and the property owners that use the spur and the talks "never went anywhere." Councilmember Roy stated he would be interested in opening up the discussion to consider possible recreational opportunities and opening it up as a pedestrian connection to make north Fort Collins even more inviting. Frank stated there were several land uses in the area that use rail access and that industrial uses might find North College to be attractive because of that rail access. That was part of the mix of what makes this area attractive to different types of uses. Councilmember Manvel stated a $70 million figure was referenced in the Plan for infrastructure improvements i.e., sewer lines,undergrounding of power lines,streets. He noted the Plan indicated that perhaps half of the money could be supplied by tax increment financing upon development, $5 million could come from Building on Basics,and$20 million could come directly from developers. He was encouraged that much of the funding would come from other sources and asked if this scenario was likely. Frank stated the tax increment financing would not all go into infrastructure. He did not believe enough money would be generated from tax increment financing to solve the problem and there would be a significant funding gap. Tax increment financing would be a"small tool'that would be used with other funding sources. Sales tax money would need to be reserved in the next capital improvements plan for North College Avenue. Some of the developer contribution may be in the long term because developers would be asking for help in the beginning to get development projects started. Councilmember Manvel asked if the annexation of the Lemay area to the Urban Renewal District would mean that North College Avenue would need the money as noted by Mr.Willis. Frank stated the Council, sitting as the Urban Renewal Authority,would decide how the money was to be spent in a fair way. The tax increment financing was a start toward funding improvements. Councilmember Ohlson asked about the"down side"of the retail zoning and the addition of large retail establishments. Mapes stated the Plan emphasized the vision for the cross streets. The south 296 March 20, 2007 side of Conifer was Community Commercial zoning that would have mixed use development with stores,businesses and housing,while the north side of Conifer was Industrial that would allow major vehicle repair,outdoor storage,junk yards,storage units and uses with low activity,low investment, and low visual quality. Conifer was shown on the framework map as being an enhanced east-west travel corridor. It made sense to make Conifer more attractive on both sides of the street, with Industrial not fronting on Conifer. The cons would be that four to six acres of Industrial ground would be lost. Councilmember Ohlson noted there had been discussion that there were fewer Industrial sites in the City. He asked about the cons for the second ordinance. Mapes stated the addition of big boxes to the CCN zone would build on Council's previous addition of supermarkets to the zone. The vision of the zone was "undermined"because of the Vine realignment and the addition of grocerystores to the zone. The cons were the same as big boxes anywhere i.e., a big footprint, big parking lot, neighborhood impacts. There were no existing neighborhoods in the immediate area. There were both pros and cons associated with big boxes, and this was a"pragmatic move"to allow a big box. Any development proposal would go through the development process. Mayor Hutchinson noted the word"annexation"was referenced a number of times and this related to expansion of the Urban Renewal Authority boundary. He asked whether that annexation applied to this Plan or not. Mapes stated expansion of the Urban Renewal Authority was a separate issue, although the North College Plan sets the stage for that expansion. (**Secretary's Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy,to adopt Resolution 2007-032. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she was "delighted"to see this item come to Council during her term as a Councilmember. This was a "milestone" for progress on North College Avenue. Transportation and streetscape issues would be critical to making the area a"friendly community- connected" area. It was important to remove the barriers to the rest of the community and "bind" the area to the City. This was the northern gateway to the City and everyone had worked hard to make the area part of the community. Councilmember Manvel stated the Poudre River was a"divider"in the community. He hoped the River would become a way to attract people to North College Avenue. Councilmember Kastein would like the City to look at outside funding mechanisms for the transportation improvements that were needed to address existing deficiencies. Mayor Hutchinson was glad to see this come to Council to develop a vision for a neglected area of the City. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. 297 March 20, 2007 THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution 2007-033. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution 2007-034. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Manvel,to adopt Ordinance No. 049,2007 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown,Hutchinson,Kastein,Manvel,Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt Ordinance No. 050, 2007 on First Reading. Councilmember Ohlson questioned whether it would be good to add large retail to this area but that he would"defer to the people that worked on this"for a long time i.e.,the citizens,staff and Council liaisons. Mayor Hutchinson stated he was sure that the staff and the people of the area would be diligent about any large retail development meeting City standards. Councilmember Weitkunat stated it was not a "slam dunk" that large retail would happen just because it was added to the list of permitted uses. She noted that any project would have to meet criteria and go through the development review process. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Councilmember Weitkunat stated there had been "rumblings" that the Southwest Enclave Annexation ballot measure denied people the right to vote. County residents were allowed to vote on County measures. They were not able to vote in City elections until they were annexed. This was a matter of jurisdiction. 298 March 20, 2007 Councilmember Roy stated there had been a comment that the Southwest Enclave Annexation was "eminent domain." He stated "nothing could be further from the truth." Nothing about the Annexation had anything whatsoever to do with eminent domain. Councilmember Manvel stated the Southwest Encla ve Annexation was on the ball ot of and the ballot measure was to repeal the Council's annexation of the area. A"yes"vote was in favor of repeal and a"no"vote was in favor of having the annexation go forward. This area was within the City and encouraged people to look at a map to see if it belonged in the City or the County. He urged people to vote"no" on the ballot measure. Mayor Hutchinson urged the people of Fort Collins to look closely at the Southwest Enclave Annexation and consider that there was some misinformation distributed. One flyer had been mailed out that indicated people in the annexation were being denied the right to vote in City elections for nearly 10 years because the Council is circumventing State law with a phased annexation. When the annexation was final (upon the recording of the annexation map)the right to vote in City elections was granted. April 3 Council Meeting Cancelled Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to cancel the Regular Meeting of April 3, 2007 due to the municipal election. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Hutchinson called a Special Meeting to be held on Tuesday, April 10, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers for the purpose of convening an organizational meeting to administer the oaths of office to the newly elected Mayor and Councilmembers and the selection of the Mayor Pro Tern and any other matters that may properly come before the Council. Mayor Hutchinson noted a work session was scheduled for next Tuesday to review the Council's policy agenda and discuss the Foothills Fashion Mall urban renewal. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 299 April 10, 2007 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council-Manager Form of Government Special Meeting- 6:00 p.m. A special meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, April 10, 2007, 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, Roy, and Weitkunat. Councilmembers Absent: Ohlson Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Harris, Roy. Chief Deputy City Clerk Harris administered the oaths of office for newly elected Mayor Doug Hutchinson and Councilmembers Lisa Poppaw and Wade Troxell. The outgoing Councilmembers stepped down and the newly constituted Council was seated. Mayor Hutchinson stated the Council would elect a Mayor Pro Tem to act as Mayor in the absence or disability of the Mayor. It is traditional to choose the Mayor Pro Tem to represent the diversity of the Council. Councilmember Brown made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to nominate Councilmember Ohlson as Mayor Pro Tem. Mayor Hutchinson stated the Council over the past two years,had been a group of seven committed Councilmembers that have focused on the good of the community overall. The minority has been fully engaged throughout the past two years and he would continue to work the ensure that the new minority would be fully engaged over the next two years. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 2007-035 Expressing Gratitude and Appreciation to Outgoing Councilmember Weitkunat. Adopted Mayor Hutchinson read Resolution 2007-035 in full, commending outgoing Councilmember Weitkunat. David May,Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce,thanked Karen Weitkunat on behalf of the business community for her contributions to the community, including serving as Mayor Pro Tem. 300 41pril 10, 2007 Ray Martinez, former Mayor, commended Ms. Weitkunat for her caring and commitment to the community. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution 2007-035. Councilmember Manvel expressed his appreciation for Ms.Weitkunat's experience,knowledge and expertise, especially in the area of city planning. Councilmember Roy expressed his gratitude for Ms. Weitkunat's giving to the community as well as for her care of the citizens. Councilmember Brown stated serving with Ms. Weitkunat had been a pleasure and she had made a huge impact on the City, for the better. Mayor Hutchinson commended Ms.Weitkunat for her wisdom in examining complex issues and her skill in articulating the issues in such a way as to put them in perspective. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 2007-036 Expressing Gratitude and Appreciation to Outgoing Councilmember Kastein Adopted Mayor Hutchinson read Resolution 2007-036 in full, commending outgoing Councilmember Kastein. David May, Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce, thanked Kurt Kastein on behalf of the business community for his contributions to the community, his years of service and his commitment to understanding the issues before making decisions. Eric Kronwall, 1119 Monticello Court, thanked Mr. Kastein for his years of service to the community. Ray Martinez, former Mayor, expressed his thanks to Mr. Kastein for his commitment to the community and giving of his time and energy. Angie Paccione, former State Representative, stated her appreciation for the hard work done by Mr. Kastein and Ms. Weitkunat for the City. She appreciated Mr. Kastein's preparedness for every meeting and for his knowledge of the issues at hand. 301 Apri110, 2007 Councilmember Manvel, made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Resolution 2007-036. Councilmember Troxell thanked Mr. Kastein and his family for his outstanding job as a Councilmember. Councilmember Manvel complimented Mr.Kastein on his thoroughness in investigating the issues and for his dedication to the community. Councilmember Roy stated his gratitude and appreciation for Mr. Kastein's integrity and his ability to listen to other viewpoints and thanked him for all his hard work. Councilmember Brown expressed his thanks for Mr. Kastein's ability to analyze the issues and for his heart for the city and resolving issues. Mayor Hutchinson commended Mr. Kastein for his admirable trait of integrity and thanked him for his focus on the good of the City and finding the right perspectives for the City. Mayor Hutchinson presented a plaque and a parchment copy of the Resolution to Ms. Weitkunat. Ms. Weitkunat thanked the community for the privilege to serve on Council and for the accomplishments that have made Fort Collins the best place to live. Mayor Hutchinson presented a plaque and a parchment copy of the Resolution to Mr. Kastein. Mr. Kastein stated it had been a privilege to serve and thanked staff for its leadership and high quality work. He thanked the voters for their support and ideas, Council for all its hard work, his employer for flexibility with his time and his family for their patience. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 302 April 17, 2007 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council-Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting- 6:00 p.m. A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 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, Manvel, Poppaw, Roy, and Troxell. Councilmembers Absent: Ohlson Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy. Citizen Participation Bob Viscount, 1104 West Magnolia,showed a slide presentation documenting the difficulties Vivian Armendariz, a disabled person confined to a wheelchair due to spina bifida, has had in reaching a fixed Transfort bus stop. She has received only partial certification for Dial-A-Ride participation, and is allowed to use it only on days with snow and ice. He urged Council to review the certification process for Dial-A-Ride participation and questioned how it could not fully certify Ms.Armendariz, who has such difficulties in getting around. Vanessa Conway, 424 Del Clair Road, Director of Community Affairs for ASCSU, thanked Councilmember Manvel for attending "Ram Ride" open house. She introduced the next ASCSU president, Katie Gleeson, and vice-president, Trevor Trout. Citizen Participation Follow-up Mayor Hutchinson asked for a report on the recertification process for Dial-A-Ride. Councilmember Roy asked for information regarding the interplay between an applicant's medical conditions and medical information provided to staff and staff's assessment of certification of a disability for Dial-A-Ride. Agenda Review City Manager Atteberry stated Item#9,Second Reading of Ordinance No. 047, 2007,Appropriating Funds for the Harmony and Ziegler Roads Front Range Village Improvements Project, has an amendment to the Exhibit previously provided for First Reading. Item #20,Resolution 2007- 040 Submitting the Existing Conditions Survey and Foothills Mall Urban Renewal Plan to the Planning and Zoning Board and the Poudre School District Board of Education, and Ratifying the Submittal 303 April17, 2007 of the Plan and Survey to the Larimer County Board of Commissioners, would be withdrawn from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion . Councilmember Poppaw withdrew item#13,First Reading of Ordinance No. 053,2007,Authorizing the Appropriation of 2007 Fiscal Year Operating and Capital Improvement Funds of the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport and Authorizing the Reappropriation of Unspent and Unencumbered Funds from 2006 from the Consent Calendar. CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the January 16 2007 February 6 2007 and February 20, 2007 Regular Meetings and the Adjourned Meeting of February 27 2007 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No 046 2007 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for E911 and Emergency Medical Dispatch Systems at Fort Collins Police Services Dispatch Center. This Ordinance,unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 20,2007,appropriates the funds provided to Fort Collins Police Services by Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA)to purchase equipment,train users and maintain equipment for Emergency Services Dispatching. The total amount to be appropriated is $59,445. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 047, 2007, Appropriating Funds for the Harmony and Ziegler Roads Front Range Village Improvements Project. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 20, 2007, appropriates funds for arterial street improvements to support the development of the Front Range Village. There are extensive improvements planned for Harmony Road to widen it to a 6- lane arterial from Timberline to Ziegler, including the construction of a new signalized intersection at Harmony and Corbett. There are also extensive improvements planned for the Ziegler/Harmony intersection,including widening it to a 4-lane arterial between Harmony and Horsetooth. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 048, 2007, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Pemetual Easement for a Sanitary Sewer Line and Temporary Construction Easement for the Registry Ridge, 5th Filing PDP Project. The City owns a tract of land in the Registry Ridge development that was dedicated as a future park site. The developer of Registry Ridge, 5th Filing PDP, Lennar Colorado, LLC, wishes to acquire an 8,850 square foot easement for a sanitary sewer line and a 10,256 square foot temporary construction easement through the future park site for the benefit of the development. The City will be able to use this same line for the restroom planned for construction in the park at a future date. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 20, 2007, authorizes the conveyance of these easements. 304 April17, 2007 10. Items Relating to Adoption of the North College Corridor Plan A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 049,2007,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Conifer Street Rezoning. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 050, 2007, Amending Division 4.19 of the Land Use Code by Adding Large Retail Establishments to the List of Permitted Uses. The updated North College Corridor Plan(NCCP)was adopted by Resolution 2007-032 on March 20,2007. Ordinance No.049,2007,unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 20,2007, rezones nine parcels of land containing approximately 4.1 acres located along the north side of Conifer Street and just west of Redwood Street to conform with the updated NCCP. The Plan recommends a specific change to Permitted Uses in the Community Commercial- North College zone district (C-C-N zone). The change would add Large Retail Establishments to the C-C-N zone. Ordinance No. 050, 2007, unanimously adopted on March 20, 2007 adopts this change to the Land Use Code. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 051, 2007 Authorizing the Lease of a Portion of the Resource Recovery Farm for Agricultural Use This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 20, 2007, authorizes an agricultural lease on approximately 110 acres located within the Resource Recovery Farm for a period of time starting January 1, 2007 and ending December 31, 2011. 12. First Reading of Ordinance No.052 2007 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Police Seizure Activity. Nearly 100 years ago, the Colorado Legislature passed legislation allowing for the seizure of illegal contraband used in or gained from criminal activity.The intent is to deter crime and to recover proceeds gained through criminal conduct and apply those assets to defraying the costs of law enforcement. Asset seizure and forfeiture actions are civil cases that have been reviewed, filed, and pursued by the District Attorney's asset forfeiture specialist, and they are always accompanied by a parallel criminal prosecution. The defendant is served with a written summons, an affidavit detailing probable cause, and an advisement of legal rights and procedures for exercising due process. The defendant is entitled to a civil trial. Colorado state law requires that the proceeds from successful asset seizure and forfeiture actions be used for law enforcement purposes and that the governing body of the seizing agency appropriates these proceeds to supplement the seizing agency's budget or, in the alternative, forfeit the proceeds to the general fund of the State of Colorado. Colorado state 305 Apri117, 2007 law also authorizes the creation of a Forfeiture Committee which must consist of the Mayor, District Attorney and Chief of Police, or their designees. The Committee oversees and approves the seizure budget and spending decisions made by the Chief of Police. 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 053, 2007, Authorizing the Appropriation of 2007 Fiscal Year Operating and Capital Improvement Funds of the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport and Authorizing the Reagpro_priation of Unspent and Unencumbered Funds from 2006. The 2007 annual operating budget for the Airport totals$580,170, and will be funded from Airport operating revenues, contributions from the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland, and interest earnings. This Ordinance appropriates the City of Fort Collins' contribution,which is a 50% share of the 2007 Airport budget and totals $290,085. This Ordinance also appropriates the City of Fort Collins' 50% share of capital funds, totaling $550,250, for the Airport from federal and state grants; passenger charges; contributions from Fort Collins and Loveland; and the Airport General Fund. The 2007 Airport capital funds,totaling$1,100,500,will be used to construct improvements taxiway improvements, purchase a storage building for Airport equipment, rebuilding directional/informational signs along the Airport's entrance road, and minor equipment purchases. In addition, this Ordinance reappropriates the City's 50% share of unspent and unencumbered funds,totaling$1,089,000,for various Airport Improvements,not completed as of the end of the year 2006. The reappropriated funds, totaling$2,178,000,will be used for ramp/taxiway Alpha rehabilitation($1,924,770),runway fog seal and markings repainting ($181,520),FAA Master Plan Update($33,100),Airport fire fighting equipment($17,760), and other minor improvements($20,850). The reappropriated amounts will be funded from federal dollars, totaling$1,942,530, and Fort Collins-Loveland Airport prior year reserves, totaling$235,470. 14. Items Relating to Civil Infraction Penalties. Appeals and Abatement Assessments. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 054, 2007, Amending the City Code by Adding a New Section to Chapter 24, Article II, Division 1 Establishing Penalty for Snow Removal Violations. B. First Reading of Ordinance No.055,2007,Amending the City Code Pertaining to the Appeal of Municipal Referee Orders Regarding Abatement Assessments. In December of 2006, Council adopted Ordinance No. 198, 2006, which decriminalized certain nuisance provisions of the City Code. Prior to the adoption of that ordinance,nearly all City Code violations were classified as criminal misdemeanors punishable by six months jail and/or $1,000 fine. Ordinance No. 198, 2006, reclassified many nuisance provisions from criminal to civil violations in an effort to ensure greater compliance and more effective 306 April 17, 2007 enforcement of Code provisions that affect livability of City neighborhoods. One ordinance provision, Section 24-21, relating to snow removal, was inadvertently omitted from this decriminalization. By adding a new Section 24-22 through the adoption of Ordinance No. 054, 2007, an initial violation of Section 24-21 will be a civil infraction rather than a criminal misdemeanor. Ordinance No. 198, 2006, also provided for the Municipal Court Referee to hear civil infraction violations and review abatement costs assessed by the City. The amendments proposed by Ordinance No. 055, 2007, clarify the process for appealing referee judgments on civil infraction cases and also provide parameters for the referee to use in deciding the propriety of abatement cost assessments by the City in particular cases. 15. First Readina of Ordinance No. 056 2007 Amending Certain Sections of the City Code Relating to Corporate Liability and Individual Liability for Corporate Conduct Under the current provisions of the City Code,a business entity's accountability for behavior which is in violation of the Code is dependent upon whether the entity is a"corporation". The term"corporation"is not defined in the City Code. Staff recommends that the Code be amended to clarify that what is presently referred to as "corporate" liability should actually apply to liability on the part of any kind of business entity. 16. First Reading of OrdinanceNo.057.2007 Authorizing the Conveyance of Two Small Tracts of Land Located in the Bobcat Ridge Natural Area to Philip and Connie Sprague During the acquisition of the Bobcat Ridge Natural Area,which involved a series ofpurchase and sale transactions,it was discovered that the fence line of the neighboring parcel, owned by Philip and Connie Sprague, encroached on the Natural Area property according to the legal description. As an effort to resolve this issue and clearly define the boundaries of the Natural Area, Natural Resources Department staff recommends that the City recognize the fence line as the property line and convey the two small areas of encroachment to the Spragues. The two tracts are 1.84 acres and .50 acres in size. 17. Items Relating to the Rigden Farm, Tract A Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment A. Resolution 2007-037 Amending the City's Structure Plan Map. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 058,2007,Amending the Zoning Map of the City by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the Rigden Farm Tract A Rezoning. This is a request to amend the City Structure Plan and zoning map on a 4.5 acre parcel located at the southeast corner of South Timberline Road and Custer Drive, in the Rigden Farm development. The current City Structure Plan designation is Medium Density Mixed- Use Neighborhood, with zoning the corresponding MMN - Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District. The applicant proposes a Structure Plan amendment on 4.5 acres to 307 Apri117, 2007 Neighborhood Commercial Center. The proposed zoning is the NC - Neighborhood Commercial District. The property is currently in the City's Residential Neighborhood Sign District and should remain in the District; therefore, an amendment to the District map would not be necessary. 18. Items Relating to the Kinard Junior High School Annexation and Zoning, A. Resolution 2007-038 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Kinard Junior High School Annexation. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 059, 2007, Annexing Property Known as the Kinard Junior High School Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 060, 2007,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Kinard Junior High School Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. This is a 100%voluntary annexation and zoning of a property approximately 27.18 acres in size. The site is 3002 East Trilby Road, located approximately one-half mile south of Kechter Road on the west side of Ziegler Road. Contiguity with the existing municipal boundary is gained along the entire east boundary which is shared with the Fossil Lake Annexation No. 2. Contiguity is also gained along a portion of the north boundary which is shared with the Homestead Annexation. 19. Resolution 2007-039 Authorizing the Lease of City-owned Vacant Land Located at the Southwest Corner of East Prospect Road and Interstate 25 for up to Two Years. This property was transferred in 2006 to the General Fund. The City does not have an immediate need identified for this tract. This lease authorizes an agricultural lease on approximately 25 acres for a period of one year with the City having the option to renew for an additional year. The Lessee will be allowed to farm the 25 acres in row crop, such as corn. The Lessee will be responsible for controlling noxious and toxic plants found within the leased area. The Lessee will also be responsible for costs associated with producing the crop including all costs of tillage, seeds, seeding, fertilizer, irrigation management, weed management, and harvesting. The Lessee will have the use of adjudicated wells located on the Property. In addition, this lease will transfer the responsibility of weed control and other maintenance work on the agricultural land to the farming Lessee. Leasing the property for agriculture production reduces management and maintenance costs by the General Fund. 308 April 17, 2007 20. Resolution 2007-040 Submitting the Existing Conditions Survey and Foothills Mall Urban Renewal Plan to the Planning and Zoning Board and the Poudre School District Board of Education.and Ratifying the Submittal of the Plan and Survey to the Larimer County Board of Commissioners. At the March 27, 2007 work session, the Council provided direction to staff to take the necessary steps to bring forward an Urban Renewal Plan for the Foothills Mall area. One of the steps required by Colorado's Urban Renewal Law is for the Council to formally submit the Foothills Mall Urban Renewal Plan to the Planning and Zoning Board for its review and recommendation regarding the Foothills Mall Urban Renewal Plain conformance with City Plan,which is the general plan for development of the municipality as a whole. The Council must also allow the Poudre School District and Larimer Countyto"participate in an advisory capacity." On April 11,2007,the staff submitted the proposed Plan and Existing Conditions Survey to the Board of the County Commissioners as required pursuant to C.R.S. 31-25- 107(3.5)(a). The Planning and Zoning Board is scheduled to review the proposed Foothills Mall Urban Renewal Plan and Existing Conditions Survey on April 19,2007. The Council is scheduled to conduct a public hearing and consider resolutions approving the Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey (a.k.a `Blight Study") and the Foothills Mall Urban Renewal Plan on May 15, 2007. Adoption of Resolution 2007-040, referring the Foothills Mall Urban Renewal Plan and Existing Conditions Survey to the Planning and Zoning Board and to the other respective bodies, does not commit the Council to approving the Existing Conditions Survey and Urban Renewal Plan for the Foothills Mall area at the May 15th meeting. ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 046, 2007,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for E911 and Emergency Medical Dispatch Systems at Fort Collins Police Services Dispatch Center. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 047, 2007, Appropriating Funds for the Harmony and Ziegler Roads Front Range Village Improvements Project. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 048, 2007, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Perpetual Easement for a Sanitary Sewer Line and Temporary Construction Easement for the Registry Ridge, 5th Filing PDP Project. 10. Items Relating to Adoption of the North College Corridor Plan. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No.049,2007,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Conifer Street Rezoning. 309 April 17, 2007 B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 050, 2007,Amending Division 4.19 of the Land Use Code by Adding Large Retail Establishments to the List of Permitted Uses. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 051, 2007, Authorizing the Lease of a Portion of the Resource Recovery Farm for Agricultural Use. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 12. First Reading of Ordinance No.052,2007,Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Police Seizure Activity. 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 053, 2007, Authorizing the Appropriation of 2007 Fiscal Year Operating and Capital Improvement Funds of the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport and Authorizing the Reappropriation of Unspent and Unencumbered Funds from 2006. 14. Items Relating to Civil Infraction Penalties, Appeals and Abatement Assessments. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 054, 2007, Amending the City Code by Adding a New Section to Chapter 24, Article II, Division 1 Establishing Penalty for Snow Removal Violations. B. First Reading of Ordinance No.055,2007,Amending the City Code Pertaining to the Appeal of Municipal Referee Orders Regarding Abatement Assessments. 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 056, 2007, Amending Certain Sections of the City Code Relating to Corporate Liability and Individual Liability for Corporate Conduct. 16. First Reading ofOrdinance No.057,2007,Authorizing the Conveyance ofTwo Small Tracts of Land Located in the Bobcat Ridge Natural Area to Philip and Connie Sprague. 17. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 058, 2007, Amending the Zoning Map of the City by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the Rigden Farm Tract A Rezoning. 18. Items Relating to the Kinard Junior High School Annexation and Zoning. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 059, 2007, Annexing Property Known as the Kinard Junior High School Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 060,2007,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Kinard Junior High School Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. 310 April 17, 2007 Councilmember Manvel made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Troxell,to adopt and approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Consent Calendar Follow-up Councilmember Roy questioned why Item#17 ItemsRelatingto theRigden Farm, Tract A,Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment,was on the Planning and Zoning Board's Consent Agenda and not discussed as changes to the structure map and zoning map were important issues and needed to be considered carefully. Steve Olt, City Planner, stated this item had been on discussion on the Planning and Zoning Board's agenda, but as there was no public objection to the rezoning at the public hearing on March 15, 2007, the Board chose to move the item to Consent as the Board had no concerns and voted unanimously to approve the rezoning. Historically, structure plan amendments and zoning amendments are not on the Planning and Zoning Board's Consent Agenda, but are usually on discussion. Councilmember Roy stated changes to the structure map should not be done lightly and due consideration should be given to each proposed change. Councilmember Reports Councilmember Manvel stated the "Ram Ride" Event was an enjoyable experience. The "Ram Ride"uses rental cars and volunteer drivers to drive people home from downtown who are not able to drive themselves home late at night, due to inebriation. This service helps keep Fort Collins and the campus community safe . Ordinance No. 053, 2007, Authorizing the Appropriation of 2007 Fiscal Year Operating and Capital Improvement Funds of the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport and Authorizing the Reappropriation of Unspent and Unencumbered Funds from 2006,Adopted on First Reading. The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "FINANCIAL IMPACT This Ordinance appropriates the City's 50% share($840,335)of the annual appropriation for the fiscal year 2007 Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport (the "Airport') budget. The City of Loveland manages the Airport's budget and finances, but since the City of Fort Collins owns 50% of the Airport, it is necessary for the City to appropriate its 50%portion of the Airport budget. In addition, this Ordinance authorizes the reappropriation of the City's 50% share of unspent and unencumbered funds at the end of 2006, totaling $1,089,000, to be used for various Airport Improvements. 311 April 17, 2007 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 2007 annual operating budget for the Airport totals$580,170, and will be funded from Airport operating revenues, contributions from the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland, and interest earnings. This Ordinance appropriates the City of Fort Collins'contribution, which is a 50%share of the 2007 Airport budget and totals $290,085. This Ordinance also appropriates the City of Fort Collins' 50%share of capital funds, totaling $550,250,for the A irportfromfederal and state grants;passenger charges;contributionsfrom Fort Collins and Loveland; and the Airport General Fund. The 2007 Airport capital funds, totaling $1,100,500, will be used to construct improvements taxiway improvements, purchase a storage building for Airport equipment, rebuilding directional/informational signs along the Airport's entrance road, and minor equipment purchases. In addition, this Ordinance reappropriates the City's 50% share of unspent and unencumbered funds, totaling $1,089,000,for various Airport Improvements, not completed as of the end of the year 2006. The reappropriated funds, totaling $2,178,000, will be used for ramp/taxiway Alpha rehabilitation($1,924,770), runwayfog seal and markings repainting($181,520),FAA Master Plan Update ($33,100), Airport fire fighting equipment ($17,760), and other minor improvements ($20,850). The reappropriated amounts will be funded from federal dollars, totaling$1,942,530, and Fort Collins-Loveland Airport prior year reserves, totaling$235,470. BACKGROUND In 1963, the City of Fort Collins and the City of Loveland agreed to the establishment of a regional aviation facility and became owners and operators ofthe Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport, located approximately 16 miles southeast of downtown Fort Collins,just west of Interstate 25 on Earhart Road. The Airport is operated as a joint venture between the City of Fort Collins and the City of Loveland, with each city retaining a 50% ownership interest, sharing equally in policy- making and management, and with each assuming responsibility for 50% of the capital and operating costs associated with the Airport. The Airport's mission is to provide a safe and efficient air transportation airport facility to the general public and aviation community by providing airport facilities that meet Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA') safety standards and to implement a plan that ensures the efficient development of the Airport to meet the needs of the Fort Collins and Loveland communities. Airport revenues cover operating costs and capital projects. Each city contributes equal funding for airport operating and capital costs. Airport development and improvement funds are also received, for eligible projects, from the FAA and the Colorado Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics. 312 Apr ill 7, 2007 The annual operating costs for 2007 for the Airport are $580,170, and the City of Fort Collins contribution is $290,085. In addition, the Airport Manager is recommending additional capital expenditures and has identified the following f ending sources: FAA Entitlement and Discretionary Grants $ 1,000,000 State Grants 25,000 Contributions -Fort Collins and Loveland 75,500 Total $ 1,100,500 The additional capital expenditures will be for the following improvements: Taxiway Improvements $ 1,053,000 Storage Building for Airport Equipment 32,000 Directional/Informational Signage 8,000 Minor Equipment Purchases 7,500 Total $ 1,100,500 Thus, the City of Fort Collins' appropriation for the capital expenditures identified above is $550,250 (50%of the total). The Airport Manager also recommends reappropriating unspent and unencumbered funds, totaling $2,178,000, from 2006 to be used for Airport Improvements as follows: Ramp/Taxiway Alpha Rehabilitation $ 1,924,770 Runway Fog Seal and Markings Repainting 181,520 FAA Master Plan Update 33,100 Airport Fire Fighting Equipment 17,760 Airfield Lighting Control System 9,780 Electrical Repairs to Gates 7,660 Building Surveys 1,880 Diesel Storage 1.530 Total $2,178,000 The aforementioned improvements will be funded from the following: Federal Airport Funds $ 1,942,530 Fort Collins-Loveland Airport Prior Year Reserves 235.470 Total $ 2,178,000 The City's share (5001o) of the reappropriation items identified above is $1,089,000. " 313 April 17, 2007 City Manager Atteberry stated the Airport has a Steering Committee that meets monthly to discuss airport strategic planning,policy and operational issues. The City's representatives on that Steering Committee are the Mayor and the City Manager. Loveland's Mayor and City Manager are also on the Steering Committee. Mike Freeman,Economic Advisor and staff liaison to the Airport Steering Committee, stated the Airport is jointly owned by the Cities of Loveland and Fort Collins. There is an intergovernmental agreement that outlines how the Airport is to be managed. The City's contribution to the Airport budget is $60,000 as outlined in the IGA. The Airport also receives a substantial subsidy from the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA)as well as funds from the State. This item appropriates dollars received from the FAA and the State for operating expenses and capital projects. The 2008-2009 budget will include the Airport as an item under Transportation to make Airport funding more transparent. Councilmember Roy stated the Cities of Loveland and Fort Collins,the FAA and the State contribute revenues to the Airport and asked if the Airport itself generated any revenue. Freeman stated both the City of Loveland and City of Fort Collins each contributed general fund revenues of$60,000 for the operation of the Airport for a total of$120,000. Actual operating expenses are much higher and Federal and state dollars makes up the difference for those costs. Councilmember Roy asked if every aspect of operating cost was subsidized. Freeman answered in the affirmative, above$120,000. Operating expenses were rising above even what is subsidized by the Federal and State governments and the Airport will be asking Council to consider a request for additional operating funds. Councilmember Roy asked if the only portion of the Airport's budget that Council could affect was the $60,000 contribution from the General Fund. Freeman answered in the affirmative. Councilmember Troxell stated the Airport is an underutilized economic asset for Northern Colorado and it could bean important part of the economic"engine"for Fort Collins. City Manager Atteberry stated there is interest in better utilizing the Airport as an economic asset for the area. However, finding the balance between utilizing the asset and the community's sensitivity to aircraft flying over areas of the City, particularly commercial aircraft, is an ongoing challenge. Councilmember Troxell asked if the Airport Steering Committee,with the current set-up,was able to develop the Airport towards becoming a greater asset. City Manager Atteberry stated the governance structure currently in place has been bureaucratic and slow to respond in terms of having both communities go through the review process and ways to improve the process will be examined. Mayor Hutchinson stated Council has had several work sessions on the Airport and has also had a work session and has adopted the Strategic Plan,so Council has had in-depth involvement with the Airport but there is always room for improvement in the decision-making process. It is more difficult as there are two governments involved in the decision-making. Councilmember Manvel stated having the 2008-2009 budget list the Airport expenditure as an item 314 April17, 2007 was making the budgeting process more transparent. Making the Airport funds that are coming from the City's General Fund more obvious was helping the budget process. City Manager Atteberry stated during the last budget it was a major effort to do Budgeting for Outcomes for the City's various funds,General Fund and Enterprise Funds. Poudre Fire Authority's Board has agreed to participate in the City's BFO process for the next budget and that is a multimillion dollar budget item. The Airport, as a jointly owned facility, has significantly less discretion in how dollars are spent. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy,to adopt Ordinance No. 053, 2007 on First Reading. Yeas: Brown,Hutchinson,Manvel,Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 2007- 040 Submitting the Existing Conditions Survey and Foothills Mall Urban Renewal Plan to the Planning and Zoning Board and the Poudre School District Board of Education, and Ratifying the Submittal of the Plan and Survey to the Larimer County Board of Commissioners. Adopted. The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the March 27, 2007 work session, the Council provided direction to staff to take the necessary steps to bring forward an Urban Renewal Plan for the Foothills Mall area. One of the steps required by Colorado's Urban Renewal Law isfor the Council to formally submit the Foothills Mall Urban Renewal Plan to the Planning and Zoning Board for its review and recommendation regarding the Foothills Mall Urban Renewal Plan's conformance with City Plan, which is the general plan for development of the municipality as a whole. The Council must also allow the Poudre School District and Larimer County to "participate in an advisory capacity. " On April 11, 2007, the staff submitted the proposed Plan and Existing Conditions Survey to the Board of the County Commissioners as required pursuant to C.R.S. 31-25-107(3.5)(a). The Planning and Zoning Board is scheduled to review theproposed Foothills Mall Urban Renewal Plan and Existing Conditions Survey on April 19, 2007. The Council is scheduled to conduct a public hearing and consider resolutions approving the Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey (a.ka "Blight Study') and the Foothills Mall Urban Renewal Plan on May 15, 2007. Adoption of Resolution 2007-040, referring the Foothills Mall Urban Renewal Plan and Existing Conditions Survey to the Planning and Zoning Board and to the other respective bodies, does not commit the Council to approving the Existing Conditions Survey and Urban Renewal Plan for the Foothills Mall 315 April 17, 2007 area at the May 15th meeting. BACKGROUND In 1982, the Fort Collins City Council created an Urban Renewal Authority(URA)and designated itself as the governing board (known as the `Authority'). The boundaries of the URA are the municipal limits. The Fort Collins URA was created to prevent and eliminate conditions related to certain "blight factors"in the community. State Statutes give the URA broad powers to carry out its statutory mandate. Included are the powers to enter into contracts, borrow funds and acquire property voluntarily or by eminent domain, among others. Urban renewal projects may beftnanced in a variety of ways. URAs are authorized to borrow money, issue bonds, and accept grants from public or private sources. The principal method of financing urban renewal projects is through obligations secured by property tax or sales tax increments from the project area ("tax increment financing'). An URA exercises its powers by planning and carrying out urban renewal plans in urban renewal areas. In 2004, the City Council adopted an update to City Plan, the City's Comprehensive Plan. Principle GM-8 of City Plan states the following: The City will promote compatible infill and redevelopment in areas within the Growth Management Area boundary. And, Policy GM-8.1 of City Plan states the following: Targeted Redevelopment/Infill. Redevelopment and infill development will be encouraged in targeted areas. The purpose of these areas is to channel growth where it will be beneficial and can best improve access to jobs, housing and services with fewer and shorter auto trips. The targeted areas are parts of the city where general agreement exists that development or redevelopment is beneficial. A major goal is to increase economic activity in the area to benefit existing residents and businesses and, where necessary,provide the stimulus to redevelop. These areas should be defined from City Plan,Subarea Plans,Zoning and locational criteria such as: a. Underutilized land b. Areas already undergoing positive change, which is expected to continue C. Areas where infrastructure capacity exists d. Areas where public investment is warranted from a policy perspective e. Areas with special opportunities, such as where major public or private investment is already planned f. Transportation opportunities: • Along travel corridors 316 April 17, 2007 • Along enhanced travel corridors City Plan also contains a map (copy attached) which depicts "Targeted Redevelopment Areas"in the Growth Management Area boundary. The Foothills Mall (Area #6) is one of the Targeted Redevelopment Areas. Other selected policies of City Plan include the following: • Policy GM-8.4 Remedy Infrastructure Deficiencies. The City will consider opportunities to selectively correct infrastructure deficiencies in targeted areas, such as storm drainage and streets, so that infill development or redevelopment does not pay an infrastructure `penalty" to remedy past problems in existing developed areas. • Policy GM-8.5Public Investment. The City will consider opportunities, and the costs and benefits for targeted public investment in order to encourage redevelopment and infill development in appropriate locations. Policy ECON-1.5 Maintain and Expand City Revenue Base. The City will ensure that commercial uses that generate the sales and use tax revenues which support the City's financial base are maintained and expanded. The City will also explore other options to expand and diversify its revenue base, including targeted annexations ofexisting commercial corridors,such as the Mulberry Corridor, as well as revenue sharing agreements with other communities. a. The City will assist in identifying and preserving key undeveloped parcels in appropriate locations for additional commercial activity. b. The City will seek to strengthen existing commercial districts, such as the Downtown, North College, Campus West, and the Foothills Mall. C. The City will seek to maintain and enhance its attractiveness as a place to do business in order to maintain its share of the region's sales and use tax base. In addition to the policies of City Plan, the Foothills Mall redevelopment is identified in the City's Economic Action Plan as the "single most important retail redevelopment initiative in the City.g P P h.' This plan also identified establishment ofan urban renewal plan as the "most effective manner for the City to assist in the redevelopment"of the mall. In early 2005, the City was approached by the General Growth Properties, the owners of the Foothills Mall, to recognize the mall as an urban renewal project area and to create an urban renewal plan for it. Before an urban renewal plan for this area can be approved, the area must be found by the City Council to be a "blighted area"as defined in State Statutes. The City obtained 317 April 17, 2007 the services ofa private consultant, Terry Ware Associates of Denver, to develop the Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey. Staffand General Growth Properties have developed the Foothills Mall Urban Renewal Plan. Before the City Council can officially approve the Urban Renewal Plan, the State law on Urban Renewal Authorities, specifically Colorado Revised Statutes 31-25-107 (2), requires the Council to formally submit the Urban Renewal Plan to the Planning and Zoning Board for its review and recommendation as to the Urban Renewal Plan's conformity with City Plan, the City's Comprehensive Plan, which is the general plan for development of the municipality as a whole. By adopting Resolution 2007-040 the Council will formally submit the Foothills Mall Urban Renewal Plan and Existing Conditions Survey to the Planning and Zoning Board and the Poudre School District Board of Education, and will ratify the April 11, 2007, submission by the staffofthe proposed Plan and Existing Conditions Survey to the Board of County Commissioners of Larimer County. These submittals request review by the County and the school district and with respect to the Planning and Zoning Board, requests a written recommendation as to the Plan's conformity with City Plan. Adoption of Resolution 2007-040 does not commit the Council to approve the Foothills Mall Urban Renewal Plan at this time. " Mike Freeman, Economic Advisor, stated the Foothills Mall opened in 1973 and has been a successful mall for many years. On average, a mall needs remodeling after 20 years and Foothills Mall has gone 10 years past the average. In 2002,there was a significant downturn in the economy which caused sales to decline at the Mall which affected sales tax collection, as well. At the same time, communities surrounding Fort Collins have grown and built their own retail sales tax bases. The Mall is 34 years old and obsolete,not designed for modern retail sales. It has been an enormous sales tax producer for the City for many years. Since 2002,overall sales at the Mall have decreased by more than 27%,a direct impact of$1.2 million to the City's General Fund. Additionally,the Mall is consistently listed as the number one concern by other businesses in the City. The City has been proactive in working with General Growth Properties(GGP), owner of Foothills Mall,to facilitate a redevelopment. GGP has indicated it is ready to put a redevelopment plan together and that indicates the City to begin steps to facilitate redevelopment. The site will require a very significant investment in terms of bringing the site back to modern standards, both for the facility and the infrastructure. A redevelopment project of this magnitude requires public participation. The redevelopment of the Mall is consistent with prior Council policy statements and actions from the Economic Action Plan and in City Plan, which discusses the whole corridor around the Mall as being a targeted redevelopment area. Ken Waido, Chief Planner, stated the Foothills Mall Urban Renewal Plan will involve 72 acres, bounded by Swallow Road on the north, Stanford Road on the east,Monroe Drive on the south and College Avenue on the west. There are many steps in developing an Urban Renewal Plan, most of which are dictated by the State's Urban Renewal law. There is a provision in the law that requires Council to formally submit the Urban Renewal Plan to the Planning and Zoning Board, Larimer County Commissioners and Poudre School District. The Planning and Zoning Board's task is to review the Plan and forward a recommendation back to the Council as to its opinion whether or not 318 April 17, 2007 the Plan is consistent with City Plan. At the March 27th work session, Council directed staff to proceed with the necessary steps to implement the Plan. On April I Ith, a public Open House, attended by 75 people,was held to gain information about the Mall. The Planning and Zoning Board was scheduled to consider the Plan on April 19th. Council will consider adoption of the Existing Conditions Study and the Foothills Mall Urban Renewal Plan on May 15th. The Plan sets up an area that is eligible for tax increment financing to be used as a tool to help stimulate private investment in the area to do redevelopment projects. Mayor Hutchinson stated formally submitting the Plan to the Planning and Zoning Board was a required step to begin the process and is not final approval of the Plan. He asked what previous steps had been taken to bring the Urban Renewal Plan to the current stage in the process as the Plan had been under consideration for over 18 months. City Manager Atteberry stated he and former Community Planning Services Director,Greg Byrne,had traveled to Chicago in August 2005 to meet with the CEO of General Growth Properties so talks have been underway for quite some time. Enhancing Foothills Mall has been a high priority for the City for the past few years,but the ultimate decision of when to redevelop of the Mall is in the hands of the owner. Councilmember Troxell asked if the entire propertybeing considered under the Urban Renewal Plan had one owner. Freeman stated there were multiple property owners on the site. The majority of the property is owned by GGP,but there are three other property owners, as well. Waido stated one owner was Sears, another owner was Macy's. Cynthia Eichler, Foothills Mall General Manager, stated this was a very strategic process and thanked City staff for the hard work already done. Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Resolution 2007-040. Councilmember Roy stated this was a great start to redeveloping the Mall. Councilmember Manvel stated the Existing Conditions Study clearly showed how the Foothills Mall area met the State requirements for"blight"with poor traffic circulation,poor drainage and possible flooding conditions,poorly marked parking lots and deteriorating building exteriors. These are the types of factors defined in State law as factors of"blight". Mayor Hutchinson stated this was a"good news" story for the City and it was appropriate for the City to take this step to support the City's economic vision. The Urban Renewal Plan is a good tool for the redevelopment of this area. In coordination with the County and the School District, it uses local money, for improvements done under the control of local elected officials. 319 April 17, 2007 The vote on the motion was as follows. Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Mayor Hutchinson welcomed newly seated Councilmembers Lisa Poppaw and Wade Troxell. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 320 May 1, 2007 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, May 1, 2007, 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,Manvel,Ohlson,Poppaw,Roy,and Troxell. Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy. Citizen Participation Lori Brunswig, 1901 Ridgewood Road, spoke against political action committees and the conduct of candidates during the election. George Wallace, 1824 WCR 66, Waverly, stated the City's water rental policy was inequitable and detrimental to the farming community in Northern Colorado. He has been a farmer in this area for over 25 years and now,due to his inability to rent surplus North Poudre water,will need to eliminate his last irrigation and lose roughly one-third of his farming income. He was on the Larimer County Ag Advisory Board, which had developed a draft of a long-term interruptible supply strategy or drought year contingency plan. This proposal was not acted upon by the Water Board. He urged Council to request the Water Board to consider the draft proposal and to develop a more equitable system of water rental distribution. Mary Smith, 1618 Sagewood Drive,spoke regarding changes needed to trash hauling within the city. She was concerned about the number of trash trucks and recycling trucks going through her neighborhood each week, as well as throughout the city. Having different trash companies picking up trash on different days in one neighborhood was wasteful,produced excess pollutants and caused greater wear on city streets as well as being inefficient. She suggested a districting approach to trash hauling as being a cost-efficient and an energy-saving method to solve this problem. Ray Smith, 1618 Sagewood Drive,stated that while recycling is proactive and a positive action,the recycling effort in neighborhoods was not positive as recycling trucks traveled through his neighborhood most days of the week, instead of efficiently using one truck, one day a week. This was wasteful and negated any good results from recycling. He urged Council to look at this issue. Citizen Participation Follow-up Councilmember Roy asked if the Pavement Management Study to be undertaken could also look at the impact of trash trucks in terns of pavement management and costs to the community. City Manager Atteberry responded the Study was already underway and was looking at the pavement 321 May 1, 2007 management policy and the point system in place,but he would have staff talk with the consultants about expanding the scope of the Study. It would cost more to expand the Study but he would report back to Council if it was feasible to pursue the expansion of the Study and what the cost would be. Councilmember Roy asked about the water rental issues raised by Mr.Wallace and how many people in the past two years had been able to get water, compared to this year's rentals. City Manager Atteberry stated a memo was sent to Council describing the difficulties in handling water rental. Staff and the Water Board are attempting to develop the most equitable system and past years had not been equitable, either. He asked for Council direction as to how to proceed. Councilmember Ohlson asked for staff to look into ways to improve the rental distribution as the system could definitely be better. He suggested including citizens who are impacted by this process in the designing of a better system. He asked if anything could be done about this year's allocation. Councilmember Troxell stated election reform was an issue he favored, including looking at the 527's and keeping control of elections in the various campaigns. Mayor Hutchinson stated political action committees and 527's are legal and protected by the First Amendment. It is illegal for candidates to coordinate,collude or communicate with PAC's or 527's and all candidates in the past election abided by that law. Agenda Review City Manager Atteberry stated there were no changes to the published agenda. Councilmember Troxell withdrew Item #13 First Reading of Ordinance No. 061, 2007, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Transit Services Fund for Use with Existing Appropriations for the Purpose of Providing Programming Aimed at Relieving Urban Congestion, Item #14 First Reading of Ordinance No. 062, 2007, Amending Chapter 26 Article IV of the City Code to Revise Wastewater Pretreatment Program Requirements, and Item #16 First Reading of Ordinance No. 064, 2007,Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Agreement to Finance Vehicles and Equipment Through Lease-Purchase. CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 052, 2007, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Police Seizure Activity. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 17, 2007, appropriates $28,040 into the Fort Collins Police Services budget. This amount represents money awarded by the courts pursuant to civil asset seizure and forfeiture actions in 2006 and previous years as well as pro-rata distributions from the Larimer County Drug Task and federal government seizure actions. These funds are held in a General Fund restricted reserve account awaiting appropriation. 322 May 1, 2007 The funds will be used by Fort Collins Police Services to purchase new equipment and training as well as fund partnerships with community groups that seek to promote positive youth activities, anti-violence, anti-drug, and diversity activities. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 053 2007 Authorizingthe he Appropriation of 2007 Fiscal Year Operating and Capital Improvement Funds of the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Aimort and Authorizing the Reappropriation of Unspent and Unencumbered Funds from 2006. This Ordinance,unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 17,2007, appropriates the City's 50% share ($840,335) of the annual appropriation for the fiscal year 2007 Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport(the"Airport")budget. The City of Loveland manages the Airport's budget and finances, but since the City of Fort Collins owns 50% of the Airport, it is necessary for the City to appropriate its 50%portion of the Airport budget. In addition, this Ordinance authorizes the reappropriation of the City's 50% share of unspent and unencumbered funds at the end of 2006, totaling $1,089,000, to be used for various Airport improvements. 8. Items Relating to Civil Infraction Penalties Appeals and Abatement Assessments A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 054, 2007, Amending the City Code by Adding a New Section to Chapter 24, Article II, Division 1 Establishing Penalty for Snow Removal Violations. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 055, 2007, Amending the City Code Pertaining to the Appeal of Municipal Referee Orders Regarding Abatement Assessments. Ordinance No. 054, 2007, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 17, 2007, decriminalizes penalties related to snow removal violations and makes an initial violation a civil infraction rather than a criminal misdemeanor. Ordinance No.055,2007,unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 17,2007,clarifies the process for appealing referee judgments on civil infraction cases and also provides parameters for the referee to use in deciding the propriety of abatement cost assessments by the City in particular cases. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 056.2007.Amending Certain Sections of the City Code Relating to Corporate Liability and Individual Liability for Corporate Conduct Under the current provisions of the City Code,a business entity's accountability for behavior which is in violation of the Code is dependent upon whether the entity is a "corporation". The term "corporation" is not defined in the City Code. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 17, 2007, amends the City Code to clarify that what is presently referred to as "corporate"liability should actually apply to liability on the part of any kind of business entity. 323 May 1, 2007 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 057. 2007. Authorizing the Conveyance of Two Small Tracts of Land Located in the Bobcat Ridge Natural Area to Philip and Connie Sprague. During the acquisition ofthe Bobcat Ridge Natural Area,which involved a series ofpurchase and sale transactions,it was discovered that the fence line of the neighboring parcel,owned by Philip and Connie Sprague, encroached on the Natural Area property according to the legal description. This Ordinance,unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 17,2007, conveys the two small areas of encroachment to the Spragues. The two tracts are 1.84 acres and .50 acres in size. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 058, 2007, Amending the Zoning Map of the City by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Propertv Known as the Rigden Farm Tract A Rezoning. Ordinance No. 058,2007,unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 17,2007,rezones 4.5 acres located at the southeast corner of South Timberline Road and Custer Drive,in the Rigden Farm development from MMN-Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District to NC -Neighborhood Commercial District. 12. Items Relating to the Kinard Junior High School Annexation and Zoning: A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 059, 2007, Annexing Property Known as the Kinard Junior High School Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No.060,2007,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Kinard Junior High School Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. These Ordinances,unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 17,2007,annex and zone a property approximately 27.18 acres in size. The site is 3002 East Trilby Road, located approximately one-half mile south of Kechter Road on the west side of Ziegler Road. 13. First Reading_of Ordinance No. 061, 2007, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Transit Services Fund for Use with Existing Appropriations for the Purpose of Providing Programming Aimed at Relieving Urban Congestion. The City of Fort Collins has received Congestion, Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) funding to fund three air quality related projects in 2007. This funding is a reallocation of a portion of the 2007 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program — funds not currently required due to the reduction in scope of the TDM Program. The revised CMAQ funding will aid in funding three projects which are: • The Bicycle Coordinator Program (FC Bikes) - an existing Program that seeks to encourage citizens to utilize bicycling as their preferred method of sensible 324 May 1, 2007 transportation through the implementation of special events and campaigns that emulate the many facets of bicycling, • Transfort Test Ride Marketing Program - a new marketing campaign to promote transit use among the City's largest employers, and • Marketing for Transfort's three new routes- a campaign aimed at increasing public awareness of the new transit fixed routes available in 2007. 14. FirstReadingofOrdinanceNo.062.2007.AmendingChapter26 Article IVoftheCityCode to Revise Wastewater Pretreatment Program Requirements. The proposed modifications pertain to the following wastewater industrial discharge provisions of the City Code: • Section 26-206 Definitions Grab Sample — As directed by the EPA, the definition will be updated to be consistent with the EPA definition. This modification will be more restrictive as a time limitation will be specified where one did not previously exist. Zero-Discharge - A definition of zero-discharge permit will be added to Code. RV Wastewater- A definition of RV wastewater will be added to Code. • Section 26-318 Sampling and analysis As recommended by the EPA, the required period of records retention for industrial pretreatment will be changed from three to five years. • Section 26-343 Discharge limitations Language will be added to provide the General Manager with authority to request records from dental practices and obsolete language concerning date of mercury program initiation will also be deleted. This modification does not increase requirements on dental offices but does clarify the General Manager's authority. • Sections 26-308 and 26-309 The Code will be modified to state that, when applicable, a zero-discharge permit may be issued as the result of an industrial discharge permit application. The modification does not increase or relax existing permit application requirements. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has given approval for the modifications and completed a thirty day public notification process for them. 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 063, 2007, Amending Certain Sections in Chanter 7 of the City Code Relating to the Board of Elections. This Ordinance amends the City Code to conform the Code to the City Charter, as amended by the voters on April 3,2007,and to accurately reflect the duties of the Board of Elections. 325 May I, 2007 16. First Readine of Ordinance No. 064, 2007, Authorizing the Purchasingpent to Enter into an Agreement to Finance Vehicles and Equipment Through Lease-Purchase. The cost of the items to be lease-purchased is $1,070,000. Payments at the 4.26% interest rate will not exceed$119,367 in 2007. Money for 2007 lease-purchase payments is included in the 2007 budget. The effect of the debt position for the purpose of financial rating of the City will be to raise the total City debt by 0.22 %. A competitive process was used to select Koch Financial Corporation for this lease. ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 052, 2007, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Police Seizure Activity. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No.053,2007,Authorizing the Appropriation of 2007 Fiscal Year Operating and Capital Improvement Funds of the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport and Authorizing the Reappropriation of Unspent and Unencumbered Funds from 2006. 8. Items Relating to Civil Infraction Penalties, Appeals and Abatement Assessments. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 054, 2007, Amending the City Code by Adding a New Section to Chapter 24, Article II, Division 1 Establishing Penalty for Snow Removal Violations. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 055, 2007, Amending the City Code Pertaining to the Appeal of Municipal Referee Orders Regarding Abatement Assessments. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 056,2007,Amending Certain Sections of the City Code Relating to Corporate Liability and Individual Liability for Corporate Conduct. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 057, 2007, Authorizing the Conveyance of Two Small Tracts of Land Located in the Bobcat Ridge Natural Area to Philip and Connie Sprague. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 058, 2007, Amending the Zoning Map of the City by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the Rigden Farm Tract A Rezoning. 12. Items Relating to the Kinard Junior High School Annexation and Zoning. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 059, 2007, Annexing Property Known as the Kinard Junior High School Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. 326 May 1, 2007 B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 060,2007,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Kinard Junior High School Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 061, 2007, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Transit Services Fund for Use with Existing Appropriations for the Purpose of Providing Programming Aimed at Relieving Urban Congestion. 14. First Reading of Ordinance No.062,2007,Amending Chapter 26 Article IV of the City Code to Revise Wastewater Pretreatment Program Requirements. 1 First Reading f Ordinance No. 2 07 Amending Certain Sections in h 5. s o 0 063, 0 S o s Cater 7 of the g g P City Code Relating to the Board of Elections. 16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 064, 2007,Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Agreement to Finance Vehicles and Equipment Tbrough Lease-Purchase. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt and approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Consent Calendar Follow-up There was no Consent Calendar follow-up discussion. Staff Reports City Manager Atteberry introduced Marlys Sittner,General Manager of Transfort and Dial-A-Ride, and Mark Jackson,Director of Transportation,to discuss Transfort issues and an update on Dial-A- Ride. Mr.Jackson stated difficult decisions had been made in the past year,including recertification ofDial-A-Ride clients. While recognizing the impact these changes have had on peoples'lives,staff is trying very hard to handle this process in a timely,professional and compassionate manner. Ms. Sittner explained the recertification process was based on the Americans With Disabilities Act that provides a specific framework forparatransit service and determining who is eligible for that service. The first test determines if a person's disability prevents them from using the fixed-route bus system. In order to make that determination, the application form asks many detailed questions, which has met with much criticism. The second test determines if the individual can board and utilize and disembark a vehicle at a bus stop. Transfort has a fully accessible fleet;all 27 fixed-route buses are wheelchair accessible. The bus stops are also accessible with curb-cuts. There have been a number of concerns regarding the form and the length of the form. The ADA provides guidelines but the process of determining eligibility is left up to each entity providing paratransit service. Many 327 May 1, 2007 entities start the process with a questionnaire. Denver RTD has a shorter form since they also require an in-person functional mobility test in the office. This is very expensive,time-consuming,and seen by some as very invasive. Dial-A-Ride has adopted the model of asking many questions of the applicant as well as sending a fonn to the health care provider with similar questions, then comparing the data from the two forms. This is a common method used by entities to determine paratransit eligibility. Staff developed the form after reviewing over 20 different application forms used by transit agencies across the country. Staff has also received paratransit eligibility training from the National Transit Institute,the leading organization for technical support. Staff has referred to other ADA experts repeatedly as the form and the processes were being developed for eligibility and while eligibility assessments are taking place. To date, the application form has been successfully completed by 851 applicants. To further assist applicants, staff has called and followed up with people to find out if they were having difficulty with the form and, if they needed assistance, staff met personally with the clients to assist them in filling out the form. Staff also provided telephone assistance to fill out the forms. Currently, 80% of the returned applications have been reviewed and a decision has been made as to eligibility. 85% of the people who have gone through this process are eligible for paratransit service. Only 34 people out of the 680 applicants already reviewed were deemed ineligible. Ms. Sittner has personally reviewed each rejected applicant and found 47%of those deemed ineligible can use the fixed-route system without any issues, 40%indicated on their applications they were not disabled, and 13% of the applicants had their health care professional indicate that,while they had a disability, it did not keep them from using the fixed-route bus system. There had also been many questions regarding the appeals process. Dial-A-Ride has had an appeals process in place for a long time and continues to use that process. If someone applies for an appeal, a panel of advocates and passengers, not staff, serves as the appeal committee. An ADA specialist with Easter Seals has been hired to attend the appeals process and to be a resource to the appeals committee. An appeal can be filed by anyone found ineligible or conditionally eligible,which means they have a disability that allows them to use the fixed-route system but there are times when they cannot. There have been 34 people deemed ineligible and 68 people deemed conditionally ineligible who have the ability to file an appeal. Only 5 requests have been received for an appeal. Councilmember Brown asked if the appeals were being handled as they were filed or was there a certain date all appeals would be heard. Sittner stated the plan was to have all 5 appeals heard on the same day, but the date has not yet been set. Councilmember Brown asked about the monthly task force meeting and progress made with that group. Sitmer stated the task force is made up of staff from the City and County, United Way and other private and nonprofit groups.The task force is looking for solutions to fill the gaps created by the change in service. The main focus is how to provide service to those who may not be eligible for Dial-A-Ride service. Jackson stated Council had given direction to staff to convene this task force to approach the problem from a regional standpoint and progress is being made, some key short-term steps have been identified and ways that the faith-based community, United Way and other organizations can fill some of the gaps until broader, long-term solutions are found. 328 May 1, 2007 Mayor Hutchinson asked how Fort Collins' level of service for Dial-A-Ride compares to other communities. Sittner stated last year, when the process to change Dial-A-Ride began, a peer comparison was done with other cities in Colorado and, at that time, Fort Collins was providing a much higher level of service than sister cities. Denver,Boulder,Colorado Springs,and Pueblo were doing only the ADA mandated levels, which is the level at which the City is now operating. Staff also looked at 65 other systems across the nation and those who were doing more than ADA mandates were not doing as much as Fort Collins. Many of those cities were doing just the ADA mandated levels. Mayor Hutchinson asked if the grandfathering of those outside the city limits was going beyond the ADA minimums. Sittner replied in the affirmative. There were 84 people who lived outside the service area who had been using Dial-A-Ride. Those people were grandfathered into the Dial-A- Ride system, if they met the ADA criteria. There have been 28 people who chose not to apply for Dial-A-Ride services and 56 who have applied for the service, of which 93% are eligible. Only 2 people were not eligible and 2 others are still having their applications processed. Mayor Hutchinson asked if an applicant who appealed a decision would continue to receive service until the appeal was heard. Sittner stated the ADA does not require that service be continued while the appeal was pending as long as the appeal is handled in a timely manner. Staff notifies those who are found ineligible and informs them their service will be discontinued after two weeks, to give them an amount of time to set up other alternative transportation. The service is not provided again until the appeal is heard, if the appeal is heard within 30 days. ADA states if the appeal is not heard within 30 days, then the applicant is entitled to the service. Councilmember Roy asked how many of those going through the recertification process have a legal guardian. Sittner did not have that information on hand. Councilmember Roy stated there seemed to be a gap where someone who has a legal guardian who depends on Dial-A-Ride service,but, for a number of reasons,is unable to fill out the forms and was concerned people would become ineligible simply because they couldn't return a form in time. Sittner stated the form had a place to indicate that someone else was filling out the application for the applicant and some of the forms returned had been completed by a legal guardian. In addition to sending out the recertification forms in January with a return date in February, if staff had not heard from clients, the clients were called. If the clients could not be reached, then the emergency contact provided to Dial-A-Ride,usually the legal guardian, was called to find out if the client had received the form and if any assistance was needed to complete the form. Councilmember Roy asked if all the second contacts had responded. Sittner stated that was correct. Many forms received were completed by a legal guardian, not the applicant, but the exact number was not readily available. Councilmember Roy asked for staff to provide the number of applications completed by legal guardians. Sittner stated four full-time temporary staff had been hired to track the applications and do follow-up phone calls. One full-time staff was dedicated to this process. They did keep a log of who was called, the date called and what the response was. 329 May 1, 2007 Councilmember Ohlson asked for a summary of the statistics presented. Mayor Hutchinson thanked staff for its extraordinary efforts during this challenging time. Councilmember Reports Mayor Hutchinson attended the Executive Board Meeting of the Colorado Municipal League. He spoke with the Executive Director about Urban Renewal Authority issues. The Colorado Municipal League has asked Aaron Goff, senior staff attorney, to form a group of interested persons this summer to review the Urban Renewal statutes and to discuss some of the ongoing issues. Items Relating to Making Board and Commission Liaison Assignments and Various Committee, Board and Authority Appointments,Adopted. The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Resolution 2007-041 Making Board and Commission Liaison Assignments and Various Committee, Board, and Authority Appointments. B. Resolution 2007-042 Making an Appointment to the Fort Collins Housing Authority Board of Commissioners. C. Resolution 200 7-043 Approving and Endorsing the Appointment ofa Councilmember to the Lorimer County Fair Board. D. Resolution 200 7-044 Appointing a Representative to the Colorado MunicipalLeague Policy Committee. Following the Council organizational meeting in April of odd-numbered years, Councilmembers decide which ofthe various board and commission liaison assignments and committee appointments are of interest to them as individuals. At the recent City Council Retreat (April 20-21) Councilmembers discussed liaison and committee assignments. For thepurpose ofdiscussion at this meeting, a blank grid, as well as a grid showing the preliminary assignments, are attached. Each Resolution has been drafted to include the assignments preliminarily decided at the Council Retreat. Resolution 2006-089 appointed Ben Manvel as the City representative to the Larimer County Open Lands Advisory Board with a term to expire on June 30, 2009. Since CouncilmemberManvel wishes to remain as the City representative to this board and his present term has not expired, a separate Resolution has not been prepared. " City Clerk Krajicek stated a revised Resolution was provided, containing two changes. Councilmember Poppaw was now listed as the Art in Public Places liaison instead of 330 May 1, 2007 Councilmember Ohlson and a mark was placed in the grid to indicate Councilmember Manvel was the City representative to the Latimer County Open Lands Advisory Board. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution 2007-041. Yeas:Councilmembers Brown,Hutchinson,Manvel,Ohlson,Poppaw,Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Ohlson made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Troxell,to adopt Resolution 2007-042. Yeas:Councilmembers Brown,Hutchinson,Manvel,Ohlson,Poppaw,Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Brown made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to adopt Resolution 2007-043. Yeas:Councilmembers Brown,Hutchinson,Manvel,Ohlson,Poppaw,Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Poppaw made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Troxell,to adopt Resolution 2007-044. Yeas:Councilmembers Brown,Hutchinson,Manvel,Ohlson,Poppaw,Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 061, 2007, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Transit Services Fund for Use with Existing Appropriations for the Purpose of Providing Programming Aimed at Relieving Urban Congestion Adopted on First Reading The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "FINANCIAL IMPACT The total cost of the three new projects is $337,391 ($249,883 in Federal Funds and$87,508 in local matching funds). However, staff is only requesting the appropriation of$233,710 in this Ordinance. A portion($16,173)ofthe federal funds has already been allocated/appropriated in the Bicycle Coordinator Program through the annual budgetingprocess. No additional local matching funds are required as the City's share is being met from matching funds from the General Fund in the Bicycle Coordinator Program - $42,840 and a reallocation of General Fund resources in the Transit Services Fund - $44,668. Federal funding will come from the Federal Highway Administration's CMAQ Program, administered through CDOT and will replace a previous 2007 331 May 1, 2007 commitment to assist in funding the City's now-reduced Transportation Demand Program. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City offort Collins has received Congestion,Mitigation&Air Quality(CMAQ)fundingtofund three air quality related projects in 2007. This funding is a reallocation of a portion of the 2007 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program —funds not currently required due to the reduction in scope of the TDM Program. The revised CMAQ funding will aid in funding three projects which are: The Bicycle Coordinator Program(FCBikes)-an existing Program thatseeks to encourage citizens to utilize bicycling as their preferred method ofsensible transportation through the implementation ofspecial events and campaigns that emulate the many facets ofbicycling, • Transfort Test Ride Marketing Program-a new marketing campaign to promote transit use among the City's largest employers, and • Marketing for Transfort's three new routes - a campaign aimed at increasing public awareness of the new transit fixed routes available in 2007. BACKGROUND The primary goal ofthe Congestion,Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ), operated by the Federal Highway Administration, is to relieve urban congestion. As such, the City, with guidance from the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT)decided the Transit Marketing programs and the Bicycle Coordinator Program would be eligible for CMAQ funding. Due to the reduction in scope of the City's Transportation Demand Management Program, the original 2007 TDM CMAQ funding has been reallocated at a lesser rate to the above mentioned projects. This reallocation would not have occurred had it not been for the support and approval of the North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Council in passing two separate resolutions amending the Transportation Improvement Program ('TIP)—the first to deprogram the original TDMfunds and the second to reallocate funds to the new projects. This ordinance appropriates unanticipated revenue from CMAQ in the amount of$233,710. The required local match and remaining project costs are being met from existing appropriations. The Bicycle Coordinator Program has an existing General Fund overmatch sufficient to cover its portion of the local match requirement. The local match requirement for the two new Marketing Programs is being met by a reallocation of General Fund from other Transit Fund 404 Program sources. " Councilmember Troxell stated one of the top five items heard during his campaign was funding for transportation, providing service for seniors and service for CSU students. He asked about the priority of the three items listed for additional funding. Mark Jackson, Director of Transportation, stated the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant funding has very specific parameters for the projects eligible for these funds. They must be projects that can produce a palpable increase in air quality. Dial-A-Ride or roadway expansion do not fit the requirements for this funding. The 2006-2007 budget eliminated SmartTrips Demand Management Program,which 332 May 1, 2007 was funded entirely by CMAQ funds. When SmartTrips was eliminated,CDOT wanted the CMAQ funds returned. City staffpetitioned CDOT for permission to use the funds for other programs which had incorporated elements of the SmartTrips program. The three projects listed fit the requirements for CDOT to allow the City to continue to use the CMAQ funds and CDOT has agreed to allow the City to use the funds for these specific projects. Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel,to adopt Ordinance No. 061, 2007. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 062, 2007, Amending Chapter 26 Article IV of the City Code to Revise Wastewater Pretreatment Program Requirements Adopted on First Reading. The following is staffs memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed modifications pertain to the following wastewater industrial discharge provisions of the City Code: • Section 26-206 Definitions Grab Sample—As directed by the EPA, the definition will be updated to be consistent with the EPA definition. This modification will be more restrictive as a time limitation will be specified where one did not previously exist. Zero-Discharge -A definition ofzero-discharge permit will be added to Code. RV Wastewater-A definition of RV wastewater will be added to Code. • Section 26-318 Sampling and analysis As recommended by the EPA, the required period of records retention for industrial pretreatment will be changed from three to five years. Section 26-343 Discharge limitations Language will be added to provide the General Manager with authority to request records from dental practices and obsolete language concerning date ofinercuryprogram initiation will also be deleted. This modification does not increase requirements on dental offices but does clarify the General Manager's authority. • Sections 26-308 and 26-309 The Code will be modified to state that, when applicable, a zero-discharge permit may be issued as the result ofan industrial dischargepermit application. The modification does not increase or relax existing permit application requirements. 333 May 1, 2007 The United States Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)has given approval for the modifications and completed a thirty day public notification process for them. BACKGROUND Section 26-206 Definitions: Grab Sample —As directed by the EPA, the definition has been updated to be consistent with the EPA definition. The EPA definition specifies a time limitation of fifteen (15) minutes or less for collection ofa grab sample. This time limitation will be added in the proposed modification. The definition currently in City Code does not specify a time limitation. Language will also be added clarifying that a grab sample is an individual sample. This modification will be more restrictive as a time limitation will be specified where one did not previously exist. Zero-Discharge-A definition ofzero-discharge permit has been added to Code and language added to the Pretreatment definition to include zero-discharge as a potential pretreatment or treatment requirement. The legal authority to issue a permit prohibiting any discharge from a particular industrial process will enable the City to verify and enforce zero-discharge requirements when applicable. A zero-discharge permit would be appropriate in a situation where an industry elects to recycle process wastewater or has the wastewater taken offsite for treatment instead of discharging the wastewater to the sanitary sewer. In certain situations the City could find it necessary to require zero-discharge of a toxic process waste. This modification will provide a mechanism to regulate these types of industrial wastewater. It will provide a more direct means to address these types of wastewater but will not result in existing policy becoming more or less restrictive. RV Wastewater - The City was directed by EPA in December 2004 to regulate commercial RV wastewater dump sites. The City began issuing discharge permits to RV dump sites in 2005. Existing City Code does not provide a definition of RV wastewater. This modification will add a definition ofRV wastewater. In order to avoid possible confusion, the septage waste definition will be modified to clarify that the City does not define RV wastewater to be septage waste. Section 26-308Industrial discharge permit application and Section 26-309 Existing industrial discharge user discharge permit application In order to provide legal authority for issuing zero-discharge permits, the Code will be modified to state that, when applicable, a zero-discharge permit may be issued as the result of an industrial discharge permit application submitted from either a new or existing industrial user. A permit application is required when a new industrial discharge permit is issued or when an existing permit is renewed. This modification adds language that includes zero-discharge permits with the existing requirements for dischargepermit application. The modification does not increase 334 May 1, 2007 or relax existing permit application requirements. Section 26-318 Sampling and analysis The required period of records retention has been changed from three to five years in order to be in agreement with EPA biosolids records retention requirements. Section 26-343 Discharge limitations Modifications will be made to the code language regulating mercury discharge from dental offices. Obsolete language concerning date ofprogram initiation has been deleted. Language will be added to allow disposal ofdental amalgam waste as hazardous waste. Existing Code limits amalgam waste disposal to recycling of the waste. This modification relaxes requirements as it provides an additional means to dispose of waste amalgam. A modification will be added to provide the General Manager with authority to request records regarding installation and operation of equipment, or the purchase, use, storage, recycling or disposal of dental amalgam if the records are related to compliance enforcement of the dental mercury control program. This modification does not increase requirements on dental offices but does clarify the General Manager's authority to request records pertaining to existing requirements. " Councilmember Troxell asked what problem is being addressed by the discharge limitations on what dentists can put into the system, leading to the zero discharge change. Steve Comstock, Water Reclamation/Biosolids Manager, stated the program for mercury was not related to the zero discharge. The zero discharge is a program directed at industries in the community that have potential to cause damage to the systems, but don't actually connect to city systems. An example would be a dry cleaning business. The mercury program was started 1 1/2 years ago and has not been made into a stricter program but actually gives dentists a couple of different ways to dispose of amalgam as opposed to the more restrictive language currently in the Code. Councilmember Troxell stated the code change relating to the amalgam issue would require a removal efficiency of 95%. He requested information on current removal efficiency. Comstock stated dentists were required to use technology at their offices to produce the removal efficiency of 95%. The dentists maintain the equipment and City staff will do periodic inspections of the equipment. Councilmember Troxell questioned why the Code change dealing specifically with dentists was included under wastewater instead of another area. Comstock stated the wastewater program includes the industrial pretreatment program which is a federally mandated program. The idea is to protect the wastewater treatment facilities and the environment and attempting to keep substances out of the wastewater treatment facilities that cannot be handled there. Councilmember Troxell asked how severe was the problem of mercury from amalgams from dental offices as dental practices have changed significantly. Comstock stated improvements have occurred 335 May 1, 2007 as the technology has improved and there has been a decrease in the in-front loadings. Mercury is now detected down to extremely low levels and is toxic at very low levels. Councilmember Troxell asked if the change of record retention time from 3 years to 5 years was an EPA requirement. Comstock answered in the affirmative. The pretreatment program goes through an annual audit and the EPA goes through the program with staff and reviews changes from the EPA and how they relate to the City's pretreatment program. Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Manvel,to adopt Ordinance No. 062,2007. Yeas:Councilmembers Brown,Hutchinson,Manvel,Ohlson,Poppaw,Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 064, 2007, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Agreement to Finance Vehicles and Equipment Through Lease-Purchase Adopted on First Reading The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The cost of the items to be lease purchased is$1,070,000. Payments at the 4.26%interest rate will not exceed$119,367 in 2007. Money for 2007 lease purchase payments is included in the 2007 budget. The effect of the debt position for the purpose offinancial rating of the City will be to raise the total City debt by 0.22%. A competitive process was used to select Koch Financial Corporation for this lease. BACKGROUND This Ordinance authorizes the PurchasingAgent to enter into a lease purchasefinancingagreement with Koch Financial Corporation at 4.26%interest rate. The agreement is for an original term from the execution date of the agreement to the end of the current fiscal year. The agreement provides for renewable one-year terms thereafter, to a total term of five (5) years, subject to annual appropriation offunds needed for lease payments. The total lease terms, including the original and all renewal terms, will not exceed the useful life of the property. This lease purchase financing is consistent with the financial policies of the City of Fort Collins. All equipment shall be purchased following the City's purchasing ordinances and procedures to ensure that the City realizes all cost savings. The vehicles and equipment financed under the agreement will comply with applicable City policies, and will be in accordance with the goal of optimizing City resources without impacting service to the community. 336 May 1, 2007 An "Equipment Request"justifying the replacement of each vehicle or piece offleet equipment is on file with Fleet Services. The fleet manager has researched each request, and approved them based on current and projected maintenance costs,fuel economy, downtime, and relevant safety factors. Other equipment purchases have been approved in accordance with departmental procedures. Lease-Purchase The City's lease purchase policy provides that: The City of Fort Collins uses lease purchase for the provision of new and replacement equipment, vehicles and rolling stock in order to ensure the timely replacement ofequipment and vehicles. This method may also be used to acquire real property. Members of the management staff have developed an equipment needs schedule for rolling stock which encompasses the demands of operating departments. This schedule is used to project equipment needs for each budget year. The type of lease that the City uses is termed a conditional sales lease. With each rental payment the City builds equity and assumes risk in the asset over the term of the lease. The annual installments are subject to appropriation by the Council each year. Advantages of a lease purchase over a cash purchase are: • Decreasing the impact of inflation on the purchase of new and replacement equipment. Resolving the problem of capital replacement needs backlog. Conserving operating reserves. • Reducing the initial impact of the cost to user departments by enabling costs to be spread over the useful life of the equipment. • Safeguarding the opportunity to use cash assets to earn higher interest than the interest cost of lease purchasing. It should be noted that the City is able to discontinue the equipment leases so that future City Councils will have the option to continue or discontinue the policy of lease purchasing City equipment. According to Section 29-1-103 C.R.S., local governments are required to identify as part of their budgets: (1)the total expenditures during the ensuingfiscal year for all lease purchase agreements involving real and personal property; and(2) the total maximum payment liability under all lease purchase agreements over the entire terms of the agreements, including all optional renewal terms. Staff recognizes that the State does not include lease purchase in the legal definition of debt; however, rating agencies include lease purchases in calculating the City's debt burden. The proposed Ordinance authorizes the lease purchase financing of the following: 337 May 1, 2007 Line Department Qty Description Total Cost Term No. (yrs) I Traffic I Refurbish paint machine 126,372 5 2 Traffic I Retrorejlectometer 18,600 5 3 Collindale Golf I Toro Triplex 3150 Greens Mower 24,982 5 4 Collindale Golf I Express 3000 Reel Grinder 31,082 5 5 Collindale Golf I Express 3000Bedknife Grinder 13,866 5 6 SouthRidge 15 EZ-GO Golf Carts 29,340 5 7 SouthRidge 1 Toro504O Sand Rake 16,625 5 8 SouthRidge I MF 431 Utility Tractor 15,950 5 9 SouthRidge I Toro 3500D Mower(used) 13,000 5 10 SouthRidge I Metron Pumping System 114,030 5 I City Park Nine I Toro 3500D Mower 32,147 5 12 City Park Nine 1 Toro Workman 3200 Utility Vehicle 22,267 5 13 City Park Nine I Dakota 410 Top Dresser 13,866 5 14 Police Inv. 1 2007 Ford Expedition 29,719 5 15 Police Patrol 17 200 7 Dodge Durango 4wd 370,931 5 16 Police Patrol 1 2007 Ford F-250 4wd, crewcab 23,179 5 17 Police Patrol I Police equipment and installation 152,971 5 18 Police Inv. 1 2007 Dodge Durango 4 wd 21,073 5 Totals year Financing 1,070,000 The Operations Services Director has determined that the following units meet requirements for replacement of vehicles. Departments have appropriately justified the purchase of additional vehicles and equipment. Disposal of old Department Old unit. Age: Mileslhours: New unit u ose: unit: Notes: Meets CDOT Pavement marking standards for Traffic n/a Retrore ectometer n/a measurement Rebuild paint Large paint body to striping extend service Traffic truck n/a n/a n/a life 338 May 1, 2007 Disposal of old De artment Old unit: A e: Miles/hours: New unit ur ose: unit: Notes: Past Collindale expected Replacement bedknife Gol n/a 37 rs service life. grinder Auction Collindale Replacement reel Golf n/a 37 yrs grinder Auction One current triplex will be used for Collindale rolling and verticuting God n/a Triplex greens mower n/a greens. City Park Toro Groundsmaster Nine Golf Toro 3500D 7 -2800 hrs 3500D Auction City Park Toro Workman 3200 Nine Golf n/a n/a n/a -Utility Vehicle n/a Unit will mount on City Park Lely Dakota 410 Top- Toro Nine Golf spreader Worn out dresser Auction Workman SouthRidge 15 Club Car 5-7 Tradedin, Forrentalto Golf rental carts Yrs varies 2007 EZ-GO golf carts per bid the public SouthRidge Toro 5040 Sand Pro God n/a 9 yrs 3800 sand Lrgp rake Auction SouthRidge Used Toro 3500D Go l n/a mower n/a 2006 Massey SouthRidge Ferguson Utility Golf n/a Tractor n/a SouthRidge 20+ Original Gol n/a rs um s New Metron pumps n/a Per bid MENSMEMEM 4id3 Police Inv. wrecked ;Djurango o ;Auction Police Inv.SIU n/a edition Police Patrol 49 600 o Police Patrol 76 800 Police Patrol 2000 CV 7 65,900 Durango Pool Police Patrol 1997 CV 10 69 300 Durango Pool Police Patrol 2000 CV 7 77 200 Durango Auction Police Patrol 2000Impala 7 86 700 Durango Auction Police Patrol 1998 Blazer 9 55,100 Duran o Reassd n Police Patrol 2000 F-150 7 72,200 Duran o Auction Police Patrol 2000 Exp. 7 75 700 1 Durango Auction 339 May 1, 2007 Disposal of old Department Old unit: Age: Miles/hours: New unit purpose: unit: Notes: Police Patrol 1992 Sub. 15 80,800 Durango Auction Police Patrol 2001Impala 6 77,200 Durango Auction Police Patrol 2002 Tahoe 5 95,500 Durango Auction Police Patrol 1998 Blazer 9 50,000 Durango Reassign Police Patrol 2001 Tahoe 6 73 700 Durango Pool Additional Police Patro[ n/a n/a n/a 3 Duran os n/a units Additional Police Patrol n/a n/a n/a Ford F250 crewcab n/a unit Note on usage: Units will accumulate additional miles/hours between now and when replacement vehicles arrive. Councilmember Troxell asked ifincreasing the total City Debt by.22%would harm the City's bond rating and how does this increase affect the overall financial health of the City. City Manager Atteberry stated between First and Second Readings, the Finance Director would provide current bond ratings to the Council so the Council can see the City has an extremely high rating as a financially stable local government and also any concerns the Finance Director might have regarding the potential for this lease program to cause any detrimental impacts to the City's financial health. Councilmember Troxell made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Poppaw,to adopt Ordinance No. 064, 2007. Councilmember Ohlson thanked management and staff for improving the process of lease-purchase so that vehicles are used longer and for more miles to get the best value and for providing all the details of the leases. City Manager Atteberry stated the process now had more accountability and transparency. The process for developing the 2008-2009 budget will include consolidating the management of fleet facilities and IT assets. These are small line items on many budgets throughout the organization and consolidating them into a more centralized management will provide greater accountability and provide opportunity for standardizing, when appropriate. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Councilmember Ohlson congratulated the Poudre High School Science Bowl team which went undefeated at the National Science Bowl in Washington, D.C. and was received by the President at the White House. This was a wonderful achievement in a very competitive arena. 340 May 1, 2007 Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 341 May 15, 2007 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, May 15, 2007, 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,Manvel,Ohlson,Poppaw,Roy,and Troxell. Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy. Citizen Participation Bob Viscount, 1104 West Magnolia,spoke regarding Vivian Armendariz's difficulties in receiving certification to use Dial-A-Ride services. An appeal hearing regarding Ms.Armendariz's conditional certification was held on May 8th where she was informed that her certification had been changed from conditional to unconditional when she uses her manual wheelchair, not her electric one. No formal record was kept of the appeal hearing and Ms.Armendariz was informed there was no other appeal left to her. He urged Council to again review the certification process. The following persons spoke in support of a Resolution urging withdrawal of U.S.troops from Iraq: Eric Fried, 4255 Kingsbury Drive Jonathan Taylor, 3630 Capital Drive Bill Timpson, 331 Park Street Don Heyse, 1842 Corriedale Ken Tharp, 601 Birky Place Joe Kissell, 913 West Oak Lynne Hull, 510 Whedbee Eliza Carney, 2215 Shooting Star Lane Mary Ackerman, 327 Mathews Delores Williams, 415 Mason Court Zach Heath, 408 1/2 East Elizabeth Marla Swan, 824 Mathews Frank Gibson, 826 Ashford Lane Joe Stern, 421 South Howes Steve Raymer, 806 Whedbee, Pastor of the Mennonite Fellowship of Fort Collins Colleen Devi-Goetz, 417 East Thunderbird Cheryl Distaso, 135 South Sunset Maury Albertson, 604 Monte Vista Nancy York, 130 S. Whitcomb Joel Nevison, 1219 Mountain Debra Stockholm, Fort Collins resident 1 May 1 S, 2007 Larry Bruns,444 Huntington Hills Drive, spoke against adoption of a Resolution urging withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Caryl Schonbrun, 6327 Westchase Road, thanked City Manager Atteberry and Mayor Hutchinson for advocating for her on the issue of her chemical sensitivities and herbicide spraying in her neighborhood and asked for greater awareness of the wide-spread use of herbicides and the effects on the health of the community. Susan Williams,400 Impala Circle,asked Council to consider providing more Dial-A-Ride services as it is an essential service provided to many in the community. Nancy Jackson, 3249 Silverthorne Drive,Director of Disabled Resource Services,stated the month of May has been proclaimed by Governor Ritter as Multiple Chemical Sensitivity and Toxic Injury Awareness Month. Steve Frawley, 1217 South Bryan, spoke regarding Dial-A-Ride certification concerns and the difficulties he encountered during the certification process. Citizen Participation Follow-up Mayor Hutchinson stated it was not appropriate for Council to consider a Resolution urging withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Each citizen has a U.S. Representative or Senator who is responsible for issues such as this. In contrast,Council is a non-partisan organization that represents citizens on City issues and acts to govern Fort Collins. Councilmembers are evaluated by citizens on their knowledge and positions on local issues, not national issues. Diverting Council time to debate a national issue, such as the war in Iraq,lessens the amount of time Council has to delve into local issues. Councilmember Roy stated Council had,in the past,discussed national issues and it was appropriate for this Resolution to be considered. Councilmember Manvel stated Council's vote on a Resolution will not help to solve the issue of the war in Iraq and the appropriate step was for each citizen to write his/her national representatives to express his/her opinions. It was not appropriate for Council to address this issue. Councilmember Ohlson stated his concerns that the Dial-A-Ride certification process had become too severe and was excluding too many people. He had concerns with the methods of pesticide applications and questioned whether it was a Code violation when pesticides were applied when small children were in close proximity to the area being treated. The war in Iraq is a partisan issue and Council is a non-partisan entity. Discussing the war in Iraq is a very partisan issue and the Resolution was not appropriate for Council to consider. Mayor Hutchinson stated Dial-A-Ride does go beyond ADA minimums. Users who lived outside City limits were "grandfathered" in to provide service they were receiving and requested a staff report on the current certification process. 2 May 15, 2007 Councilmember Brown stated it was important to recognize the sacrifices by military personnel both past and present and to honor them. Agenda Review City Manager Atteberry recommended postponement of Item#7 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 062, 2007, Amending Chapter 26 Article IV of the City Code to Revise Wastewater Pretreatment Program Requirements, for staff to respond to questions that have been raised. CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 061, 2007,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Transit Services Fund for Use with Existing_Appropriations for the Purpose of Providing Programming Aimed at Relieving Urban Congestion. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 1, 2007, appropriates funding the City has received from Congestion, Mitigation&Air Quality(CMAQ) to fund three air quality related projects in 2007. This funding is a reallocation of a portion of the 2007 Transportation Demand Management(TDM) Program—funds not currently required due to the reduction in scope of the TDM Program. The revised CMAQ funding will aid in funding three projects which are: • The Bicycle Coordinator Program (FC Bikes) - an existing Program that seeks to encourage citizens to utilize bicycling as their preferred method of sensible transportation through the implementation of special events and campaigns that emulate the many facets of bicycling, • Transfort Test Ride Marketing Program - a new marketing campaign to promote transit use among the City's largest employers, and • Marketing for Transfort's three new routes-a campaign aimed at increasing public awareness of the new transit fixed routes available in 2007. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 062, 2007 Amending Chapter 26 Article IV of the City Code to Revise Wastewater Pretreatment Program Requirements. This Ordinance changes City Code provisions in order to provide specific City Code support for two programs currently in place, one new issue and some definition changes to align the Code with current EPA language. The regulating of mercury waste into the wastewater system,and the regulating of RV waste discharged into the wastewater system are programs that are currently in place.The proposed zero discharge changes are an outcome of the annual EPA Industrial Pretreatment Program audit during which the EPA recommended the use of zero discharge permits to monitor certain businesses and directed the City to update some definitions. Ordinance No. 062, 2007, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 1, 2007 modifies 3 May 15, 2007 the following wastewater industrial discharge provisions of the City Code: • Section 26-206 Definitions Grab Sample — As directed by the EPA, the definition will be updated to be consistent with the EPA definition. This modification will be more restrictive as a time limitation will be specified where one did not previously exist. Zero-Discharge - A definition of zero-discharge permit will be added to Code. RV Wastewater-A definition of RV wastewater will be added to Code. • Section 26-318 Sampling and analysis As recommended by the EPA, the required period of records retention for industrial pretreatment will be changed from three to five years. Section 26-343 Discharge limitations Language will be added to provide the General Manager with authority to request records from dental practices and obsolete language concerning date of mercury program initiation will also be deleted. This modification does not increase requirements on dental offices but does clarify the General Manager's authority. This modification also provides a second disposal option for dentists that is not currently available. It allows amalgam waste to be disposed of at licenced hazardous waste facilities provided it has been labeled appropriately. Existing Code limits amalgam waste disposal to recycling facilities. • Sections 26-308 and 26-309 Code will be modified to state that,when applicable,a zero-discharge permit maybe issued as the result of an industrial discharge permit application. The City Code modification provides support for existing permit application requirements. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No 063 2007 Amending Certain Sections in Chanter 7 of the Crtv Code Relating to the Board of Elections This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 1, 2007, amends the City Code to conform the Code to the City Charter, as amended by the voters on April 3, 2007, and to accurately reflect the duties of the Board of Elections. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No 064 2007 Authorizing the Purchasing_Agent to Enter into an Agreement to Finance Vehicles and Equipment Through Lease Purchase This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 1, 2007, authorizes the Purchasing Agent to enter into a lease-purchase financing agreement with Koch Financial Corporation at 4.26% interest rate. The cost of the items to be lease-purchased is $1,070,000. Payments at the 4.26%interest rate will not exceed$119,367 in 2007. Money for 2007 lease-purchase payments is included in the 2007 budget. The effect of the debt position for the purpose of financial rating of the City will be to raise the total City debt by 0.22%. A competitive process was used to select Koch Financial Corporation for this lease. 4 May 15, 2007 10. First Reading of Ordinance No.065.2007.Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Cultural Development and Programming Activities and the Fort Collins Convention and Visitor's Bureau. This Ordinance appropriates lodging tax revenues that were in excess of 2006 budgeted lodging tax receipts to Cultural Development and Programming ("CDP"), Visitor Events, and the Convention and Visitors Bureau("CVB") accounts. Lodging tax revenue for 2006 was estimated to be$610,521 and the 2006 budget appropriated an equal amount. However, actual receipts totaled $841,586 for 2006 and the difference of $231,065 has not been appropriated. 11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 066, 2007, Appropriating Proceeds from the Refunding Certificates of Participation("COPs"). Series 2007 Representing Assignments of the Right to Receive Certain Revenues Pursuant to an Amended and Restated Lease Agreement dated as of May 1. 2007, Between the Fort Collins Leasing CoMoration and the City of Fort Collins for the Purpose of Refundin the he 1998 and 1999 COPS and for Costs of Issuance of the 2007 Refunding COPS. The Finance Department monitors the interest rate environment for opportunities to refinance the City's debt and achieve savings for the organization. This Ordinance would appropriate in the Fort Collins Leasing Corporation Debt Service Fund, $14,595,000 of proceeds from the 2007 Refunding COPS issued for the purpose of refunding the 1998 and 1999 Certificates of Participation that were originally issued for the construction of the City's Mason Street Parking Structure,the 215 North Mason Office Building and an off-site Police Facility and the payment of costs associated with the 2007 refunding transaction. This refunding resulted in$997,419 in savings to the City over the next 11 years. The refunding was also structured to realize $759,907 of those savings in fiscal year 2007. 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 067, 2007, Amending Section 2-462 of the City Code to Allow for Inclusion of a Member of the Larimer County Board of Commissioners on the Board of Directors of the Downtown Development Authority. This Ordinance amends the City Code to increase the number of members on the Downtown Development Authority Board of Directors from nine to eleven, and designates that one of the additional seats will be occupied by a member of the Larimer County Board of Commissioners. 13. Items Relating to the North College Avenue Improvements Project. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 068, 2007, Authorizing the Conveyance of Two Parcels of Real Property on North College Avenue to the Department of Transportation, State of Colorado. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 069,2007, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Parcel 5 May 15, 2007 of Real Property at North College Avenue and Willow Street to the Adjacent Property Owner. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 070,2007,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Neighborhood Parkland Fund To Record the Transfer of Real Property from the Neighborhood Parkland Fund to the Capital Project Fund - North College Avenue Improvements Project. In 2003,the City completed the North College Avenue Improvements Project. This Project included improvements to paving, sidewalks,pedestrian lighting, crosswalks, and drainage in the area between North College Avenue and Jefferson Street. These Ordinances will complete the final transactions needed for this project. 14. First Reading of Ordinance No.071,2007,Vacating a Portion of Right-of-way as Dedicated on the Plat of Rigden Farm Filina One, The Rigden Farm development site is located south of Drake Road,east of Timberline Road and west of Ziegler Road. As a part of Rigden Farm, Filing One, it was anticipated that an unnamed street would extend westerly beyond Kansas Drive between Custer Drive and Limon Drive. The street stub for this anticipated street was dedicated with Rigden Farm, Filing One. Rigden Farm, Twelfth Filing Brooklyn Park Row Houses for which an Administrative Hearing was held on February 12,2007 shows that the street stub is no longer needed and will be removed. Therefore, the right-of-way for the street stub is no longer necessary and is proposed for vacation at this time. 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 076, 2007, Authorizing the Lease of Property at the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal AiMort to Alliance Equipment Company. RLLLP, for the Storage of Construction Equipment and Supplies. Alliance Equipment Company, LLC, wishes to lease two acres of Airport property for outdoor storage of construction equipment and supplies. Alliance has been leasing the same Airport property for the last three years; this is a new lease for the same area. The Agreement is for a five-year period, beginning July 1, 2007. The new ground lease is $.10 per square foot per year; increased from $.06 per square foot per year. The rental rate is adjusted annually by the CPI. As additional rental Alliance is required to construct an 800 foot length of chain link security fence along the east side of the leased parcel. The lease contains adequate restrictions to prevent any incompatible land use related to Airport operations. The Agreement will provide a continuation of this revenue source for the Airport. Because of its length,the lease document is on file with the City Clerk's Office and a copy will be provided upon request. 16. Resolution 2007-045 Approving the Second Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Joint Operation of the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport Adoption of this Resolution changes the composition of the Airport Steering Committee 6 May 15, 2007 from six members (two City Mayors, two City Managers, the Airport Manager and the Airport Liaison) to four members (two City Mayors and the two City Managers) and adds a liaison for each City to be appointed by the respective City Manager. 17. Resolution 2007-046 Approving the Refurbishment of Equipment for Traffic Operations as an Exception to the Competitive Procurement Process This Resolution will authorize the purchase of materials, equipment and services needed to repair and refurbish the TMT paint striper as an exemption to the use of competitive bid or proposal as provided in Section 8-161(d). 18. Resolution 2007-047 Approving Expenditures from the Art in Public Places Reserve Account in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund to Commission an Artist to Create an Art Element for the Streets Facility Project This Resolution approves expenditures of$24,000 for design, materials, installation and contingency for a project with the artist team of Tim Upham and Lisa Cameron to create a sculptural element for the Streets Facility Project. 19. Resolution 2007-048 Adoptina the Recommendations of the Cultural Resources Board Regarding Fort Fund Disbursements The guidelines for the Cultural Development and Programming and Tourism Programming accounts (Fort Fund), adopted and approved through the City Manager's office, created a three-tiered funding system for organizations that apply for grants from Fort Fund. Tier#1 was established as an annual programming fund for organizations whose primary purpose is to present three or more public events annually. These groups may apply for funding from Tier#1 each April. Tier#2 allows organizations that are not eligible for Tier#1 support to apply for funding of events that are not fund-raising in nature and do not generate more than $5,000 in proceeds after expenses. Tier#3 allows organizations that are not eligible for Tier #1 support to apply for funding of events that generate more than $5,000 in proceeds after expenses and are fund-raising in nature. Applications for support from Tier#2 and Tier#3 are accepted each January and June. 20. Resolution 2007-049 Adopting a 401 A Money Purchase Retirement Plan and a 457 Deferred Compensation Plan for the City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge Adoption of this Resolution creates a separate 401A money purchase and a separate 457 deferred compensation plan for the City Council's direct employees (City Manager, City Attorney, and Municipal Judge), so that they can be more efficiently administered. The Resolution also provides for some ICMA-RC recommended amendments to the plans to increase flexibility as permitted by changes in the tax code. The Employer Contribution on behalf of the Council Employee does not change with the adoption of these two separate plans. 7 May 15, 2007 ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 061, 2007,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Transit Services Fund for Use with Existing Appropriations for the Purpose of Providing Programming Aimed at Relieving Urban Congestion. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 063, 2007, Amending Certain Sections in Chapter 7 of the City Code Relating to the Board of Elections. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No.064,2007,Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Agreement to Finance Vehicles and Equipment Through Lease-Purchase. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 10. First Reading of Ordinance No.065,2007,Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Cultural Development and Programming Activities and the Fort Collins Convention and Visitor's Bureau. 11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 066, 2007, Appropriating Proceeds from the Refunding Certificates of Participation("COPs"), Series 2007 Representing Assignments of the Right to Receive Certain Revenues Pursuant to an Amended and Restated Lease Agreement dated as of May 1, 2007, Between the Fort Collins Leasing Corporation and the City of Fort Collins for the Purpose of Refunding the 1998 and 1999 COPs and for Costs of Issuance of the 2007 Refunding COPs. 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 067, 2007, Amending Section 2-462 of the City Code to Allow for Inclusion of a Member of the Larimer County Board of Commissioners on the Board of Directors of the Downtown Development Authority. 13. Items Relating to the North College Avenue Improvements Project. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 068, 2007, Authorizing the Conveyance of Two Parcels of Real Property on North College Avenue to the Department of Transportation, State of Colorado. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 069, 2007,Authorizing the Conveyance of a Parcel of Real Property at North College Avenue and Willow Street to the Adjacent Property Owner. C. First Reading of Ordinance No.070,2007,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Neighborhood Parkland Fund To Record the Transfer of Real Property from the Neighborhood Parkland Fund to the Capital Project Fund - North College Avenue Improvements Project. 8 May 15, 2007 14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 071,2007,Vacating a Portion of Right-of-way as Dedicated on the Plat of Rigden Farm Filing One. 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 076, 2007, Authorizing the Lease of Property at the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport to Alliance Equipment Company, RLLLP, for the Storage of Construction Equipment and Supplies. 24. Items Relating to the Completion of the Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process for Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing and Community Development Activities Utilizing the Federal Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)Program and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) Program Grants, and the City's Human Services Program. C. First Readingof OrdinanceNo.072,2007,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Projects in the Community Development Block Grant Program. D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 073,2007,Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the HOME Investment Partnership Program. 26. First Reading of Ordinance No. 074, 2007, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue Designated for Library Improvements in the Capital Improvement Expansion Fund and Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Transfer to the City's Capital Projects Fund to Construct a Southeast Branch Library. 28. First Reading of Ordinance No. 075,2007, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue from the Fort Collins Regional Library District for Continuation of Library Services for Fiscal Year 2007. Councilmember Manvel made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Ohlson,to adopt and approve all items not postponed on the Consent Calendar and to consider Item #7 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 062, 2007, Amending Chapter 16 Article IV of the City Code to Revise Wastewater Pretreatment Program Requirements on June 5th. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Staff Reports City Manager Atteberry stated the Bike Fair,held in late April at the Downtown Transit Center,had over 500 members of the community attend. He thanked D.K. Kemp, Bicycle Coordinator, for his work both on the Fair and in managing the Bike Ride Program. 9 May 15, 2007 Councilmember Reports Councilmember Poppaw thanked staff for its support. Items Relating to the Completion of the Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process for Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing and Community Development Activities Utilizing the Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) Program Grants, and the City's Human Services Program. Adopted on First Reading. The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "FINANCIAL IMPACT The Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)Program and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME)Program provide Federal funds from the Department ofHousing and Urban Development (HUD) to the City of Fort Collins which can be allocated to housing and community development related programs and projects, thereby, reducing the demand on the City's General Fund Budget to address such needs. City funds for this item have been appropriated as part of the Human Services Program in December 2006 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Resolution 2007-050 Approving the Programs and Projects that Will Receive Funds from the Federal Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)Program and the City's Human Services Program. B. Resolution 2007-051 Approving the Fiscal Year 2007 HOME Investment Partnerships For the City. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2007, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing the Transfer ofAppropriations Between Projects in the Community Development Block Grant Program. D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 073, 2007, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the HOME Investment Partnership Program. These resolutions and ordinances will complete the spring cycle of the competitive process for allocating City financial resources (CDBG/HOME/Human Services funds) to affordable housing programs/projects and community development activities. BACKGROUND Resolution 2007-050 establishes which programs and projects will receive funding with CDBG 10 May 15, 2007 funds for the FY 2007 Program year, which starts on October 1, 2007, and which programs will receive funds from the City's Human Services Program. The CDBG Commission presents a list of recommendations as to which programs and projects should receive funding. Resolution 2007-051 establishes the major funding categories within the HOME Program for the FY 2007 Program year, which also starts on October 1, 2007. Specific projects for the use of HOMEfunds will be determined in November as a result of the fall funding cycle of the competitive process for the allocation ofthe City's financial resources to affordable housingprograms/projects and community development activities. The following table summarizes the amount and sources of available funds: AMOUNT SOURCE $1,034,986 FY 2007 CDBG Entitlement Grant 18,500 CDBG Program Income 37,958 CDBG Re ro rammed/Un ro rammed Car over 64,000 Y-2007 HOME Grant or Administration 335,000 Human Services Program $1 490 444 1 Total Funding Available The CDBG Commission presents recommendations as to which programs and projects should receive funding from the available funding sources presented above. The following tables present the allocations recommended by the Commission to the City Council within each major category: PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION Applicant Funding Commission's Unfunded Project/Program Request Recommendation Balance PA-I City of Fort Collins $64,000 $64,000 $0 HOME Administration PA-2 City of Fort Collins $210,697 $210,697 $0 CDBG Administration The CDBG FY 2007 Entitlement Grant and Program Income totals$1,053,486. HUD regulations limit a maximum of20%ofthesefundsfor Planning andAdministrativepurposes, or$210,697. The recommended amount of$210,697 represents all of the maximum 20% allowed. The amount of CDBG funds being proposed for administrative purposes for FY2007 is$1,609 less than the amount used in FY2006. The high percentage for administrative purposes is due to a $2,772 reduction in the City's FY 2007 Entitlement Grant amount. The HOME FY 2007 Grant totals $640,931. HUD regulations limit a maximum of IO%for Administrative purposes, or$64,093. 11 May 15, 2007 AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PUBLIC FACILITIES Applicant Funding Commission's Unfunded Project/Program Request Recommendation Balance HO-1 City of Fort Collins— $200,000 $200,000 $0 Home Buyer Assistance HO-2 Fort Collins Housing $81,923 $81,923 $0 Corporation—366 E. Mountain Avenue Rehabilitation 110-3 CARE Housing— $200,000 Withdrawn by N/A Provincetowne Phase I Applicant Development PS-4 Habitatfor Humanity $50,000 $50,000 $0 —Land Acquisition HO-5 Neighbor to Neighbor $35,700 $35,700 $0 —Energy Conservation Rehabilitation for Ponderosa, Clearview, and Crabtree Properties PF-1 City of Fort Collins, $22,164 $22,164 $0 on Behalf of River Song Waldorf School—906 E. Stuart Street Building Upgrades PF-2 City of Fort Collins, $20,000 $20,000 $0 on Behalf of Foothills Gateway—400 Woods Street BackVard Accessibility All funding recommendations in the Affordable Housing and Public Facilities category are in the form of a "Due on Sale Loan + 5%Simple Interest. " PUBLICSERVICE Applicant Funding Commission's Unfunded Project/Program Request Recommendation Balance PS-1 Education and Life $20,000 $20,000 $0 Training Center(ELTC): (CDBG grant) Employment Skills Training PS-2 Dental Care $24,511 $24,511 $0 Assistance Program: (HSP grant) Women's Resource Center RC 12 May 15, 2007 Applicant Funding Commission's Unfunded Project/Program Request Recommendation Balance PS-3 Springfield Court $20,000 $20,000 $0 Early Learning Center (CDBG grant) (SCELC): Sliding Scale Fee Tuition Assistance PS-4 PSD/CSU/PVHS: $14,400 $0 $14,400 Community Organizing to Reach Empowerment(Core) Center PS-5 Elderhaus: Therapy $20,400 $20,400 $0 Center Activity Program (HSP rant PS-6 Respite Care: Sliding $20,000 $20,000 $0 Scale Fee Tuition Assistance CDBG rant PS-7 Hope Infant& $16,000 $0 $16,000 Children's Center: Sliding Scale Fee Tuition Assistance PS-8 B.A.S.E. Camp: $35,506 $35,506 $0 Sliding Scale Fee Tuition (CDBG grant) Assistance PS-9 Rehabilitation and $35,000 $25,000 $10,000 Visiting Nurse Association (HSP grant) (RVNA):Home Health Care Scholarship Assistance PS-10 Volunteers ofAmerica $19,622 $19,622 $0 (VOA): Home Delivered Meal (HSP grant) Program PS-11 Homelessness $35,000 $35,000 $0 Prevention Initiative (HPI): (HSP grant) Emergency Rent Assistance PS-12 CASA:Harmony $8,902 $0 $8,902 House Visitation Center Program Support PS-13 Food Bank for $14,719 $14,719 $0 Larimer County:Kids Cafe HSP grant PS-14 Project Self- $22,000 $22,000 $0 sufficiency (PSS): Preparing (CDBG grant) Single Parents for Living Wage Jobs PS-15 Neighbor to Neighbor $55,290 $55,290 $0 (N2N): Comprehensive (HSP grant) Housing Counseling PS-16 Neighbor to Neighbor $15,000 $15,000 $0 (N2N): Emergency Rent (HSP grant) Assistance 13 May 15, 2007 Applicant Funding Commission's Unfunded Pro'ectlPro ram Request Recommendation Balance PS-17 Larimer Center for $20,000 $0 $20,000 Mental Health (LCMH): Mental Health Services for Jail Diversion PS-18 Disabled Resource $20,718 $20,718 $0 Services (DRS):Access to (HSP grant) Independence ATI Program PS-19 Crossroads $46,800 $40,900 $5,900 Safehouse:Advocacy (HSP grant) Program PS-20 Catholic Charities $45,000 $31,357 $13,643 Northern: Shelter and (CDBGgrant) Supportive Services PS-21 Catholic Charities $15,000 $0 $15,000 Northern (CCN): Senior Services PS-22 United Day Care $60,500 $54,000 $6,500 Center (UDCC): Sliding (HSP grant) Scale Fee Tuition Assistance PS-23 Northern Colorado $19,000 $9,160 $0 Aids Project(NCAP): Client (CDBG grant) Services and Homelessness $9,804 Prevention Pro ram HSP rant The CDBG FY 2007 Entitlement Grant and Program Income totals$1,053,486. HUD regulations limit a maximum 15% of these funds, or $158,023,for use in the Public Services category. The City's Human Services Program adds $335,000 for use in the category,for a total of$493,023 of available funding. A summary of the Commission's funding recommendations by category is presented in thefollowing table: Recommended Funding % of Total Category $ 274,697 23.3% CDBG and HOME Administration 367,623 31.2% Affordable Housin 42,164 3.67o Public Facilities 493,023 41.9% Public Services $1 177 507 100.0% Total The CDBG Commission has recommended that $1,177,507 of the available funding amount of $1,490,444 be allocated leaving a balance of$312,937. The Commission recommends that all of the funds from all sources be utilized except for $312,937 from the FY 2007 CDBG Entitlement Grant. The$312,697 will be carried over and will be available for allocation in the fall cycle of the competitive process. " 14 May 15, 2007 Ken Waido, Chief Planner, stated the two resolutions and two ordinances under consideration completed the spring cycle of the competitive process used by the City to allocate financial resources to Affordable Housing and the Community Development Block Grant programs. This cycle, $1.5 million is available from two federal programs and two City programs. This spring 32 applicants requested slightly less than $1.5 million. The review process included a review of affordable housing proposals by the Affordable Housing Board who then prepared a listing of priority projects for the CDBG Commission and to Council. The CDBG Commission conducted personal interviews with each of the applicants. The CDBG Commission forwarded a proposal to Council to allocate approximately$1.2 million. All of the affordable housing requests received are recommended for full funding. Both of the Public Facilities requests are recommended for full funding and many of Public Service requests are recommended for full funding. The Public Services category does have some federal limitations as to how much money can be allocated to that program and so not all of requests from that category received full funding. Susan Voss, lead case manager at Northern Colorado AIDS Project, expressed thanks for housing funding provided to the Project. Helen Sommersall, Catholic Charities Regional Director, thanked the CDBG Commission for providing funding to aid the homeless. Tina Yoke, Foothills Gateway Program Coordinator, expressed gratitude for the funds provided to assist with services for disabled adults. Candace Mayo, Executive Director for Fort Collins Habitat for Humanity, thanked CDBG Commission and Council for consistent support that will allow eight houses to be built this year. Nancy Jackson, Disabled Resource Services Director, thanked CDBG and Council for continued support for these programs that serve very low income people. Sherry Pelton, Respite Care Executive Director, thanked staff and the CDBG Commission for consistent support of child care for children with developmental disabilities. Pat Parker, Crossroads Safehouse, expressed thanks for funding provided for 15 years. Linda Preston, BASE Camp, a before and after school child care program, thanked Council for continued support of this program. It continues to see an increase in demand for its services and the partnership with the City provides a needed service for the community. Cheri Rodriguez, Project Self Sufficiency Associate Director, thanked Council and CDBG for providing support for single parents to enable them to achieve economic independence. Councilmember Marvel asked if the Hope Infant and Children's Center is eligible to apply again for funding in the fall cycle. Bob Browning, CDBG Chairman, stated the Hope Center will be able to apply next year, but there will not be any Public Service funds available for the fall cycle. 15 May 15, 2007 Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Brown,to adopt Resolution 2006- 050. Councilmember Ohlson stated the City needs to contribute more funds to these programs that aid those in need in the community. He suggested the administrative costs for the CDBG and Affordable Housing Programs be taken from the General Fund and not from the federal funds provided. Councilmember Manvel thanked staff, the CDBG Commission and all the agencies for the work done to aid the less fortunate in the community. He would like to explore other avenues to provide more funds for the agencies. Mayor Hutchinson stated the current Resolution approves the distribution of federal and HOME Program funds. He asked if any of the funds come from the General Fund. City Manager Atteberry stated none of the funds currently come from the General Fund. Councilmember Roy stated the CDBG grant funds greatly improve the community and there were indications at the national level that more funding for CDBG grants would be approved. Councilmember Ohlson clarified that taking the adminstrative costs for CDBG and Affordable Housing from the General Fund instead of using federal dollars to cover those costs will affect the General Fund in the 2008-2009 budget. At the April retreat, Council stated it wanted to do more about taking care of the most vulnerable in the community and that involves dollars. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Manvel made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Troxell,to adopt Resolution 2006-051. Yeas:Councilmembers Brown,Hutchinson,Manvel,Ohlson,Poppaw,Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance No. 072, 2007 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw,to adopt Ordinance No. 073, 2007 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. 16 May 15, 2007 Items Relating to the Foothills Mall Urban Renewal Plan, Adopted. The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "FINANCIAL IMPACT The Foothills Mall Urban Renewal Plan would open the Mall area to the types offinancial benefits that have occurred in the downtown from the operation of the Downtown Development Authority, that is, the use of tax increment financing(TIF) to help stimulate private investment to encourage redevelopment activities. At this time, the best estimate of tax increment must be presented as a range of potential increment that may be generated based upon the expected level of private investment made by General Growth Partners (GGP), the owners of the Mall. The range of tax increment to be generated is estimated to be$52-$92 million based upon an investment of$60-$100 million by GGP. In addition to specific financial benefits of tax increment financing, there are generalized benefits of an economically healthy Mall, characterized by overall higher property values, rents, and retail sales in the area as a whole. The Mall has experienced declining sales and increasing vacancies in recent years. If the growth rate of sales tax collected at the Mall had tracked with the sales tax growth rate of the overall City since 2002, then the annual sales tax collected at the Mall in 2006 would have been approximately $4.5 million. However, actual collections in 2006 were approximately $3.3 million. The loss of sales tax revenue means less funding to support ongoing operations for core City services like Police, Fire, Transportation, and Parks and Recreation, as well as a decline in funding to Open Space and the Building on Basics capital campaign. An increase in retail activity at the Mall will help reverse the trend and help prevent further leakage of sales tax dollars from the City of Fort Collins to other retail destinations in the region. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Resolution 2007-052 Adopting the Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey and Making Findings Determining an Area Within the City of Fort Collins to Be a Blighted Area and Appropriate for Inclusion in an Urban Renewal Project. B. Resolution 2007-053 Making Findings and Approving the Urban Renewal Plan for the Foothills Mall. Before the City Council can adopt an Urban Renewal Plan for any part of the City, the Council must determine the plan area to be a slum, blighted area, or a combination thereof, and designate such area appropriate for an urban renewal plan. Adoption of Resolution 2007-052 approves the Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey (a.k.a. "Blight Study') and declares the Mall area blighted according to the criteria in State Law governing Urban Renewal Authorities. Adoption of Resolution 2007-053 will approve the Foothills Mall Urban Renewal Plan which will assist in elimination of the slum and blight conditions within the Mall area. The major purpose of establishing the Urban Renewal Plan for the Mall area is to allow the use ofproperty tax increment financing(TIF)to fix infrastructure problems that hinder redevelopment. Tax increment financing is typically a useful financial assistance tool to be used in areas where the private sector is not capable of showing a return on investment due to excessive costs of correcting site issues, infrastructure deficiencies, or other issues that hinder redevelopment. 17 May 1 S, 1007 BACKGROUND Colorado Revised Statutes provide for the establishment of"urban renewal areas";primarily,for the purpose of using property tax increment financing (TIF) to "fix" infrastructure problems that hinder redevelopment. The Statutes describe the findings that Council must make to approve an urban renewal plan;and,provides a technical definition ofthe conditions that the Council must find present to declare an area an urban renewal area. There is also a process that must be followed in approving an urban renewal plan. The Foothills Mall originally opened in the fall of 1973. For the first couple of decades of operation, the Mall was a major regional retail offering that attracted shoppers from northern Colorado, southeastern Wyoming, and southwestern Nebraska. The Mall underwent expansions in 1980 and again in 1989, but has experienced declining sales and increasing vacancies in recent years with increasing competition from larger and newer retail ventures in northern Colorado. The recent loss of two major anchor stores, Mervyn's and JC Penney, at the Mall has left larger areas of un-and under-utilized retail space,parking areas, and other areas. The 34 year old Mall has significant site and infrastructure problems; problems that present significant barriers (and costs) to the economic health of the Mall as well as f sture redevelopment including site layout, traffic circulation, obsolescent buildings and building systems, inadequate public facilities and utilities, and vandalism; conditions that will only get worse over time if significant steps are not taken;problems that will require a public/private partnership to resolve. Tax increment financing by way of an urban renewal authority is a tool that is commonly used throughout Colorado for a variety of economic development these purposes. Timnath, Loveland (Centerra), Westminster/Thornton and many other front range communities use TIF as a principal tool for funding public improvements related to redevelopment and non-redevelopment sites. TIF has proven an effective tool by these communities to overcome significant public improvement costs to facilitate development to assist in producing a healthy economy in a competitive regional market. Given the lack of economic tools at the City's disposal and the effectiveness of TIF, staff believes that utilizing TIF is the most effective tool to help keep the downtown,North College,Foothills Mall and other targeted redevelopment areas competitive with these other communities. The obvious advantage of using TIF is that public assistance toward the development is driven by enhancements to the assessed valuation of the property and are funded through property tax revenues versus sales tax revenues. City staff has been working with General Growth Partners (GGP) for the past several years regarding redevelopment of the Mall. The overall redevelopment of the Mall has been a high priority for the City and community. All indications are that GGP is now ready to move forward with their redevelopment plans.However, the costs of redevelopment are significant. The use of the property tax increment is key to GGP's redevelopment plans for the site and for making the Mall competitive in the regional retail economy. The use of other public and private financing mechanisms is also anticipated. The Foothills Mall is specifically identified in many principles and policies of City Plan, the City's comprehensive plan. A major goal of City Plan is to increase economic activity in the Mall area, and where necessary, provide the stimulus to redevelop. The Mall is a "targeted redevelopment 18 May 15, 2007 area"(see attached map). As a targeted redevelopment area, the Mall is an area of the City where general agreement exist that development and redevelopment is beneficial. Also, redevelopment of the Mall conforms to principles and policies to remedy infrastructure deficiencies,provide for the strategic use ofpublic investment, and maintain and expand the City's revenue base. In addition to the policies of City Plan, redevelopment ofthe Foothills Mall is identified in the City's Economic Action Plan as the "single most important retail redevelopment initiative in the City. " This plan also identifies establishment of an urban renewal plan as the "most effective manner for the City to assist in the redevelopment"of the Mall. Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey The purpose of the Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey is to evaluate and determine whether the Mall area constitutes a "blighted area"as defined in the State's Urban Renewal Statutes. The survey(copy attached as "ExhibitA"to Resolution 2007-052)waspreparedby aprivate consultant, Terry Ware Associates of Denver, and evaluated a wide range of conditions in the Mall area. The evaluation included on-site reconnaissance, interviews,and photographic documentation involving City of Fort Collins staff from Advance Planning, Transportation, Engineering, Utilities, Fire Authority, Police, and Building Inspection departments. The study area includes properties within the general area bounded by: East Swallow Road on the north, Stanford Road on the east, East Monroe Drive (extended) on the south, and South College Avenue on the west. The study area encompasses 72 total acres, consists of twelve real estate parcels. The area is approximately 100%developed. The evaluation of the area identified that conditions relevant to six (6) of the eleven (11)statutory "blight factors"were readily apparent and evident within the area, based upon direct observation and review ofplanning documents and that the area, either wholly or in part, is appropriate to be defined as a "blighted area"qualified for urban renewal plan remedies and activities as permitted in the statute because the presence of only four(4)factors is the threshold for a finding of"blight. " However, while evidence of"blight factors"were apparent in the study area, this does not mean that every parcel and building exhibited evidence of the factors--some of the factors are evident on a spot basis; some on a linear basis along streets and utility lines; and some on an area basis, in vacant, neglected, or deficient areas within the Mall area. But when the factors are considered cumulatively, the entire study area is affected. Foothills Mall Urban Renewal Plan The Foothills Mall Urban Renewal Plan (copy attached as "Exhibit A"to Resolution 2007-053) is an urban renewal plan prepared for the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority and the City of Fort Collins and describes the framework for certain public undertakings constituting urban renewal projects and other authorized activities under the Urban Renewal Law for the Mall area. The boundary of the area to which the Plan applies includes those properties located within the same area studied in the Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey. 19 May 1 S, 2007 Development and redevelopment in the Mall area is anticipated to occur incrementally over a substantial period of time. The primary focus of the redevelopment efforts at the Mall will be to replace the two vacant anchor tenants, update the common areas of the mall, and provide new offerings that are more in line with the demands oftoday's consumers. The redevelopment efforts can be broken into seven distinct areas that will be completed as obstacles to the program are overcome and market forces dictate. The seven areas can be roughly described as follows: 1. replacement ofMervyn's with a future anchor tenant, 2. replacement ofJCPenney with a future mini-anchor tenant, 3. an update of the interior common areas of the Mall, 4. addition of an exterior facing streetscape along Foothills Parkway, S. redevelopment of the Shops at Foothills, 6. redevelopment of the former Perkins site, and 7. redevelopment of The Plaza at Foothills. Referrals and Notification Requirements Before the Council can officially approve the Foothills Mall Urban Renewal Plan, State law on Urban Renewal Authorities requires the Council to formally submit the Plan to the Planning and Zoning Board for its review and recommendation as to the Plan's conformity with City Plan, the City's Comprehensive Plan, which is the general plan for development of the municipality as a whole. The Council is also required to formally submit the Plan to the Poudre School District Board of Education, and the Larimer County Board of Commissioners for their review. On April 17, 2007, the City Council adopted Resolution 2007-040 submitting the Foothills Mall Urban Renewal Plan, and its related Existing Conditions Survey, to the Planning and Zoning Board, the Poudre School District Board of Education and the Lorimer County Board of Commissioners. A separate notification was sent to the Lorimer County Assessor's Office. Although there is no provision in the statute requiring that the Board of Education and/or the Lorimer County Board of Commissioners to comment, in writing or otherwise, on the Plan, the school district and the county were notified that their comments would certainly be welcome. The City has received information from FrankLancaster, County Manager, that the Lorimer County Board of Commissioners unanimously support the Foothills Mall Urban Renewal Plan. No response has been received from the Poudre School District. Prior to the Council's hearing on the adoption of the Plan, thirty days notice must be published in a newspaper ofgeneral circulation in the City describing the time, date,place and purpose of the hearing, and generally identifying the urban renewal area covered by the Plan, and shall also outline the general scope of the urban renewal project under consideration. This notice was published in the Coloradoan newspaper on April 6, 2007 Furthermore, the City must take reasonable efforts to provide written notice by mail of the public hearing to all property owners, residents, and owners of business concerns in the proposed urban renewal area at their last known address of record at least thirty days prior to the hearing. Such written notice shall contain the same information as is required to be published in the newspaper. This written notice was mailed on April 4, 2007. 20 May 15, 2007 Planning and Zoning Board At its regular monthly meeting on April 19, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Board adopted a resolution (copy attached)on a vote of 6 to 1, stating that in the Board's opinion, the Foothills Mall Urban Renewal Plan was in conformance with City Plan. The Board also passed, on a vote of 4-3, a motion to ask the Council to review the Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey in detail and to reassess which elements that constitute "blight" are truly present at the Mall. As a result of the motion, staff worked with the consultant to revise the Existing Conditions Survey to identify the six factors as discussed above. A draft copy of the Board's minutes is attached. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption Resolution 2007-052 which will approve the Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey and declare the Foothills Mall area "blighted"according to the criteria in State Statutes governing Urban RenewalAuthorities;andstaffrecommends adoption ofResolution 2007- 053 which will approve the Foothills Mall Urban Renewal Plan to assist in the elimination of the slum and blight conditions within the Mall area. " Ken Waido,Chief Planner,stated the area under consideration is 72 acres bounded by Swallow Road on the north, Stanford Road on the east, Monroe Drive on the south, and College Avenue on the west. The Mall area is predominantly owned by General Growth Properties. There are two other property owners, Macy's and Sears. The Existing Conditions Survey is required by State law and must be approved by Council to declare the area as blighted, according to criteria in State law. This step is necessary before an Urban Renewal Plan can be approved. Blight is defined in State law with specific conditions to be met. The State law has 1 I factors that can be used to determine if the area is appropriate for an Urban Renewal Plan. The Existing Conditions Survey found the area had 7 factors that met the definition of blight. The Urban Renewal Plan is proposed to help facilitate the redevelopment of the Mall area. It will remedy those conditions that impair redevelopment and will help implement the City's Comprehensive Plan. City Plan identifies the Mall area as a targeted redevelopment area. The Urban Renewal Plan is not development plan. Any redevelopment project that comes forward will go through the City's Development Process. The URP is written to comply with various provisions in State law. It helps implement City Plan as well as the City's Economic Action Plan. The purpose of the Urban Renewal Plan is to identify the area and to set it up for tax increment financing. Once the area is designated by Council,the County Assessor will freeze the assessment on the Mall area property so the taxing entities that currently receive revenue from the property taxes levied on the Mall area will continue to receive the current level of taxes. As a redevelopment plan comes forward,the County Assessor will work with the developer to determine how much additional tax will be assessed on the property,based on the redevelopment effort. The difference between the existing tax level and the reassessed level is the increment. The increment is then used to leverage financing,either in terms of a loan or bond issue,to do whatever is approved by the Urban Renewal Authority to assist in the redevelopment efforts. 21 May 15, 2007 The Planning and Zoning Board is also involved in this process by providing Council the Board's opinion as to whether or not the URP conforms with City Plan. On April 19th, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing and approved, on a 6-1 vote, a resolution stating that, in the Board's opinion,the URP does conform with City Plan. The Board also approved a secondary motion asking Council to look at the Existing Conditions Survey before approving the URP. The requirements for public notification during this process have been met. Letters were sent to other taxing entities, such as Larimer County and Poudre School District,notifying them of the proposal. A letter has been received from Karen Wagner, Chairperson of the Larimer County Board of Commissioners, indicating the County Commissioners' support for the Mall Urban Renewal Plan. Staff recommends adopting both Resolutions to approve the Existing Conditions Survey and the Urban Renewal Plan. Adam Tritt, a representative for General Growth Properties,owner and developer of Foothills Mall, stated GGP has undertaken a number of efforts over the past three years to determine the best way to reposition the Mall. There are several challenges with redeveloping the Mall. It was last redeveloped in 1989, under a series of retail standards that are no longer applicable today. It was developed with the stores primarily inward facing and the trend today is for stores to be outward facing. The underlying infrastructure, the utility lines, the parking configurations and the property lines are in direct conflict with the developments planned to move forward. In the past several months, GGP has acquired ownership of the property at Foothills Mall where Mervyn's and Penney's were located and is now in a position to bring its plans forward. Scott VanTatenhove, 1212 Raintree Drive,stated the Mall should be redeveloped but should not use the route of an Urban Renewal Plan to achieve redevelopment. Using the Blight Study to create the URP sends a wrong message of dishonesty and favoritism to the community. The property owner is being rewarded for the presence of blight when instead, fines should be assessed and a determination made as to why this happened. He urged Council to not proceed with approving the Blight Survey and the Urban Renewal Plan. Kevin Henry, 2731 Trenton Way, stated his opposition to giving a tax break to General Growth Properties as a reward for bad business. GGP has done nothing for several years but allowed the Mall to stagnate and has done nothing to improve business at the Mall. He urged Council not to approve the Urban Renewal Plan. Councilmember Ohlson asked for the length of time the tax increment financing would be in place. Waido stated it would last for 25 years. Councilmember Troxell asked if the Square Shopping Center was ever under consideration for inclusion in the URP. Waido stated it was not included. Councilmember Troxell asked if this URP would be a separate project under the City's Urban Renewal Authority. Waido answered in the affirmative, that the North College Plan is the only Urban Renewal Project currently in place so this project would be the second one, if approved. Councilmember Troxell stated the Existing Survey lacked some depth and data to strongly make the 22 May 15, 2007 case for blight. The Urban Renewal Plan is a tool and is being appropriately used as a tool but the factors need to be stated as strongly as possible. Councilmember Brown asked about the City's obligations to General Growth Partners and about the amount of direction the City can give to the use of the funds raised in the tax increment financing. Waido stated General Growth Partners would have to come forward with specific redevelopment projects to request for utilization of the TIF, a certain dollar amount, and the City would determine the amount that would be available. GGP would make a request to the Urban Renewal Authority for utilization of a portion or all of the TIF to accomplish the specific projects. The URA Board would decide whether or not to approve that utilization of the TIF. Mike Freeman, Interim Chief Financial Officer, stated there are two parts to putting this Plan into place. Approval of the Urban Renewal Plan is necessary and an agreement must be negotiated with GGP. The agreement will be business oriented,performance based,very specific in terms of what the Citywould consider funding as part of an overall redevelopment plan. It would be similar to the agreement negotiated with Bayer Properties. Those negotiations will begin soon after the Urban Renewal Plan is adopted by Council. Mayor Hutchinson asked if this was merely a tactic of a company buying a lot of property, allowing it to deteriorate by neglecting the maintenance and then turning to the City for assistance. Freeman stated any retail property,particularly a major retail center such as Foothills Mall,goes through a life cycle. It's more than deferred maintenance that has caused the decline and simply putting a new facade on the buildings will not improve the property. It takes time to put the strategies into place to redevelop a major property and GGP bought the property with redevelopment in mind. Mayor Hutchinson asked when the Mall was built and what is the length of a typical life cycle of a Mall. Waido stated the Mall was built in the early 1970s. Freeman stated the typical life cycle of malls in the Denver area is 20-25 years and after that length of time, serious decline begins. The question then becomes as a community and a property owner, what is to be done about the decline. In many cases, the property owner and the community are not proactive. Through the Economic Action Plan, Council has stated a redevelopment effort is important. The City is trying to facilitate a redevelopment effort. Mayor Hutchinson stated since the Mall has existed for 34 years, it is overdue for more than maintenance and paint and clean-up. Councilmember Ohlson asked when citizens will begin to see major efforts from GGP. Adam Tritt, GGP representative, stated major efforts are already underway and have been for 18 months. Once some key deals with tenants for the redevelopment are made,GGP will begin working with City staff to begin the redevelopment. Councilmember Ohlson asked if that was expected in the next 6-12 months. Tritt stated the hope was to begin in 6-9 months. Mayor Hutchinson stated there are no funds available in the TIF,unless improvements are made and asked if that was a motivation for GGP to act quickly. Tritt answered in the affirmative. 23 May I S, 2007 Councilmember Manvel stated for the purpose of the TIF, the baseline value of the property would be set at the 2007 valuation,which has just been set. There is no reason to wait longer to adopt this plan as that would not increase the base value. Chuck Seest, Finance Director, stated the new improvement will be evaluated,but a full assessment of the property,done by the County Assessor, is done on a two-year cycle. There will be demolition during the redevelopment so the potential exists for the value to decline at some point, then come back with the improvement. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution 2006-052. Councilmember Brown stated he had spoken with County Commissioner Rennels and the County Commissioners are very supportive of this project. He supported the Resolution Councilmember Roy stated GGP, as a relatively new owner of the Mall, has taken steps toward redeveloping the Mall and had not"allowed"it to deteriorate from lack of maintenance. It was good for the City to take this step to encourage redevelopment and he supported it. Councilmember Manvel stated the Mall did meet the criteria set by the State for"blighted"and the support of the County Commissioners was important to show how critical it was to redevelop the Mall. Councilmember Ohlson stated citizens of Fort Collins look forward to a new Foothills Mall. The partnership between GGP and the City is a good one. Council is committed to promoting infill and redevelopment and this area is a classic example of that. Mayor Hutchinson stated the State statute language used the word "blight"to describe the criteria necessary for this process to be put in place. It is not a description of the property, but a list of conditions needing to be met. This is an infill and redevelopment project that has to operate under State law, which has some language that is difficult to understand It is the use of local money that would not be available except for the increased value of the improvements,for improvements done under the control of local elected officials. Some of the improvements include fixing storm drainage problems, street access, and infrastructure problems. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown,to adopt Resolution 2006-053. Yeas:Councilmembers Brown,Hutchinson,Manvel,Ohlson,Poppaw,Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. (**Secretary's Note: The Council took a recess at this point in the meeting.) 24 May 15, 2007 Items Relatine to the Southeast Branch Library.Adopted on First Reading. The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "FINANCIAL IMPACT On March 6, 2007 Council appropriated$5.5 million in library capital expansion fees to design, construct,furnish and provide technology, books and materials for a southeast branch library. The cost of the project is now estimated to be $6.6 million. Adoption of Ordinance No. 074, 2007 appropriates an additional$1.1 million for the project. Of this amount, $479,613 is available from library capital improvement expansion(impact)fees, $339,304 is available from library equipment replacement and saving reserves, and$281,083 is available from donations made to the library. Library impact fees have been collected from new residential construction in Fort Collins since 1996 These fees are collected to pay for the impact ofgrowth on the quality of library services. Funds must be spent within a reasonable time of collection (approximately 10 years) to provide library materials or facilities. Future equipment replacement needs of the library will be provided by the new library district. The ballot language creating the new library district authorized and provided funding for the district to operate the southeast branch library once it is constructed. The annual operating budget would be approximately$750,000- $1,200,000 depending on staffing levels. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Resolution 2007-054 Authorizing an Exemption to the Competitive Process for the City to Enter into a Contract with Bayer Properties for the Construction of the Southeast Branch Library. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 074, 2007, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue Designated for Library Improvements in the Capital Improvement Expansion Fund and Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Transfer to the City's Capital Projects Fund to Construct a Southeast Branch Library. Resolution 2007-054 increases the amount of the sole source authorization for the City with Bayer Properties from $1.5 million to $2,219,1 76for construction of the core and shell of the branch library. On March 6, 2007, Council adopted Resolution 2007-020, which provided sole source authorization up to$1.5 million for the core and shell contract. Staff now has better estimates from Bayer and from independent analysis and the cost of this work will likely exceed$1.5 million. The City will only pay for the actual cost of this work but the estimated cost of the work is now $2,219,176. Ordinance No. 074, 2007 appropriates an additional$1.1 million for the branch library project. Staff is now estimating the cost of the branch library project, including furnishings, technology, books and materials at$6.6 million. This is$1.1 million more than previously estimated. Funding is available from library capital expansion impactfees,from library equipment and savings reserves 25 May 15, 2007 and from donations to the library. Adoption of this ordinance appropriates$1.1 million from these sources to the branch library project. Actual costs may be less than estimated. The City will only pay actual costs. Staff will work hard to contain actual costs without compromising the quality of the project. At its meeting on May 7, 2007, the Library District Board of Trustees unanimously approved a motion supporting Council's adoption of the Resolution and Ordinance. BACKGROUND The City is working with Bayer Properties to include a 17,400 square foot library in the Front Range Village development. 16,000 square feet of the library will be located on the second floor of an attractive, centrally located building with 1,400 feet on the firstfloor. The first floor space will include a lobby, a stairway and two elevators. The library will be owned by the City and will provide convenient and much needed library services for the community. Area voters recently approved the new library district, including new funds to pay for the operation of the Southeast Branch Library. This branch will help meet the goals identified in the Library Capital Improvement Plan of four books per capita and.7 square feet per capita of library space by 2015. The library is currently at 2.56 books per capita and.4 square feet per capita. Resolution 2007-054 Bayer Properties has retained a construction contractor for all the buildings in the Front Range Village development, including the core and shell of the building the library will occupy. By coordinating the construction of the library core and shell through Bayer, the City will realize efficiencies, benefit from economies of scale and expedite the completion of the library. The core and shell includes the foundation, walls, roof and associated elements of the building. Because Bayer's contractor will be constructing the first floor core and shell, it would be difficult and inefficient to bring in a separate contractor to build the core and shell for the second floor. Having two contractors working on the structure of the same building would also create significant coordination issues and cause confusion regarding responsibility for warranty work. The cost of the library's portion of the core and shell will be determined by the final design of the library space but is not anticipated to exceed$2,219,176. Under the City's agreement with Bayer, the City must approve the design and all costs associated with construction of the core and shell on a line item basis. The City has hired an independent estimator to verify the reasonableness of all costs. Staff intends to utilize a competitive process to select a contractor to finish the library space. The finish work includes the entire interior space of the library, everything from drywall and electrical to carpeting, lighting and shelving. • Partnering with Bayer on the Library project maximizes use of the impact fees designated for library services and materials. Bayer's contribution to the library project is substantial. • Bayer is providing the land for the library building and paying for the infrastructure costs 26 May 15, 2007 associated with bringing necessary utilities and streets to the development and to the library building itself. Bayer is also providing the adjacent parking lots and paying the associated offsite development costs and fees. Operation Services has estimated that the cost savings to the City by partnering with Bayer is approximately 2.2 million dollars compared to the cost of the City building a stand alone branch library. Ordinance No. 074, 2007 The City would use remaining library impact fees of$479,613, library equipment and savings reserves of$339,304 and library donations of$281,083 to pay for the estimated $1.1 million increase in costfor the design, construction and furnishing ofthe library,for library technology and for books and materials. Staff has determined the estimated increase in cost is reasonable based on the following: Data used to estimate cost numbers for the DevelopmentAgreement phase for the Southeast Branch Library were put together with conceptual drawings only in order to keep the agreement time frame moving on track. The City commissioned Capstone Planning&Control to generate a "conceptual" estimate for the 16,000 square foot area before any of the library design for the core and shell was accomplished. The City also asked Bayer Properties for the unit cost per square foot estimate that Bayer would be using for retail/office space in the buildings in this development. Although Bayer's numbers were somewhat higher than Capstone's, the Capstone numbers were the only itemized estimate staffhad before the DevelopmentAgreement was written and authorized. Bayer's unit cost estimate for retail/office space in the buildings was at$88 per square foot. The Capstone numbers were somewhat less. After drawings were produced during the preliminary design for the library core and shell, the City asked Bayer's general contractor to provide a detailed estimate of the core and shell costs based upon the design drawings. The current design area of the Southeast Branch Library has increased to 17,415 square feet with the inclusion of 1,415 square feet on the first floor dedicated for the library. The estimate came in at approximately $127 per square foot. With this new information in hand, Operations Services analyzed the estimated costs and discussed the estimate with Bayer and their general contractor Hoar Construction. In addition, we have done unit price cost comparisons of other Libraries in our market area, specifically along the Front Range, and have consulted with our architect/engineer,Aller-Lingle and Associates relative to the costs. We believe the estimate received from Bayer at the $127 per square foot is reasonable and that these costs fall within an acceptable range for a quality library space in our market area at this time. We are recommending that the budget be brought up to meet the current design estimated cost to produce the kind of project we can all say we're proud to have as a City facility. The Development Agreement provides that the City will be paying actual costs for the library core and shell. The general contractor is required to provide the receipts showing this cost. Some 27 May 15, 2007 notable facts concerning the current construction market and this particular project include: • Total cost of the Southeast Branch Library is estimated at $259 per square foot. (for construction only). • This cost falls within the range for Libraries nationwide adjusted for location. • Cost for the new Arvada Library is very comparable in price to the proposed Southeast Branch. • Construction cost escalation has been running as much as 30%above lastyear's prices, with the costs of concrete and steel being a primary driver. Cost trends in the building industry continue to climb at an unprecedented rate. • Conceptual costsfor a new stand-alone library including land, site costs, developmentfees, permits, etc in 2005 were estimated at$520 per square foot so the City receives at least a $250 per square foot economy over a stand alone facility that was estimated in 2005. It is anticipated that construction of the new library will be completed by fall of 2008. " Marty Heffernan,Executive Director of Culture,Parks,Recreation and Environment,stated the two items relating to the Southeast Branch Library relate to a funding issue that has come to staff's attention as the design of the project has progressed. In early March, staff brought an ordinance to Council, asking for$5.5 million for the Branch Library Project as well as sole source authorization in the amount of$1.5 million so staff could work with Bayer Properties and its general contractor who will be doing much of the work on the entire shopping center. Staff wanted to work with the general contractor to build the core and shell of the Branch Library which will be on the second floor of a centrally located building in the retail development. Council adopted the appropriation ordinance and the resolution authorizing use of a sole source contractor. Since that time,Operation Services has worked closely with the architects on the design and with Bayer Properties on the costs. Those costs are greater than staff anticipated. The proposed ordinance requests an increase in the project's budget to$6.6 million,which is a$1.1 million increase. The City reviews every cost item and so pays only what is necessary. Cost of the core and shell will be$2.2 million which is greater than the$1.5 million originally approved,so an increase in the sole source authorization is necessary so that the Bayer general contractor can continue to be used on this project. The money is available to do this.$479,613 in additional library impact fees is available. This will use all the library impact fees. $379,304 in equipment and savings reserves the library has saved for several years is available. $281,083 from donations to the library are available for this purpose. A reserve will be left in the library donation account. Staff has reviewed all the project costs and the $1.1 million increase represents a$200,000 reduction from the original cost increase projection. The$200,000 reduction was achieved through design changes,as well as shifting some costs back to Bayer Properties. Bayer Properties is experiencing the same rising costs as the City is,only on a much larger scale. Staff will be diligent to keep costs low and will do a competitive bid for the interior work. Councilmember Brown asked where the impact fees would be spent if they were not spent on the Branch Library Project. Heffernan stated the impact fees come from capital expansion fees assessed on new residential construction and must be used for the creation of new library space or for books and materials. The choice would be to spend the fees on library renovation or a new library some day or spend it on books and materials. 28 May 15, 2007 Councilmember Brown asked if the $1.1 million in impact fees would eventually go to the Library District or be kept by the City. Heffernan stated the impact fees must be spent for library purposes which would benefit the Library District so if the fees were not spent this year, it is likely the fees would go to the Library District. The reserve funds come from the General Fund and so could go to other purposes,but it was funds saved by the library over several years,so staff views it as library funds. The Library Board of Trustees unanimously supported the adoption of the ordinance and resolution and fully understand the situation. Councilmember Ohlson stated the costs of the shell had gone from$1.5 million to$2.2 million. He questioned how the costs could have risen 50%in 2 months and how could the current figures be considered accurate. Ken Maranon, Operations Services Manager, stated the earlier projections of cost estimates were just an estimate. Until the final design phase of the building occurred, it was very difficult to know the costs of materials and the cost estimates currently given should be accurate for the project. The costs on other City building projects have also increased considerably due to the cost of materials. The shell of the building will cost$127 per square foot. This is very comparable to other cities'costs in building similar buildings. Arvada recently completed a comparable building of 33,000 square feet at a cost of$145 per square foot. The cost of building a separate 10,000 square foot building, buying the land and the development costs, would have cost $5.2 million two years ago. Councilmember Ohlson questioned why was the data available now was not used two months ago to more accurately project costs. City Manager Atteberry stated the increase of costs in such a short time occurred because the original numbers were only from the conceptual stage. Mannon stated as of 60-90 days ago, details of the design of the building were not available and until a firm design was produced,it was very difficult to estimate the costs. The costs should not exceed the costs now quoted. Councilmember Ohlson asked if the figures quoted for the Arvada library included development costs,such as land,utilities and other development fees. Mannon stated the costs quoted for Arvada were the costs of the shell and core only, not the development costs. Councilmember Manvel stated the first estimate only included the second floor space and asked if the new estimate included more square footage. Maranon stated the original estimate was based on 16,000 square feet and now the estimate is based on 17,415 square feet. Councilmember Troxell asked about the ownership of the facility. Heffernan stated, according to the agreement with Bayer Properties, the City will own the space. It is not a lease. The intergovernmental agreement currently being negotiated with the Library District will determine where final ownership will lie. Councilmember Roy asked how the entire Bayer Properties project is affected by the rapid rise in costs. City Manager Atteberry stated the Bayer Properties representatives have given him assurances the project is not changing due to significantly inflating costs. He noted that one option available to the City was to reduce the scope of the branch library prof ect and what changes would occur if the 29 May 15, 2007 branch library was built under the original estimate. Staff concluded the community expectations of the project could not be met without increasing the budget to the proposed amount. It is not typical for staff to bring forward such increases in costs for any City project. Councilmember Ohlson asked if the"Green Building"standard for public buildings would be met with this building. Mannon stated the core and shell of the building will be a certified "LEED" building and the interior will be"LEED Gold" certified. Councilmember Ohlson noted if the City were building the branch library from scratch, then the entire building would be "LEED" Gold certified to comply with the Resolution passed last year. City Manager Atteber y stated the interior portion that the City is responsible for will be"LEED" Gold certified. Mannon stated "LEED" Gold certification of the core and shell was a concern of staff. Staff discussed the certification with Bayer Properties but Bayer felt it could not accomplish Gold Certification on the building because of the type of use. It will be "LEED" certified. Councilmember Ohlson asked if the shell included HVAC and other utilities. Mannon stated the HVAC and other utilities are part of the interior,not the shell. The physical shell includes the box, the windows, the roof and the skylights. Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Resolution 2006-054. Councilmember Ohlson expressed his appreciation of staff s work on this project but asked forbetter estimates in the future. Mayor Hutchinson stated the original cost quote of$1.5 million was a preliminary or conceptual estimate. The refinement was made when more design information was available which allowed a better estimate. The difference between the estimates was based on the different methods used. Mannon stated the original estimate was based on a cost per square foot and the new estimate is based on actually"counting sticks." Councilmember Manvel stated the original estimates from most City projects are not generally so far off from the final estimate. Heffernan responded that this project is in partnership with Bayer Properties and the City does not have as much control over it. Staff was attempting to meet Bayer's time frame which is why the previous estimate was brought to Council before the design was available to support the estimate. A different model is used for projects done in partnerships. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw,to adopt Ordinance No. 074, 2007 on First Reading. 30 May 15, 2007 Councilmember Ohlson stated the decision not to cut back on the quality or scope of the project was a wise one. Councilmember Manvel stated knowing the Library District Board fully supports this project is a very positive and the right action is being taken in spending extra money to do the project correctly. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 2007-055 Authorizing an Interim Intergovernmental Agreement Between the Fort Collins Regional Library District, the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County. Adopted The following is staffs memorandum on this item. "FINANCIAL IMPACT Under the interim intergovernmental agreement(IGA) the City will turn library operations over to the District on January], 2008. The District will reimburse the Cityfor the cost ofproviding library services in 2007 up to the amount of$3,851,153 and for service improvements or additions requested by the Trustees. The City would continue to provide support services for library operations for 2007 and the District will pay for those services, estimated to cost approximately $500,000. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Last November area voters approved the formation of the Fort Collins Regional Library District and provided 3 mills of property tax to fund it. Pursuant to State law, on March 6, 2007 the Council ratified seven candidates to serve as trustees on the governing board of the new District. The County Commissioners also ratified these candidates at that time. The trustees met on March 7th and the City provided them with a memorandum outlining the City's position on the various issues to be addressed in the IGA. The trustees have been meeting regularly and have been diligently working on the IGA and on a multitude of other matters needing their attention. State library law calls for an IGA to be in place within 90 days of the appointment of the Board of Trustees. 90 days does not provide sufficient time to resolve all the issues that must be addressed in the IGA or sufficient time to craft an IGA that will successfully establish a long-term, effective working relationship between the parties. The Board of Trustees supports the adoption of the interim IGA and is committed to the adoption of the f nal IGA in 2007. BACKGROUND 31 May 15, 2007 The draft interim IGA is attached for review. The proposed agreement provides: 1. The City will continue to provide library services to the community for 2007. 2. The District will provide funding to cover the City's costs to provide library services in 2007 up to the amount of$3,851,153. This is the amount originally budgeted by the City for library services in 2007 and includes funding to reimburse the City for costs already incurred in providing library services in 2007. The District will pay for the cost of support services (facility maintenance, custodial, utilities, accounting, human resources, risk management, tech. support etc)for all of 2007, estimated at approximately$500,000. The District will also pay for any other service improvements or additions they would like to see in 2007, as approved by the City Manager. 3. The City and the District will enter into a final IGA before the end of 2007 with a goal of having the IGA in place by October 1st. 4. Operation of the libraries will be turned over to the District on January 1, 2008. 5. The District will reimburse the County for the cost of the election establishing the District. The final IGA will address all matters relevant to the transition of library services from the City to the District. These include: 1. The use or conveyance of City real property including the Main Library,Harmony Library, Southeast Branch Library and the Poudre Creamery properties. 2. The use or conveyance of personal property including the books, materials, shelving, furniture, computers, etc. 3. Support services the District will purchase from the City, which may include accounting, payroll, human resources, risk management, purchasing, information technology and facilities maintenance. 4. The transfer of Building on Basics (BOB)funding for library technology. 5. The possible continuation of library impact fees. 6. The transition of City library employees to District employees. 7. Appointment process for future trustees 8. Assignment of contracts from the City to the District,particularly the agreement with Front Range Community College regarding the use and operation of Harmony Library. " Marty Heffernan, Executive Director of Culture, Parks, Recreation and Environment, stated this Resolution authorizes the execution of an Interim Intergovernmental Agreement between the City, 32 May 15, 2007 Larimer County and the Fort Collins Regional Library District. After the creation of the Library District last November by a vote of the citizens, Council and the County Commissioners selected a group a citizens to be the governing Board of Trustees for the District. Through that ratification process, the District was established. State law has a provision that calls for an intergovernmental agreement between the parties to be entered into within 90 days of the ratification of the Board of Trustees. In staffs estimation, as well as the Trustees, 90 days is insufficient time to work through all the issues to put together a permanent IGA that will govern the parties' relationship for years to come. Since there are many issues still to be resolved, staff and the Trustees are requesting that Council enter into an Interim Intergovernmental Agreement that would have the City continuing to provide library services,but have the District pay for the services through the end of the year. The goal is to have the final Intergovernmental Agreement in place by October and transition library operations to the District starting January 1, 2008. City employees who are now working at the library would be made offers by the District and,if they accept those offers,would become District employees on January 1 st. There are many steps still to take place for this transition to be successful. The District is willing to pay for the services the City would provide on its behalf for this year. The amount authorized for library operations is$3,851,153 which comes from the estimated amount for library services that was in the City's 2007 budget. The District is also willing to pay for support services,such as payroll, accounting, financial services,human resource services,maintenance and custodial services, utilities and other internal services necessary to operate the libraries, up to the amount of$445,000 for 2007. That should be sufficient to cover the anticipated costs for 2007. If additional services are desired by the District,then further negotiations with the District would take place. The City would have ultimate decision making capabilities over major operational issues,but the Board would be involved in the decisions. Councilmember Brown asked how much money was collected for the District in 2006. Heffernan stated the money was now being collected in 2007 and would be in the range of$6 million. Councilmember Brown stated that was the amount for 2007 and asked if the mill levy was retroactive to 2006. Chuck Seest,Finance Director, stated the mill levy was effective as of January 1,based on the property valuation as of December. To date, as of April 2007, taxes for 2006 have been collected in the amount of$2.3 million. The District is also collecting specific ownership tax and other taxes to which the District is entitled. Councilmember Brown asked for an estimate of a full year of property taxes. Seest stated the estimate was approximately$5.2 million. Councilmember Brown asked if the City would carry the burden of the difference in taxes collected and library costs. Heffernan stated the Intergovernmental Agreement stated the City would not provide services at a cost greater than the amount authorized. Staff believes that is a sufficient amount to provide services at the current level through the end of the year. Councilmember Ohlson asked why the amount for support services changed from $502,000 to $445,000. Heffernan stated the District had only budgeted$445,000 for support services and staff determined that amount was sufficient to cover those service costs for the year. Councilmember Ohlson asked if the District was paying the cost for extra staff, extra hours, and for 33 May 15, 2007 book drops. Heffernan stated under the terms of the Interim IGA,the District will reimburse the City for all expenses for 2007. Councilmember Manvel asked if the Intergovernmental Agreement might be finalized sooner than October. Heffernan stated the Agreement could be finalized sooner, but the current schedule provides a framework for negotiations. Councilmember Manvel asked if agreement was not reached, would the Interim IGA extend past January 1 st. Heffernan stated if all parties agreed, the Agreement could be extended. City Manager Atteberry asked if the costs to provide library services exceeds the budgeted amount, will the City consider not providing services or will services be continued and the caps be raised. Heffernan stated the$3.8 million in costs are accurate estimates and staff believes that providing the current level of service will not cost more than$3.8 million. In the event that amount was exceeded, the City would tell the District Trustees it would no longer be able to provide those services unless additional funding was provided. The spirit of the IGA is that the cost of providing library services is the cost for the District to bear,not the City. Seest stated since the District is funded by property tax, 98% of that funding will be received by the end of July so it will be known where the District stands in terms of its funding. If the District requested the City to provide other services it would also provide the unanticipated revenue to pay for those services. City Manager Atteberry stated the City is conscious of the costs and will work to keep them as low as possible and will not operate in a deficit mode. Councilmember Troxell asked if the IGA is in place by January 1 st,would all transitions happen at that time or would there be a transition time to phase in employees. Heffernan stated the hope was by having an October 1 goal of having the IGA finalized,there would be sufficient time to transition the employees into the District by January 1. There could be other issues that would be postponed into the future for final determination. The goal is to reach agreement on the majority of issues. Councilmember Roy asked who represented the City in the IGA negotiations. Heffernan stated he did much of the negotiations along with Financial Director Chuck Seest and Steve Seefeld,Facilities Project Manager,discussed the new branch library. Heffernan was the contact person to discuss the issues,have the dialogues,then take information back to staff,especially Deputy City Manager Jones and City Manager Atteberry. Councilmember Roy questioned how Heffernan separated his past history with the Library with serving the City best now. Heffernan stated he took his direction from the City Manager and worked closely with the Deputy City Manager, as well. Councilmember Ohlson stated the Interim Agreement did not have many details such as the appointment process for future Trustees and asked if the final agreement will contain such details. Heffernan answered in the affirmative. The Interim Agreement stated the City agreed to provide services this year and the District will pay for those services and all other details are to be worked out. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Resolution 34 May 15, 2007 2006-055. Yeas:Councilmembers Brown,Hutchinson,Manvel,Ohlson,Poppaw,Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 075, 2007, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue from the Fort Collins Regional Library District for Continuation of Library Services for Fiscal Year 2007, Adopted on First Reading. The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "FINANCIAL IMPACT The Ordinance would appropriate an additional$2.6million in unanticipated revenuefrom the Fort Collins Regional Library District into the General Fund to be used for continuation of library services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Board of the Fort Collins Regional Library District sent a letter dated April 16, 2007 to the Fort Collins'City Council reflecting the Board's approval of reimbursing the City of Fort Collins in an amount of$3,851,153 based upon actual expenditures incurred for the costs of operations and maintenance of public library services for 2007. As of the end of April, the Fort Collins Regional Library District has collected$2,318,000 ofproperty taxes from the mill levy approved by voters last November for funding the regional library district. When Council approved the 2007 Budget last November, $1.2 million was also appropriated for library services. This appropriation was intended to serve as funding during the transition of the library services from City operations to District operations. The District and the City will need to approve an intergovernmental agreement prior to full operations commencing under the direction oftheDistrict. This ordinance will allowfunding oflibrary services to continue under City direction for 2007. The City will also be reimbursed for expenses incurred during the first quarter of 2007. From thatpointforward, the City will be reimbursed on a monthly basis. These reimbursements will occur within thirty days after the close of the month during which the charges were incurred. " Marty Heffernan, Executive Director of Culture, Parks, Recreation and Environment, stated this appropriations request for funding necessary to continue operations of the Library for 2007 and also to appropriate funding to reimburse the City for costs incurred in providing those services for the first quarter. Chuck Seest,Finance Director, stated in November,when the Library District was created by voter approval it was anticipated that$1.2 million would be sufficient to administer the transitional period 35 May 15, 2007 which was expected to end sometime during the second quarter of this year. Since the transitional period of time has been extended,this appropriation request of up to$3.8 million is brought before Council. Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Manvel,to adopt Ordinance No. 075,2007 on First Reading. Yeas:Councilmembers Brown,Hutchinson,Manvel,Ohlson,Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Consideration of the Appeal to the Building Review Board on February 22,2007 Seeking the Overturning of Certain Interpretations,Actions, and Decisions of the Building Official Regarding the Use and Occupancy of the Dwelling at 505 Locust Street. The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On February 22, 2007, the Building Review Board unanimously upheld the interpretations, actions, and decisions of the Building Official regarding the application of the City Rental Housing Standards for the dwelling at 505 Locust Street in response to the Appellant Peter Schultz's allegations of error contained in the Notice of Appeal dated November 9, 2006 The Appellantfiled a Notice ofAppeal to the City Council on April11, 200 7 seekingfurther redress of the actions listed below which are the subject of this appeal. 1. Determination/interpretation not to require Jeanne Bolton, the owner ofthe rentalpremises located at 505 Locust Street, Fort Collins(CO)(the "Subject Premises'), to obtain a permit to convert the Subject Premises from a single family dwelling unit into a duplex as required by Section 5-260 of the Fort Collins Code. [Note: Section 5-260 of the City Code incorrectly references the UNIFORMBUILDING CODE, which no longer applies to single- or two-family dwellings as the prescribing code for new construction. The correct reference, the INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE, was inadvertently overlooked as the other inclusive code to be added to this section when it was adopted in August 2004. However, the permit requirements and the Building Review Board's jurisdiction are virtually identical under both codes.) 2. Determination/interpretation not to require Ms. Bolton to obtain a permit for a number of required alterations and improvements to the Subject Premises, including without limitation, installation ofstairway railing, upgrading ofwiringfor smoke alarms, and the enlargement of basement exit windows (required structural alterations). 36 May 15, 2007 3. Determination/interpretation not to require fire-rated barriers within the Subject Premises and not to require one or more permits thereafter. 4. Determination interpretation not to require the payment ofappropriatefees for conversion of the Subject Premises from a single-family dwelling unit into a duplex and for the alterations to the Subject Premises. BACKGROUND Late July 2006, the Appellant, residing at 501 Locust Street adjacent to 505 Locust Street ("Subject Property') communicated concerns to the Mayor via email about the condition and alleged over- occupancy status of the subject rental property built circa 1930. In response, Neighborhood and Building Services staff investigated his concerns and followed up with a written notice to the property owner of the subject property, Jeanne Bolton ('Party-in-Interest'), related to the dwelling's use as a duplex and number of occupants. From research, including results from the Occupant Search Report dated November 2, 2006, staff determined that although the subject dwelling is listed as a single-family dwelling in the Lorimer County records and finding no official City record indicating the Subject Property was converted to a duplex, historically it well might have been used as a duplex prior to the late 1960s. Furthermore, on-site inspections revealed that the interior ofthe garden level dwelling unit appears consistent with materialsfrom that era.It is important to note that City records are incomplete prior to the mid-1960s. With respect to concerns expressed by the Appellant regarding City Building Code provisions and related permits: 1. The necessary permit was obtained and f nal inspection approved for the installation of the new egress windows and handrail. 2. The installation of smoke alarms and associated wiring are considered exempt from a permit, given that the minor nature of the work was performed by a licensed electrician. 3. A 'Tire-rated barrier"between units is not applicable to existing buildings;required in new construction only. Appellant subsequently appealed the decisions of the Building Official with a Notice ofAppeal dated November 9, 2006, to be heard by the Building Review Board. The Board rendered a unanimous decision to uphold the decision of the Building Official regarding the enforcement of the City's rental housing standards as contained in Article VI of Chapter 5 of the City Code, and, also determined the building permits sought and obtained by the Party-in-Interest were appropriate as specified in the Resolution 2007-1 dated March 29, 2007. The Board also decided that whether or not a building permit is needed for the conversion of the Subject Property from a single-family residence to a duplex is not within its jurisdiction based on the following: 37 May 15, 2007 1. Section 5-259 of the City Code states the Building Review Board has jurisdiction to provide final interpretations pertaining to meeting the minimum rental housing standards, but not final interpretations of the administrative procedures by the Building Official. 2. Section 5-30 of the City Code ,which contains a local amendment as specified in "Section R112.2" of the International Residential Code", states that appeals to the Building Review Board may only be made by either applicants for or holders of a building permit. " Councilmember Manvel withdrew from the discussion of the Consideration of the Appeal to the Building Review Board on February 22, 2007 Seeking the Overturning of Certain Interpretations, Actions, and Decisions of the Building Official Regarding the Use and Occupancy of the Dwelling at 505 Locust Street due to a conflict of interest. Councilmember Ohlson stated that quite some time ago,one of the parties-in-interest contacted him regarding the issue under appeal. The conversation was short and no details were discussed. He did not feel the conversation biased him in any way in this matter but he wanted to know if any party-in- interest objected to his participation in the appeal. City Attorney Roy asked if all parties were present. Elizabeth Lamb Kearney,attorney representing Jeanne Bolton,property owner of 505 Locust Street and the subject of the appeal, but not the appellant, had no objections to Councilmember Ohlson participating in the discussion of the appeal.. Rick Zier, 322 East Oak, attorney representing Peter Schultz, the appellant, had no objections to Councilmember Ohlson participating in the discussion of the appeal. City Attorney Roy explained the appeals process as outlined in Chapter 2 of the City Code. This was an appeal of the decision of the Building Review Board. Appeals can only be made by parties-in- interest and not by members of the general public. Presentations at the appeal can only be made by parties-in-interest. A party-in-interest is one who has either an ownership interest or a possessory interest in the subject matter of the appeal hearing or someone who appeared at the hearing before the Building Review Board or who submitted written comments or who was notified of the proceedings before the Board. This was an appeal on the record of the proceedings before the Building Review Board,which means Council had received the verbatim transcript or minutes and any exhibits that were presented to the Board. No new evidence was admissible except in response to Councilmembers. The Mayor will establish time frames for presentations by each party,both in terms of their initial presentations and arguments and also rebuttal time. Council will then take the matter under consideration and will base its decision on the grounds stated in the Notice of Appeal and the information contained in the record of proceedings before the Board as well as the applicable provisions in the City Code or Charter that might apply. The options available to Council included upholding, overturning, or modifying the Board's decision or remanding the matter to the Board. 38 May 15, 2007 Felix Lee, Director of Neighborhood and Building Services, stated it was his determinations as the Fort Collins Building Official and staff decision maker that precipitated the initial appeal to the Building Review Board, related to the dwelling and subject property at 505 Locust Street. Peter Schultz, an adjacent neighbor of the property had filed the appeal to overturn the following findings and conclusions of the Building Review Board from the hearing on February 22, 2007: 1. The Board's determination not to require the principal party-in-interest and owner of the subject premises, Jeanne Bolton, to obtain a permit to convert the property from a single- family dwelling to a two-family dwelling(a duplex). 2. The Board's determination not to require Ms. Bolton to obtain a permit for alterations and improvements on the property, such as the installation of stair railings, wiring for smoke alarms and enlargement of basement windows. 3. The Board's determination not to require fire-rated barriers within the dwelling and any related permits, therefor. Lee added that, in testimony before the Building Review Board, the appellant conceded this was not an issue at that time. 4. The Board's determination not to require the payment of unspecified fees for conversion and related alterations to the building from a single-family dwelling to a two-family dwelling as well as the determination that the Building Review Board does not have jurisdiction to consider this point. In late July 2006, the appellant emailed the Mayor expressing concerns about the condition of the property and the excessive number of tenants living in Ms. Bolton's rental were in violation of the City Code relating to dwellings used as a duplex. Mike Gebo, Building Code/Inspection Services Manager,then followed up with a written notice informing Ms.Bolton of the complaint and the need to resolve the allegations. Over the course of several weeks, staff was in contact with Ms. Bolton, Mr. Schultz and his legal counsel. From these numerous interchanges and additional site inspections, staff determined one of Mr. Schultz's concerns related to the bedroom escape windows as required by the City's Rental Housing Standards, was merited. In answer to the appellant's question of the use of the dwelling as a two-family dwelling,Ms. Bolton indicated the property had been used as a duplex for many years prior to her ownership in 1984. Larimer County records indicate the dwelling was built in 1930 and still lists the property as a single-family dwelling. Staff was unable to locate any official record identifying the conversion of the dwelling to a duplex or that showed the building was ever even built. Some City permit and inspection records,especially early manual files, which began in 1924, were nonretrievable having been relocated several times over the years. Until 1989,prior to implementation of computer tracking system,all department records were paper and were vulnerable to being incomplete, misfiled or missing, especially those created prior to the 1960s. Moreover, the earlier permit records were cryptic and contained little detail. Lee stated he had evidence not previously submitted, of photographs of the property and replicas of the documents he had found in doing research, and asked if there were any objections from the parties-in-interest to that evidence being shown. Mike Zier,attorney for Peter Schultz,objected to the new evidence being shown. City Attomey Roy stated any new evidence should only be submitted in response to Council questions, if at all. 39 May 15, 2007 Lee stated a research report provided by the Historic Preservation staff, using old city directories aided him in making his decision. The report contained occupant records covering several decades back to the late 1960s. He believed those records suggested the dwelling was converted to a two- family dwelling by the 1960s as noted by occupancy by two CSU students and two separate phone lines at that time. The inspection done several months ago revealed the dwelling had two separate up and down dwelling units,each with two bedrooms and the interior of the lower dwelling appears consistent with material from the 1960s or even earlier. His analysis of the occupancy search, coupled with those inspections led him to conclude that at sometime in the past, the property had likely been used as a duplex. With respect to the concern of the appellant regarding the Building Code provisions and related permits, Ms. Bolton satisfied these concerns by bringing the property up to current rental code standards with the new egress windows,hand rails, and the installation of smoke detectors. A permit was issued for these improvements, a fee was paid and inspections passed. The installation of the smoke detectors and associated wiring were exempt from the permit, given the minor nature of the work. It did not require any new circuitry, only basic wiring,done by a licensed electrician. The need for a fire-related barrier was not applicable to existing buildings. That provision became part of the City Building Code for new buildings and additions, thereto, in the 1990s. Based on these preceding factors,he determined the property to be in compliance with no further action required. On November 9,2006,Mr. Schultz appealed Mr. Lee's decision to the Building Review Board. On February 22, 2007, the Board heard the appeal and unanimously upheld the interpretations of the application of City Rental Standards to the dwelling at 505 Locust Street. At that hearing,the Board also considered whether or not a building permit was needed for the conversion of the property. It determined it was not within the jurisdiction of the Board to decide that matter based on the City Code and the Building Code. The Board formally issued its decision in a Resolution dated March 29, 2007. Mr. Schultz was asking Council to overturn the determinations of the Building Review Board that upheld the decisions of the Building Official related to the use and occupancy of the dwelling at 505 Locust Street. Mayor Hutchinson stated the appellant and the opponent had 15 minutes for each presentation and 10 minutes each for rebuttal. He asked if the appellant believed the fire barriers and the alteration of the stair railing and egress windows are not issues. Rick Zier, attorney for appellant Peter Schultz, agreed the fire barriers were not part of the appeal but the stair railings and egress windows were properly listed in the complaint and staff sustained the complaint and required a building permit for those improvements. The wiring and electrical work was not required to have a permit and the appellant believed a permit should have been required. It should be considered as part of the appeal. He stated the two main issues of this appeal were the jurisdictional issue and the main issue of the conversion permit not being required. The appeal did raise the issues of the property not meeting rental housing standards and specific building code issues of stair railings, egress windows and smoke detectors. Most of those complaints were sustained and action was taken to comply with the Code. The larger question raised in the complaint was whether the property was a legally converted duplex under the rental housing standards and the Building Code. The Building Review Board's decision was that it could not consider or decide, under the UBC or any other City Code, including the rental housing standards,any issue pertaining to whether the landowner would now be required to obtain a building permit for the conversion of 40 May 15, 2007 the premises from single-family residence to a duplex. The appellant believed this decision was incorrect. There were several sections under the rental housing standards under which Mr. Schultz filed his complaint that should be considered, including Section 5-239 of the Rental Housing Standards which states "it is unlawful for any person to alter, improve or convert any structure in violation of Article VI, Chapter 5." Section 5-260 of the Rental Housing Standards states "it is unlawful for a person to alter improve or convert any structure regulated by the Rental Housing Standards without first obtaining a separate permit for each structure in accordance with the Uniform Building Code," now the International Building Code. This tied the Rental Housing Standards clearly and expressly to the Building Code. The Building Code had required a conversion permit since 1958. Section 5-261 of the Rental Housing Standards states "whenever a building permit is required by the Building Code, the appropriate fees must be paid." Section 5-256 directed the Building Official to enforce all the provisions of the Rental Housing Standards,including those that connect to the Building Code. Section 5-238 states "the provisions of this Article (the Rental Housing Standards) shall apply to all rental housing." Section 5-259 states"in order to provide for final interpretation of this Article(the Rental Housing Standards)under which the complaint is filed, and to hear appeals provided for hereunder, under the Rental Housing Standards, the Building Review Board shall serve in such capacity." The provisions in the general Building Code quoted by the Building Review Board and the City Attorney are "trumped" by the more specific Rental Housing Standards provisions which deal specifically with rental housing and specifically require compliance with the Building Code as a part of the Rental Housing Standards themselves,including specifically, conversion of any structure and specifically authorizes the Building Review Board to hear appeals and provide final interpretation. The Building Review Board and City Attorney's position was an overly technical and incorrect interpretation and was punitive to a complainant. The appellant's complaint alleged specific building issues and the larger conversion issue. Ifthe Building Review Board did not have jurisdiction to hear the larger issue,then either there is no appeal and the Building Official's decision stands or there is a twin track,dual appeal procedure which is not widely understood by the general public or even Council. The Rental Housing Standards were intended to cover all these items and they do. It is supposed to be one-stop shopping for rental housing issues, including, expressly, building permits for conversions of rental housing. Anything that converts rental housing requires a permit under the Rental Housing Standards. The main issue was the larger question of whether the property was a legally converted duplex under the Rental Housing Standards and the City Code. To determine whether or not a conversion is legal, zoning and compliance with the Rental Housing Standards and the Building Code must be considered. Zoning was not a problem as it was a permitted use in this zone. In 1958, the City passed an ordinance requiring building permits for work that acts to convert a single-family dwelling to a duplex. Section 5-238 of the Rental Housing Standards states "all rental housing shall also conform to the applicable City Land Use Code and City Building Codes currently in effect,except as follows: 1. Legal uses that were permitted at the time of their creation or that became legal nonconforming uses as the result of subsequent changes to the Land Use Code. 2. Rental housing that was legally constructed under the Building Construction Codes enacted by the City at the time of their construction and which rental housing conforms to the provisions set forth in this Article." 41 May 15, 2007 The issue now was what evidence was before the Building Review Board that showed the premises were legally converted,either with a permit after 1958,or prior to 1958 when no permit would have been needed. The appellant's evidence consisted of presenting to staff that there was no City record on file of any conversion permit having been issued, which was confirmed by Mr. Lee. Nevertheless, Mr. Lee made the determination that it was a legally converted duplex,based on the landowner's statement that the property had been used as a duplex long before she bought it. Mr. Zier did not believe that statement was true and her statement was"since she bought it in 1984."Mr. Schultz researched County records which showed it now,and always had shown it,as a single-family residence. That evidence was presented to City staff who still said it was a legal conversion. Then Mr. Schultz canvassed his neighborhood and found an older lady who had lived there from 1970 to 2004 who knew Ms. Evans, who had resided at 505 Locust prior to selling the property to Ms. Bolton. Her statement said the property had not been used as a duplex prior to 1984. The evidence in front of the Building Review Board on the other side,regarding anything to do with pre-1958 was a statement from Ms. Bolton in which she said "Well, there were a number of homes that were converted to duplexes in Fort Collins after World War II and this was probably one of them." There was no basis given,just a conjecture. The historic evidence referred to by Mr. Lee stated there were two phone lines in the house in 1967, which may or may not have been for a duplex and does not prove anything pre-1958 nor does it prove the dwelling was legally used as a duplex in 1967. Mr. Gebo stated his finding was based on everything he looked at but did not give specifics. He stated it was more likely than not that it was used as a duplex "on or before the late 1960s". The"on or before" portion of the statement is meaningless and could refer to any previous date. "The late 1960s" is post-1958 and does not supply any evidence to sustain the Building Review Board's decision. Mr. Gebo stated his experience led him to believe the interior conformed with materials used many decades ago. This again was not evidence the dwelling was legally converted to a duplex or converted at all prior to 1958. The Building Official's authority to interpret the Code and its intent does not allow for unsubstantiated inferences about things where there is no evidence. Use of the dwelling as a duplex after 1958 was not evidence that it was a legal duplex. Nonspecific testimony such as the statements from Mr. Gebo about older-appearing flooring was not evidence the flooring was installed as part of a duplex conversion at any particular point in time. It might have simply been used to finish the basement. There was much credible, essential information lacking in this matter. He asked Council to overturn the BRB's decision and decide it did have jurisdiction regarding the rental housing standards but there was not competent evidence that this property was a legal duplex. The BRB heard all the information on the issue so this does not need to be remanded to the BRB. He asked that Council sustain the appeal and require a conversion permit and payment of the appropriate fees as required by the Rental Housing Standards. Mr. Schultz, 501 Locust Street, appellant, stated there is no proof in City records or outside records the property was ever used as a duplex or converted to a duplex prior to 1958. Additionally, an MLRS listing from 1984 clearly states "excellent potential for rental up and down duplex", which again confirmed 505 Locust Street was never legally converted from a single-family residence to a legal duplex. Prior to purchasing his home in 2001,Mr. Schultz contacted the City and the County and was reassured by both that the house next door was a single-family dwelling. He did not believe Council intended to have six people living in a four-bedroom home under the recently enacted 3- unrelated Ordinance. He contended the City Building Department was not enforcing the Code and 42 May 15, 2007 was ignoring the letter and spirit of the law. He asked Council to enforce the Code that had been adopted in regards to rentals and over-occupancy. He was perplexed that the burden of proof fell on him and not the absentee landlord. This set a dangerous precedent because anyone who owned a rental could claim it was a duplex and the burden would then be placed on the neighbors instead of the property owner. He stated there were twelve illegal duplexes or instances of over-occupancy within a one block radius of his home and thirty-two within two blocks. If this precedent was set, the number of occupants in his neighborhood would double and change the character and integrity of his neighborhood. This was a city-wide issue. He asked Council to enforce City Code and place an impediment in the form of a fee so that conversions from single-family dwellings to duplexes were minimized and documented to protect the safety and welfare of neighborhoods. Elizabeth Lamb Kearney,attorney representing Jeanne Bolton,property owner,stated there were two overriding issues in this matter. One was, do the City's building officials know their job and have they competently performed their function. The other was the matter of whether this dwelling was a legally converted dwelling. The burden of proof was on Mr. Schultz. If the burden of proof was on Ms. Bolton, as property owner, then every property owner in Fort Collins would be required to provide a building permit, regardless of the time when the building was constructed, to prove the building was in existence. Mr. Schultz's argument was that,because Ms.Bolton could not produce a duplex conversion permit for a conversion that occurred, according to City building officials' investigation and decision making,over forty years ago,then Ms.Bolton was in violation. However, Mr.Lee pointed out that there was no permit in the City records for the construction of the residence. Was the conclusion then to be that the dwelling was illegally constructed and, unless the owner wanted to pay the building fees for what the construction would cost today, then the owner was in violation of the City Code. That made no sense. Ms. Bolton was extremely frustrated with this matter as it had never been dealt with as a neighbor dispute,never been dealt with on a rational basis with any contact made with Ms.Bolton regarding problems Mr.Schultz might have with the tenants, issues she could effectively deal with and had dealt with since she had owned the property. Instead, this issue had been pursued on an "overly technical" basis. The building officials contacted Ms. Bolton and stated there had been a complaint with concerns about the quality of units in her building. The building inspectors examined the dwelling and informed Ms. Bolton that, while it was an old structure and had been that way a long time, there were some health and safety issues. Health and safety issues meant the people in the building needed to be safe and municipalities had the right to require changes to ensure people live in safe housing,regardless of when the law was passed or the structure was built. Ms. Bolton agreed to make changes to comply. She converted the windows in the basement, installed a hand rail, and did the wiring to comply with the Code. The building was now up to current rental housing standards. Mr. Schultz was not satisfied with that compliance and now wanted Council to force Ms. Bolton to pay a duplex conversion permit fee on a conversion that occurred some time twenty years before Ms. Bolton bought the property because she did not have a duplex conversion permit. If the Council did agree with Mr. Schultz, then Mr. Schultz would "have a heyday" and be able to go to any structure in the City that has had a duplex in it for any number of years and, if they cannot produce a conversion permit,they would be required to pay the fee under today's cost structure for that conversion permit. That did not make sense. The law that allows overturning an administrative decision states there is a finding that there is nothing in the record to support the decision. In this case, City staff had inspected the structure, 43 May 15, 2007 required modifications, researched historical records and determined, according to their expertise, it had been a duplex for long enough that it met Fort Collins standards and they would not make Ms. Bolton produce a permit the City admits does not exist. There was evidence in the records to support the Board's decision. More importantly,the precedent that would be set by granting the appeal and allowing this requirement to placed on any property owner in the City would be overbearing and would have overtones of constitutional violation,based on the prohibition ofretroactive application of ordinances. Retroactive application meant an ordinance cannot be created today and applied to all the activity the ordinance regulates that were already inexistence. Retroactive application is what the appellant is asking and this is not constitutionally supported. The decision of the building officials is well supported and well researched and Council can uphold their decisions. Mr. Zier stated there was no evidence this property was ever legally converted to a duplex. He did not believe the property owner intentionally evaded the regulations as there is no evidence to that. Nevertheless, even if the intent was unintentional, the evidence was that the regulations had been evaded. They were evaded with regard to railings, escape windows and lighting. The land owner admitted the property had been rented as a duplex by her since 1984 and that supplemental income had been a windfall for her. She had not informed the County Assessor of the property's use as a duplex or had it assessed as a multi-unit building. This was not a legally converted duplex,but the owner was getting all the benefits of that. Her written materials improperly introduced new evidence, a Sanborn Fire Insurance Map,to Council that was not part of the BRB hearing. It is also inaccurately stated in the written material provided by Ms. Bolton's attorney, that the staff determined the premises had been in use as a legal duplex since at least 1967. That is not what staff determined in the hearing and was nine years too late to be relevant or probative in this matter. Mr. Gebo made an unsubstantiated decision rather than looking at the evidence objectively. Mr. Gebo and Mr. Lee staked out a position based on 1984 evidence which was found nowhere in policy or practice in the rental housing standards and then they searched for evidence to substantiate their decision. The evidence was in writing in that there was no permit, no indication in the County records of conversion to a duplex. The only other way this could be shown was if the applicant or the City had records showing the property had been converted prior to 1958, which would then not require a permit. The standard to overturn the lower hearing decision was incorrectly stated. It is not that there be "no evidence" but that there is no "competent evidence." Conjecture and speculation was not competent evidence. Speculation is something that is properly objectionable and excluded in a court and should be here. Speculation was the only evidence of pre-1958 conversion or use as a duplex. There was no other evidence of it. This had been a punitive process on the applicant but it was properly before the Council and was properly before the BRB because the Rental Housing Standards say so and the decision should be overturned. Mr. Schultz stated a young man and his wife lived in the property at the time Mr. Schultz moved next door to the property. No one lived in the lower level. After a few years, Ms. Bolton began to rent the basement. He sent Ms. Bolton a letter stating there was a parking issue with the property and offered to work with her to come to a resolution on the issue. He never heard from Ms. Bolton. The City and the County do not agree on this issue. According to the County Assessor's office, a permit and fee is required when conversion from a single-family dwelling to a duplex takes place. This conflicted directly with statements from Mr. Lee and Mr. Gebo. The fact that there was more than one phone line to the property did not make a property a duplex. He had four phones coming 44 May 15, 2007 into his house when he purchased it. He also believed the wiring done to the dwelling should have required a permit according to the Building Code as permits are required for anything that alters or improves or converts a property that is subject to the Rental Housing Code. The building officials required a permit, after the fact, for the windows and the hand rails, but there was still no building permit for the hard wired smoke alarms. Past illegal use did not equal compliance nor should long- term illegal use "ripen"into legal use after a number of years. Ms. Kearney stated she had spoken with the County Tax Assessor's Office and asked if the tax assessment process made any distinction between a residential unit that has one unit or two,i.e.,was a duplex in a residential neighborhood. The Assessor Office informed her that no distinction was made and the property would be assessed the same,whether it had one unit in the basement and one unit on the second floor or if it was all one living space. To claim there has been some illegal use of the structure and that there has been a windfall by Ms. Bolton who has been renting the two units to college students since 1984 was a stretch. The reason the burden of proof was on the appellant was that he had to prove to Council that the building officials' decisions were wrong. Ms. Bolton had no duty to prove anything to Council. She was a participant in this procedure because she was next door to Mr. Schultz. She understood that the appeal process for building codes allowed the person who was affected by the decision, i.e., Ms. Bolton or any other person who was required to make changes or purchase a permit,to appeal. The City must then provide its evidence to show that modification or permit requirement was supported. In this case, Mr. Schultz was not a party-in- interest as far as ownership or maintenance of the structure is concerned,but he was claiming he had standing to raise an appeal because the building officials did not enforce a code to Mr. Schultz's standard. This was an unusual procedure in that other building code appeals resulted from a property owner appealing a decision they found untenable. The people most qualified to make this decision were the building officials, Mr. Lee and Mr. Gebo, who knew the Code inside and out, looked at properties and made decisions based on their knowledge. Ms.Bolton requested this appeal be denied because the appellant had not met his burden of proof. He had not demonstrated that the underlying decision made by the building officials was flawed or failed to rely on credible evidence. Mayor Hutchinson stated he had outlined a"three-pronged"approach to the key issues in this matter and asked if it was appropriate to state those. City Attorney Roy stated now was a proper time if it would help Council focus on particular matters in a particular order and expedite the discussion and resolution of the matter. Mayor Hutchinson stated the first item, not mentioned but was a part of the package in terms of housekeeping,was the reference change where the Uniform Building Code was the wrong reference in the Resolution passed by the Building Review Board and needed to be changed to Intemational Residential Code. The second item was the jurisdiction issue concerning whether the Board's decision that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the issue raised by the Notice of Appeal i.e.,does the Board have jurisdiction. If the Board had jurisdiction, counter to its decision, then Council would go to the third item concerning the building permit and whether, under the Intemational Residential Code, the conversion needed to be made into a duplex and required the fee to be paid. Councilmember Ohlson asked if there was no proof this property was ever allowed to be a duplex, post 1958, then why was it not clear this was not a legal duplex. He also asked what the fee would 45 May 15, 2007 be to convert to a legal duplex and why the addition of smoke alarms and the associated wiring did not require a building permit under the rental code. He also questioned why the City had a Building Review Board if this matter did not fall under its jurisdiction. Lee stated when he became involved in this case he simply looked at what was "reasonable" for the issue of when the building was converted. He looked at occupancy directories that indicated CSU students lived there with a widow. It did not make sense that they would be living in the same unit, so it was more likely they lived in the finished basement. The presumption then was that the building was probably a duplex and the additional phone lines were coincidental. He looked at it as an existing duplex that did not meet the rental housing standards. Smoke alarms are not required by the Rental Housing Standards so that was an improvement requested of the owner by the building officials because it was simple and effective. In retrospect, perhaps staff should have required a building permit, at a modest cost of$25. He viewed the building as an existing duplex and the important thing was to get it to current rental housing standards,but the impact fees were not required. He had authority to administer the codes in a reasonable way and his decision was that the unit was a duplex and had been for some time. With that conclusion,based on the rental standards, which were adopted in 1982, then there were no impact fees to be charged. The improvement impact fees were designed to accommodate expansion for city services and the impact existed prior to the time impact fees were passed. He believed all fees had been collected and he never considered the unit to be a conversion. He looked at it as an existing, Land Use Code complying, duplex. Councilmember Ohlson asked why it was not the job of the Building Review Board to look at this matter. He also asked if it was acceptable if someone converted a house two years ago into a duplex but did not pay the fees. Lee stated that was absolutely not true. This was a specific case. If a different matter arose and there was a contemporary record that indicated construction was done recently, then the decision would have been different. Today a conversion from one use to another permitted use would not require a building permit but a basic development review process. hi 1984, there was no such process. If the conversion had occurred two weeks ago or ten years ago,it would have been looked at much differently. Councilmember Ohlson asked if the Building Review Board should have ruled but did not. Lee stated the Building Review Board's duties are spelled out in the Uniform Building Code and the International Residential Code and are limited to an appeal from a person holding a permit or an applicant for a permit concerning a decision of the building official. That was its purview and it did not make decisions regarding land use issues,but was specifically limited in the Code. An appeal needed to be related to a permit or permit application and the only appellant with standing is an applicant or permit holder. Councilmember Ohlson did not think the appellant was asking for impact fees, but was asking for a building fee or a general fee. Since the impact fees did not exist in the early to mid-1980s that was not relevant. He asked if the appellant was asking for some other fee or if he was requesting impact fees. Lee believed the appellant was talking about capital expansion improvement fees. City Attorney Roy stated the question of jurisdiction,in addition to the provision in the IRC, which says that the holder of a permit or an applicant can appeal,Mr.Zier was arguing that Section 5-238 of the City Code contains a provision that states unless one is exempt,the Building Codes apply as 46 May 15, 2007 well as the Rental Housing Standards. In the Rental Housing Standards provision of the Code was a provision that states the BRB also interprets those standards. That was a different way to find that the BRB had the authority to apply the Building Code. It was a separate question, once a decision was made that the BRB did have the authority,as to whether those Codes,in this situation,required a building permit. There were two ways to answer the question of jurisdiction: the duties assigned to the BRB under the International Residential Code and the duties assigned to the BRB under the rental housing standards. The BRB found it did not have jurisdiction under the International Residential Code because the person who had appealed(Mr. Schultz)was not one who had standing under that Code. He did not hold a permit and was not seeking a permit. The separate question was whether the BRB had the authority to look at the appeal under the Rental Housing Standards. Mayor Hutchinson asked how Council can know the validity of the Rental Housing Code approach as the other approach seemed straightforward. According to the Building Review Board decision, under the City Code and the International Residential Code"appeals to the Building Review Board may only be made by persons who are either applicants for or holders of a building permit. Since the appellant is neither a permit applicant nor a holder of a building permit of 505 Locust Street,then the Building Review Board has no jurisdiction to hear his appeal." City Attorney Roy stated Section 5-259 states "in order to provide for final interpretation of the provisions of the Rental Housing Standards and to hear appeals provided for hereunder,the Building Review Board shall serve in such capacity." Paul Eckman,Deputy City Attorney,stated the Building Review Board decided the issue on the basis of the IRC which states the Board can only hear appeals from building permit holders or applicants. It was also true that Section 5-259 of the Rental Housing Standards states the Building Review Board is the Board to appeal to regarding any provision of the rental housing standards. Section 5-238 required compliance with the Land Use Code or the City's Building Codes currently in effect, unless the exemption was met. The Building Review Board did not decide it had jurisdiction under that Section, but decided it did not have jurisdiction under the IRC. If Council chose to look at the issue differently,then Section 5-259 would give the Building Review Board the authority to hear the appeal under the rental housing standards and then use Section 5-238 to decide if the exemption applied or not. If there was jurisdiction under Section 5-238, then the IRC would be used to see what the scope of that Code was and when it required a building permit. Councilmember Ohlson asked if someone converted abuilding even ten years ago to a duplex,would there be records available to prove whether it was done legally. Lee stated if a conversion was legally done in recent years then there would be documentation of the process being followed. If the documentation could not be produced, then the owner would have to comply with current regulations. Councilmember Ohlson asked for clarification as to what outcome the appellant was requesting. Mr. Zier stated the appeals process in the Code allowed the Council to affirm the decision of the Building Review Board,overturn the decision or Council can remand for two reasons: (1)if for some reason there has not been a fair hearing(not the case in his opinion)or(2)in order for the Board to receive additional information because presumably it did not receive enough information to decide the issue. He did not think that was applicable in this case because the Board made its decision regarding jurisdiction after hearing all the information. The appellant was asking Council to overturn the decision and find that the Building Review Board,under the Rental Housing Standards,had authority 47 May 15, 2007 or jurisdiction to consider the issue of whether or not a permit to convert was required by the Rental Housing Standards and that a building permit be required. He did not know what fees were associated with a conversion permit today, but if the building was not legally converted as of this time, it can be legally converted because it is legal in the zoning. The owner would need to get a permit to convert,pay the required fees and then it would be legal and there would be no complaint. Councilmember Ohlson asked if this decision was reached would the appellant then be happy. Mr. Zier answered in the affirmative and stated a permit should also be required for any alterations to improve rental premises which would include the smoke alarms. Councilmember Ohlson asked staff for a ballpark figure of the cost of those fees. Mr. Lee stated as a matter of policy, minor electrical work, done by a licensed electrician does not require a permit. Councilmember Ohlson clarified that he was asking what the cost would be for the fees to convert the building from single-family to a duplex. Lee felt the owner had already paid the fees with the payment of$700 for the permit for the work already done to the building. Mayor Hutchinson asked if that was the fee to convert the dwelling from a single-family dwelling to a duplex. Lee stated there was no specific fee to convert a building; fees are based on the construction done to do a conversion. Mayor Hutchinson asked if fees were based on the alterations done. Lee answered in the affirmative. Councilmember Ohlson asked if the Council decided that, under the rental housing standards the Building Review Board had jurisdiction and Council remanded the appeal back to the Board,what harm would be done. City Attorney Roy stated if Council believed the Board had jurisdiction and should have decided the merits of the question of whether or not a permit should have been required, then there did not appear to be any legal harm. If Council thought the Board was better equipped to decide whether or not a permit was required then Council could reverse the Board's decision and have it make that decision. Whether Council made the decision as to whether a permit was required to convert from a single-family dwelling to a two-family dwelling or sent the decision back to the Board,consideration must be given to the section in the IRC that explains when a permit is required. "Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, demolish or change the occupancy of a building or structure or to erect, install, enlarge, alter,repair,remove, convert or replace any electrical . . .or to cause any such work to be done shall first make application and obtain the required permit." The question to be addressed was does the owner intend to do any of those things. Assuming the IRC applied to this situation,because the owner cannot establish any exemption, then did she need to obtain a permit and for what purpose. She had already received a permit for the alterations and the question was if she needed to obtain a permit to convert. Mayor Hutchinson asked the appellant to clarify his statement that if he prevailed then the decision will help prevent the proliferation of duplexes in his area. Mr. Schultz(appellant) stated there were 12 instances of over-occupancy within a one-block radius of his home. This decision would set a precedent of not allowing a landlord to just convert buildings to a duplex without getting permits. 48 May 15, 2007 Mayor Hutchinson stated if the procedure to become a duplex is only to install a smoke alarm and pay a$700 fee,then this decision would not be a deterrent. Mr. Schultz stated when he spoke with Mr. Eckman and Mr. Gebo in September 2006 he asked what would be the cost of converting the building from a single-family residence to a duplex. The answer he received was that 22 years ago, the development fee was $1500 and the fee today is $15,000. Mayor Hutchinson asked what was the cost of fees - $700 or$15,000. Lee stated, in this specific case he verified with Zoning that when Ms. Bolton obtained the property in 1984, the zoning was RM-residential,multi-family and there was no development use process;it was a use by right. There were no fees at that time because there was no development process to convert from a single family dwelling to a duplex. Mayor Hutchinson stated if the cost of converting was $15,000, then that cost would be a deterrent but if the cost was $700 and adding a smoke detector, then that might not be a deterrent. Councilmember Ohlson did not believe it was the intent of Council to go back and add on fees. He asked if the fee to make the property code compliant had already been paid and if there was no construction fee to be charged. Lee answered in the affirmative. Councilmember Ohlson asked if there were protections for other duplexes not to proliferate illegally and thus avoid complying with the 3-unrelated rule. Mr. Zier stated if there is no evidence the property was ever a legally converted duplex,then it was an illegally converted duplex. This property was a single family home that had been illegally converted to a duplex. If the conversion was done illegally, then the situation was as if it had not been done. The analysis from the City should be that the situation was as if someone were coming today to convert the home and what would that normally take. Mayor Hutchinson asked if a vote should be taken to continue past the current time of 11:00 p.m. City Attorney Roy stated any item that is already in progress can continue without a vote as long as it was started before 10:30 p.m. Councilmember Brown asked if the property was a duplex in 1984 then would that not be considered its use. Councilmember Ohlson stated when Mr. Schultz bought his property he did his due diligence and it was not listed anywhere as a duplex nor was anyone living in the second unit. Mr. Schultz stated when he moved into his property, the subject property was occupied by a pastor and his wife and the second unit was completely vacant. He was led to believe that property was a single family residence by the County Assessor and the City and when he moved in, it appeared to be a single family residence. A couple of years later,there were four to six people living in the building, Attorney Kearney stated in 1984, the property was listed in the Multi-List as an"income property" and the testimony of the person who has owned it since 1984, stated that since then, she had rented the property as a duplex. In 1984, it was a"use by right'which meant no permit was necessary to use the property in that fashion under the zoning in place at that time. Permits would be needed in a current situation when someone would now be converting a single-family residence that had never 49 May 1 S, 2007 been used as a duplex into a duplex. That was the situation where impact fees and conversion issues would be an issue. None of those fees were in place in 1984. The Assessor's office did not distinguish between single-family residences and this type of duplex that has a basement unit and a ground level unit. The Assessor looked at the square footage and the residential nature of the property and that was the basis of the assessment. The fact that the property was not assessed as a multi-family building in the assessor's records was not indicative of whether or not it has been used as a duplex since 1984. There was no evidence in front of Council to indicate the property had not been used as a duplex. Ms. Bolton had stated she purchased the property as a duplex in 1984 and it had been in continuous use as a duplex since then. Councilmember Poppaw asked if the question was retroactively applying fees to this property. Kearney answered in the affirmative. Councilmember Poppaw asked if Ms. Bolton purchased the property in good faith in 1984 as a duplex and it has been used as such since then,was there only one portion of the duplex in use at the time Mr. Schultz moved into his property. Kearney stated Mr. Schultz was incorrect and the property had continuously been rented as a duplex since 1984. Councilmember Ohlson stated he did not want to set a precedent and allow residences to avoid complying with the 3-unrelated rule. He asked if other residences in the area were converted to duplexes, regardless of the date they were converted, would they be allowed to do so without complying with the process to become a duplex in order to avoid the 3-unrelated rule. Lee stated emphatically if a complaint is made on other properties,it would be investigated and if the property is occupied illegally, staff would do its best to make a case. Councilmember Ohlson asked if simply putting in a window or smoke alarm would then make such a property"legal". Lee stated that typically would not happen. The decision being appealed was based on a particular case, but it was not general policy. Mayor Hutchinson stated Lee made his decision,Mr. Schultz filed his appeal and the BRB decided, based on the International Residential Code Mr. Schultz had no standing for the BRB to make a decision regarding permits. Lee stated that was a summary of the situation and the IRC did not allow the BRB to consider other codes, such as the Land Use Code. The intent of the Rental Housing Standards, as non-administrative standards, was to allow the BRB to rule on such requirements as windows and compliance with the physical standards. In response to Councilmember Ohlson's question regarding non-compliance with the 3-unrelated rule, Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated the Land Use Code had been in effect for over ten years and it defined development as"any change in the intensity of use of land such as an increase in the number of dwelling units in a structure or tract of land." Today, changing a single-family dwelling to a duplex would constitute an increase in the number of dwelling units in a structure and would require the owner to go through the process under the Land Use Code which would bring about development fees and impact fees. It would require an outside entrance which would require a building permit, and parking would be addressed, as well. Councilmember Ohlson asked if a property owner had done a conversion in the past five or six years, 50 May 15, 2007 but claimed it was done in 1994 would that be considered a "legal" conversion. Lee stated that would not be the case and the owner would need to prove exactly when the premise was converted. If proof was not provided, then the duplex would not be allowed. Mayor Hutchinson asked if this particular case under appeal did not fit that scenario as the City did not have any records. Lee answered in the affirmative. Mayor Hutchinson asked if it was correct to now address the reference issue, then the jurisdiction issue,then focus on the building permit. City Attorney Roy stated that was a good order to proceed and he recommended once the topic of the building permit application was reached,then discussion was in order as to what was the intent of the IRC, assuming it applied to this situation. The discussion should focus on the question of a obtaining a permit to convert or just to do the alterations that are necessary to bring the property up to the rental housing standards. Mayor Hutchinson stated the first step was to decide the reference issue, which was basically a housekeeping issue. The decision of the Board that was being appealed was based on the Uniform Building Code instead of the International Residential Code,but there was no substantial difference between the two Codes in this case,but the correct Code needs to be referenced. Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw to correct the references to change from the Uniform Building Code to the International Residential Code which would give the technically legally correct reference. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Hutchinson stated the second issue was one of jurisdiction. Council needed to decide if the Building Review Board's decision that it did not have the ability to hear the appeal was a correct decision. If the Board did actually have jurisdiction and it was incorrect in its decision then the question of whether a permit would be required would be addressed. City Attorney Roy recommended dividing the second issue into two parts,whether the Board had jurisdiction under the IRC directly, which is limited clearly to holders of permits or an applicant for a permit and then resolve the question of a permit afterwards. Mayor Hutchinson stated the Council needed to decide the question of whether the BRB had jurisdiction and was its decision that,based on the IRC,it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal a correct decision or does Council overturn that decision. City Attorney Roy clarified this is one of the two ways the BRB would have jurisdiction, i.e., directly under the IRC provision. Mayor Hutchinson asked how much weight should be given to the decision already made by the BRB, that it did not have jurisdiction under the IRC which states that code appeals to the BRB can only be made by persons who are either applicants for or holders of a building permit. Since the appellant was neither, the BRB had decided it had no jurisdiction. Eckman agreed with the BRB's decision that,since the appellant did not hold a permit for 505 Locust Street,then under the IRC,the BRB decided correctly. 51 May 15, 2007 Councilmember Brown made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, stating the Council agreed the Building Review Board made the correct decision that it did not have jurisdiction under the IRC. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Roy stated the next question would be to determine if the BRB had jurisdiction under Section 5-259 of the City Code, which states the BRB can make final interpretations of the rental housing standards. It does not specify who can file an appeal. Mayor Hutchinson stated Section 5-259 was about appeals and asked if that section of the Code did state the Building Review Board could hear appeals. Attorney Zier stated Section 5-260 also applied. City Attorney Roy stated his interpretation was that Section 5-259 was concerning jurisdiction and Section 5-260 which contains the phrase"it shall be unlawful for. . ."which is found throughout the Code and means that staff has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, in a criminal proceeding, that somebody did act unlawfully and then they can be prosecuted for having done an unlawful act. That was not a grant of jurisdiction. That was a separate kind of violation and if there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Bolton failed to get a permit when she should have, then Section 5-260 would apply. That is not the issue now. Section 5-259 might apply. Councilmember Ohlson asked if a reasonable person could conclude the BRB did have jurisdiction under that Section of the Code. City Attorney Roy answered in the affirmative. If jurisdiction was established through this provision, then Council could get to the real issue of this appeal and give some guidance to staff as to how the Code should read when it come to the ultimate question of whether a person in this circumstance should get a building permit to convert from a single-family dwelling to a duplex when there is much ambiguity as to whether that was done properly in the beginning. Mayor Hutchinson asked for clarification between the provision in the IRC and the provision in the City Code. City Attorney Roy stated there were two separate provisions of the Code that give the BRB authority to do certain things. The provision under the IRC does not give the BRB authority because the appellant does not qualify. Council needed to decide if the BRB should have taken a separate look at Section 5-259. Councilmember Ohlson asked where Council might proceed from here. Eckman stated that currently, Council was considering Section 5-259 and asking the question of whether that Section gives the BRB and now the Council,jurisdiction to interpret Section 5-238 and decide what it meant. It did not take Council to the final step of deciding whether the IRC would or would not require a building permit. Section 5-238 only referred to all rental housing being required to conform to the Land Use Code and the Building Code,in a general sense. In the residential case,that would be the IRC. If Council did decide there was jurisdiction under Section 5-259, then it should move to the next question of what the IRC says about 505 Locust Street. Councilmember Ohlson asked if the BRB would then make the decision regarding the permit. City Attorney Roy stated that would occur only if Council remanded the appeal to the BRB. 52 May 15, 2007 Councilmember Ohlson asked what harm would occur if the appeal was remanded. City Attorney Roy stated Council should get to the merits of whether a permit was required,whether through the BRB or a decision made at this time. Section 5-259 gave Council the jurisdiction to do so. Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to determine that Section 5-259 Appeals, allowed the BRB to have jurisdiction to rule on the appeal. Councilmember Troxell asked if this determination set a precedent or was this only for this one case. Mayor Hutchinson stated this motion allowed Council to get to the real issue of whether,under the IRC, the property owner must get a building permit. City Attorney Roy stated this did set a precedent in that it gave the BRB authority to issue interpretations and hear appeals relating to the Rental Housing Standards brought by those who live next door to the person who owned the property in question. Councilmember Ohlson stated that was existing law and Council was clarifying that it exists. City Attorney Roy stated if Council did not like the outcome,then it could amend the Code later to limit the parties who can file such appeals. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Hutchinson stated since Council had found the BRB had jurisdiction to hear the appeal,the next step was for Council to decide whether to remand the appeal to the BRB for a decision on whether a building permit is required under the IRC or make that decision itself. Councilmember Roy asked if, in terms of the existing use of the property in 1984, emergency services were notified that this property was a duplex and not a single-family dwelling, and should the County Assessor have been notified this was a rental duplex and not a single-family dwelling. Lee stated there was requirement regarding notification to emergency services. He could not speak to the issue with the County Assessor. Mayor Hutchinson suggested that question be answered separately and asked for a motion for Council to remand to the BRB the issue of requiring the owner of 505 Locust Street,under the IRC, to get a building permit to convert to a duplex. Eckman asked to inquire of the parties-in-interest as to their views on whether a remand would be desirable to them or whether the most efficient move was for Council to make the decision regarding the building permit at this time. Attorney Kearney stated she would like the Council to make a determination at this time.If the BRB made a determination that wass not agreed with,then another appeal will come. If the decision was made based on a policy and the standards Council believes are in place then guidance would be given to the BRB for future decisions. The question must be framed very narrowly as Ms.Bolton was not the appellant in this matter. The burden should not be placed on Ms.Bolton because the burden rests 53 May 15, 2007 with the appellant. A decision now would be very helpful. Mayor Hutchinson stated it was difficult to decide what would be the impact of this matter as Council did not have any perspective on what this decision would mean. He asked the amount of the cost of the permit. Lee stated the issue is in this case,the cost is minimal. The minimum permit fee is $15. Mayor Hutchinson stated the confusion comes from Mr. Schultz's statement that this decision was the key to preventing people from converting homes to duplexes. A $15 fee will not prevent that. Eckman stated it was a question of the development review fees under the Land Use Code. Mayor Hutchinson stated Council did not feel it had the facts at its disposal to make a considered decision. Eckman stated this matter would most likely come back to the Council under a new appeal at a later time. Councilmember Ohlson stated if both parties wanted Council to make a decision now, then he was prepared to do so. Mr. Schultz stated every detail needed to be fully understood and a decision made now would not allow understanding of all the details. He felt it required more discovery. He wanted to answer Councilmember Poppaw's previous question regarding occupancy at the time he moved into his property. At that time he went next door and met the neighbors and asked if there was anyone living in the basement. The house was not being utilized as a duplex that particular summer. Mayor Hutchinson asked for a motion to remand the issue to the BRB. He also asked if Council was asking the BRB to return to Council with its recommendation or would it make the ruling. City Attorney Roy stated if the issue was remanded to the BRB it should be remanded with direction as to what Council expected the BRB to decide. If the BRB decided and one of the parties was dissatisfied, it would be back as another appeal. Councilmember Troxell stated the previous votes were to set up how the process would proceed from hereon,but with this particular case, he wanted to make the decision at this time. Mayor Hutchinson stated he did not know how the decision could be made now when Council did not know if it was a$25 fee or a$15,000 fee which would be an enormous impact on homeowners in Fort Collins. Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, that Council determine that the property has been used as a legal duplex since 1984 and the improvements had been made such that there was no safety issue so there are no fees to be assessed and no building permit was required. Councilmember Ohlson moved for a friendly amendment that requested staff to review the Code provisions that gave rise to the appeal and determine if changes were warranted to address some of the issues raised during this appeal and bring appropriate options to Council. 54 May 15, 2007 Councilmember Troxell accepted the friendly amendment. City Attorney Roy suggested the two motions be separated as Council must pass a resolution that speaks just to the merits of the appeal for the purposes of any possible court appeal. The motion for staff review of possible Code changes should be separate from a decision on the appeal. Councilmember Ohlson withdrew the friendly amendment. Councilmember Roy stated there was not enough information for Council to make this decision and he supported remanding the appeal to the BRB and for Council not to make at decision at this point. Councilmember Ohlson stated he had great sympathy for the appellant but at this point the fees would not go back and be $15,000 worth of impact fees because those did not exist in 1984. The situation next door to the appellant would not be changed regardless of any decision by the BRB or Council. He would like to decide this issue at this time but was more concerned about making a systemic change, if necessary, to ensure properties comply with the Code. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Ohlson, Poppaw, and Troxell. Nays: Roy. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Ohlson made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Troxell,that City staff review appropriate Code provisions that gave rise to the appeal, and see whether changes might be warranted to address the various issues that arose from the appeal and what options might exist for addressing those concerns. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown,Hutchinson,Ohlson,Poppaw,Roy,and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 55