HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-10/06/1998-RegularOctober 6,1998
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, October 6, 1998,
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: Azari, Bertschy, Byrne, Kneeland, Mason and Smith.
Councilmembers Absent: Wanner arrived at 6:35 p.m.
Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Krajicek, Roy.
Agenda Review
City Manager Fischbach stated that item #15 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 169, 1998,
ApprovingAmendments to the Cable TVFranchise Agreement Between the City offort Collins and
Heritage Cablevision of Delaware, Inc., Doing Business as TCI ofFort Collins is being withdrawn
from the Consent Calendar for discussion to allow an opportunity for a public hearing.
City Manager Fischbach stated that item #1913 Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 174,
1998, Rezoning 12.871 Acres, Known as the Warren Farm Rezoning, into the MMN - Medium
Density Mixed Use Neighborhood Zoning District is a hearing opportunity for anyone who wishes
to withdraw the item from the Consent Calendar.
City Manager Fischbach stated that item #34First Reading of Ordinance No. 167,1998,Authorizing
a Rebate of Development Fees Associated with the Construction of a New Manufacturing Facility
for Hewlett-Packard has been withdrawn from the agenda until November 3, 1998.
City Manager Fischbach stated that item #35 Resolution 98-144 Amending the Fossil Creek
Reservoir Area Plan has been withdrawn from the agenda to be postponed indefinitely.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 1998, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Cultural Services and Facilities Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations
Between the General Fund and the Art in Public Places Reserve Account in the Cultural
Services and Facilities Fund and Approving the Commission of "Human Spirit".
Fort Collins artist Jack Kreutzer's commemorative sculpture titled "Human Spirit" will consist
of a group of 3 life-sized bronze adult figures holding a child and a dog. The figures depict a
rescue worker along with a man, woman, and child wearing life jackets linking anus to support
one another. This sculpture is about the community's spirit, not only that night, but during the
RM
October 6, 1998
many days, weeks, and months that followed the Flood of 1997. Ordinance No. 154,1998, was
unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 15, 1998.
8. Items Relating to Various Lease Agreements.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 155, 1998, Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute a Lease of 400 Wood Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, to Respite Care, Inc.,
a Non -Profit Corporation.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 156, 1998, Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute a Lease of 906 East Stuart Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, to Sunshine
School, a Non -Profit Corporation.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 157, 1998, Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute a Lease of City Property in Fort Collins, Colorado, to Crossroads Safehouse,
a Non -Profit Corporation.
These Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 15, 1998, and
authorize the City Manager to execute lease agreements for Respite Care, Inc., the Sunshine
School and Crossroads Safehouse non-profit organizations.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 158, 1998, Authorizingthe he City Manager to Execute a
Lease of 328 West Mountain Avenue and 108 North Meldrum Street, Fort Collins, Colorado.
to Poudre Landmarks Foundation, Inc., a Colorado Non -Profit Corporation.
Ordinance No. 158, 1998, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on September
15, 1998, authorizes the City Manager to execute a lease agreement with the Poudre
Landmarks Foundation, Inc.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 159, 1998, Vacating that Portion of Hoffinan Mill Road
Right -of -Way as Dedicated in the Cache La Poudre Industrial Park P.U.D. to the East of
Timberline Road.
The sellers, Timberline Lakes LLC, intend to develop the retained property consistent with
the existing employment District Zoning Category (E) and to provide buffers between their
development and the natural areas. As part of the agreement with Timberline Lakes LLC,
the City agreed to recommend to Council the vacation of the undeveloped portion of
Hoffman Mill Road that is east of the newly constructed Timberline Road extension.
Ordinance No. 159, 1998, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 15,
1998, vacating that portion of Hoffman Mill Road right-of-way.
281
October 6, 1998
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 160, 1998, Vacating Portions of the Right -of -Way for an
Alley Dedicated in Block 103 of the City of Fort Collins.
Ordinance No. 160, 1998, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on September
15, 1998, vacates the alley adjacent to Lot 20 in Block 103 of the City of Fort Collins. A
portion of the alley in this Block was vacated in 1980 and the alley no longer runs through
the block. The area proposed for vacation does have existing utilities and transports drainage
within the right-of-way, therefore at the request of the utilities, the alley is being retained as
a utility and drainage easement.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 161, 1998, Vacating Portions of the Rights-of-WU fofor
Elk Road and Otter Drive as Dedicated on the South College Tech Center, First Filing and
the South College Tech Center, Second Filing.
Ordinance No. 161, 1998, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 15,
1998, and vacates the street rights -of -way for Elk Drive and Otter Road. The rights -of -way
for these streets are not needed as this area is planned as a business park with internal drives,
not streets. Elk Drive has been built and is planned as an access drive, but would not be
considered a public street.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 162, 1998, Authorizing the Grant of an Easement to New
Mercer Ditch Company for the Relocation of New Mercer Canal Within City Park Nine Golf
Course in Exchange for Abandonment of the Existing Ditch Alignment.
The New Mercer Ditch Company has requested relocation of a portion of the New Mercer
Canal within City Park Nine Golf Course. The Ditch Company will abandon and fill in a
portion of the existing canal with the dirt taken from relocated section of the canal. This
project will be an improvement for both the City and the New Mercer Canal which, in its
present location and size, has regularly overflowed. The new canal, without the existing
mammoth curve, will be able to carry more water and more rapidly, and should eliminate
much of the overflow problem and certainly eliminate the flooding which sometimes occurs
on those properties which are adjacent to the New Mercer Canal and on North Mulberry
Street. Ordinance No. 162, 1998 was unanimously adopted on First Reading on September
15, 1998.
14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 168, 1998, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code
Relating to the Fees of the Stormwater Utility.
It has now been a year since the Flood of 1997 devastated many parts of Fort Collins. During
the time since the flood, City Utilities staff has received a great deal of input from citizens
concerned about the level of flood protection and the timing of the construction of the
improvements within the City. As a result of that input, staff worked with the Water Board
282
October 6, 1998
to study the problem and develop a financing and improvement plan that will meet the City's
needs. At its regular monthly meeting on May 27, the Water Board adopted an approach to
improvements and funding for recommendation to Council. At its July 28th Study Session,
Council provided guidance to staff to bring forward an ordinance to increase monthly
stormwater fees which is the first step in implementing a City-wide approach to financing
and constructing needed stormwater improvements. Ordinance No. 168, 1998 was
unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 15, 1998.
15. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 169, 1998, Approving Amendments to the Cable TV
Franchise Agreement Between the City of Fort Collins and Heritage Cablevision of
Delaware, Inc., Doing Business as TCI of Fort Collins.
City staff and Heritage Cablevision of Delaware, Inc., doing business as TCI of Fort Collins
("TCI") have reached a proposed settlement agreement that would enhance service for local
cable TV customers. The settlement is a result of ongoing negotiations between TCI and the
City of Fort Collins regarding a disputed provision of the Franchise Agreement between TCI
and the City of Fort Collins. The City's Cable TV Franchise Agreement with TCI required
a cable system upgrade to be completed by November 6, 1997. Since November, 1997, the
City and TCI have been in a disagreement over interpretations of certain provisions of the
Franchise Agreement. When ongoing discussions between City staff and TCI failed to result
in resolution of the disagreement, a hearing to consider revocation of TCI's franchise was
scheduled before Council for Tuesday, August 18, 1998. However, prior to the hearing City
staff and TCI negotiated a settlement which both parties believe is fair and, most importantly,
which will provide greater and better services for the citizens of Fort Collins. Ordinance No.
169,1998, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 15, 1998, amending the
Cable TV Franchise Agreement.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 170, 1998, Amending Section 28-17 of the City Code
Relating to Bicyclists Riding on Recreational Trails.
The City's Model Traffic Code requires bicyclists, when riding on a sidewalk or a crosswalk,
to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and to give an audible signal before overtaking and
passing pedestrians. There is no comparable provision in the City Code that imposes these
requirements on bicyclists using the City's recreational trails. Adoption of this Ordinance
will extend these requirements to bicyclists using the City's recreational trails.
The City's recreational trails are very popular and it is important for cyclists to yield to and
warn pedestrians when passing. This requirement will help reduce user conflict on the trails
and will help keep the trails safe for everyone. The City Code currently imposes similar
requirements on rollerbladers and skateboarders who use the City's trails.
283
October 6, 1998
17. Items Relating to Long -Term Leases of Aircraft Hangers at the Fort Collins -Loveland
Airport.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 171, 1998, Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into a
Lease Agreement for a Lot at the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport to
Mountain Capital Markets, Inc. for the Construction of an Aircraft Hangar (Site A).
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 172, 1998, Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into a
Lease Agreement for a Lot at the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport to
Mountain Capital Markets, Inc. for the Construction of an Aircraft Hangar (Site B).
The Airport Manager has negotiated two leases ofproperty to Mountain Capital Markets, hic.
for the construction of two aircraft hangars. The hangars will provide at least 5,400 square
feet of aircraft storage space. At the expiration of the lease, the improvements revert to the
ownership of the Cities.
The construction of the hangars will generate new revenue for the Airport and help meet the
aircraft storage needs of local aircraft owners.
18. Items Relating to the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad Company Crossing
Devices.
A. Resolution 98-134 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with
the Colorado Department of Transportation, and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Railway Company for Upgrading the Crossing Warning Devices at the North Lemay
Avenue and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Crossing.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 173, 1998, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue
in the Minor Streets Capital Project Fund to be used for Upgrading the Crossing
Warning Devices at the North Lemay Avenue and Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Railroad Crossing.
The agreement with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the Burlington
Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) is for upgrading the crossing warning
devices at the North Lemay Avenue and BNSF crossing. This project was prompted several
years ago when the City installed a traffic signal at the Lemay Avenue and Vine Street
intersection, just north of the BNSF crossing. The Public Utilities Commission (PUC)
required that better crossing warning devices be installed at the crossing to insure optimum
performance of the traffic signals and the crossing warning devices. The crossing devices
which consist of flashing signals with gates will be replaced with new equipment. The
"constant warning device" that monitors the track for approaching trains will also be
upgraded with new equipment. The "constant warning device" minimizes the delay to traffic
284
October 6, 1998
at the crossing and at the intersection. The new equipment will also reduce the risk of
equipment failure which can cause extensive traffic delays.
19. Items Relating to the Warren Farm Rezoning.
A. Resolution 98-135 Amending the City's Structure Plan Map.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 174, 1998, Rezoning 12.871 Acres,
Known as the Warren Farm Rezoning, into the MMN - Medium Density Mixed Use
Neighborhood Zoning District.
This is a request to rezone 12.871 acres located at the northeast corner of West Horsetooth
Road and future Meadowlark Avenue (extended). The property is currently undeveloped and
is in the LMN - Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood Zoning District. The requested
zoning for this property is MMN - Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. The
surrounding properties are zoned LMN - Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (to the
north), C - Commercial (to the east), LMN - Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (to the
west), and C - Commercial (to the south).
APPLICANT: The Cumberland Companies
c/o Nuszer Kopatz Urban Design Associates
1129 Cherokee Street
Denver, CO 80204
OWNER: Eric Golting
10700 East Bethany Drive, Suite 200
Aurora, CO 80014-2625
20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 175, 1998, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and
Unanticipated Revenue in Various Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated
Amounts Between Funds.
This Ordinance increases the 1998 appropriations by $6,928,508. This is a 2.24% increase
over the 1998 total City adopted budget. Funding for these appropriations is $2,855,333
from dedicated unanticipated revenue, $3,102,877 from prior year reserves, and $970,298
transferred from other funds. If duplicate appropriations for transfers between funds are
taken out, the net increase in appropriations is $5,958,210. In addition, appropriations in the
amount of $329,608 are being transferred between projects or from operations to a capital
or grant project within the same fund (these items do not increase overall City
appropriations).
285
October 6, 1998
21. Resolution 98-136 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings
for the HH-36 Annexation (formerly known as the Morroni Annexation)
The property being considered for annexation is a total of 60.527 acres in size and is located
at the northwest corner of County Road 9 and County Road 36. The petitioner, H. H.
hivestment Company, a Colorado General Partnership, comprises more than 50% of the
landowners in the area and owns more than 50% of the area to be annexed, including public
streets, alleys, and lands owned by Latimer County/City of Fort Collins. The petitioner
requests that the subject property be annexed and zoned LMN, Low Density Mixed Use
Neighborhood.
The proposed Resolution determines that the annexation petition complies with the
Municipal Annexation Act. The Resolution also determines that a hearing should be
established regarding the annexation and directs that notice be given of the hearing. The
hearing will be held at the time of first reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances on
November 17, 1998.
The property is located within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. According to policies
and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Latimer County contained in the
Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area, the City will agree
to consider annexation of all properties within the unincorporated area of the Fort Collins
Urban Growth Area as soon as said property becomes contiguous to the City and therefore
eligible for annexation and the owner either requests voluntary annexation into the City or
is required to annex such property into the City by the County.
22. Items Relating to the General Employees Retirement Plan.
A. Resolution 98-137 Amending the CityofFort Collins General Employees Retirement
Plan to Allow for a Conversion to a Money Purchase Pension Plan.
B. Resolution 98-138 Approving the Amendment of the Eligibility and Contribution
Provisions of Certain Employee Pension Plans.
Resolution 98-137 amends the General Employees Retirement Plan to allow members of the
Plan to convert to a money purchase pension plan. The GER Committee conducted aprocess
to determine plan member interest in allowing members to convert their participation in the
Plan to a defined contribution, self -directed, money purchase pension plan. Following an
educational process, members were provided the opportunity to irrevocably elect to convert
their participation from the GER Plan to a money purchase plan.
Resolution 98-138 provides that the employees converting and transferring assets from the
General Employees Retirement Plan shall be transferred to an existing qualified 401(a)
9M
October 6, 1998
money purchase plan administered by the ICMA Retirement Corporation. Upon conversion,
in lieu of contributing an amount to the GERP, the City will contribute an amount equal to
4.5% of each employees earnings to the money purchase plan account. Employees hired
after December 31, 1998, would be covered by the money purchase plan. The General
Employees Retirement Plan will not accept new members after December 31, 1998. The
Resolution authorizes the City Manager to execute the Adoption Agreements with ICMA for
each of the affected money purchase pension plans. The Resolution also authorizes the City
Manager to execute documents that will merge existing money purchase plans to simplify
administration, provided that the employee participants of such merged plans are not
adversely affected by the merger.
23. Resolution 98-139 Amendingthe e City of Fort Collins' General Employees Retirement Plan
to Provide Early Retirement Plan and Single -Sum Benefits for Disabled Vested Members.
Over the past few months, the General Employees Retirement Committee ("GERC") has
been approached by disabled vested members of the Plan. The members requested that the
Plan be amended so that they can draw some of their earned retirement benefits. The GERC
has reviewed the members' requests and the related provisions of the Plan. The Committee
has also sought and received advice regarding the proposed plan amendment from the Plan's
actuary and determined that such a change will not adversely affect the financial status of the
Plan. The proposed amendment to the Plan will provide the ability for early retirement and
single -sum benefit payments to be made to disabled vested members of the Plan who are no
longer engaged in covered employment. The effect of the amendment will be to increase the
portability and flexibility of pension benefits.
24. Resolution 98-140 Making Findings of Fact Regarding the Appeal of the Plannin and
Zoning Board Denial of the Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One - Final and Overturning the
Decision of the Board.
On July 30, 1998, an appeal of the July 16, 1998 final decision of the Planning and Zoning
Board to deny the Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One - Final was filed by the Appellants G.
D. McGarvey, Lee A. Stark, and Joe Vansant.
On September 15, 1998, City Council voted to overturn the decision of the Planning and
Zoning Board. In order to complete the record regarding this appeal, the Council should
adopt a Resolution making findings of fact and finalizing its decision on the appeal.
WYA
October 6, 1998
25. Resolution 98-141 Making Appointments to the Natural Resources Advisory Board and the
Planning and ZoningBoard.
oard.
A vacancy currently exists on the Natural Resources Advisory Board due to the resignation
of Jan Behunek. Councilmembers Bertschy and Wanner reviewed the applications on file
and are recommending that Rick Harness be appointed to fill the vacancy with a term to
begin immediately and to expire on June 30, 2000.
A vacancy also currently exists on the Planning and Zoning Board due to the resignation of
Gwen Bell. Applications were solicited and Councilmembers Byrne and Mason conducted
interviews. The Council interview team is recommending that Judy Meyer be appointed to
fill the vacancy with a term to begin immediately and to expire on June 30, 2002.
26. Resolution 98-142 Making aBoard and Commission Liaison Assignment to the Planning and
Zoning Board.
At its May 6, 1997 meeting, Council adopted Resolution 97-65 making board and
commission liaison assignments and committee appointments. Resolution 97-65 provided
for the appointment of Councilmember Mike Byme as liaison to the Planning and Zoning
Board.
Councilmember Byme has expressed a desire to have Council appoint Councilmember
Mason to replace him as liaison to the Planning and Zoning Board.
This Resolution appoints Councilmember Scott Mason as liaison to the Planning and Zoning
Board.
27. Routine Easements.
A. Easement from Sav Mor Self Storage LTD, for a maintenance, vehicular, and
pedestrian access easement to the loop trail located at Gustav Swanson Natural Area,
1,133 square feet of Lot 1 of the Plat of Sav Mor Self Storage P.U.D. Monetary
consideration: $10.
B. Easement from Christopher and Sheila Harford, owners of Linden Storage Tech, for
a maintenance, vehicular, and pedestrian access easement to the loop trail located at
the Gustav Swanson Natural Area,1,844 square feet of Tract 2 of the Plat of Linden
Tech Center. Monetary consideration: $10.
Mfl
October 6, 1998
Items on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 1998 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Cultural Services and Facilities Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations
Between the General Fund and the Art in Public Places Reserve Account in the Cultural
Services and Facilities Fund and Approving the Commission of "Human Spirit".
Items Relating to Various Lease Agreements.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 155, 1998, Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute a Lease of 400 Wood Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, to Respite Care, Inc.,
a Non -Profit Corporation.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 156, 1998, Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute a Lease of 906 East Stuart Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, to Sunshine
School, a Non -Profit Corporation.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 157, 1998, Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute a Lease ofCityProperty in Fort Collins, Colorado, to Crossroads Safehouse,
a Non -Profit Corporation.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 158, 1998, Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a
Lease of328 West Mountain Avenue and 108 North Meldrum Street Fort Collins Colorado
to Poudre Landmarks Foundation, Inc., a Colorado Non -Profit Corporation
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 159, 1998, Vacating that Portion of Hoffman Mill Road
Right -of -Way as Dedicated in the Cache La Poudre Industrial Park P.U.D. to the East of
Timberline Road.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 160 1998 Vacating Portions of the Right -of -Way for an
Alley Dedicated in Block 103 of the City of Fort Collins
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 161, 1998 Vacating Portions of the Rights -of -Way for
Elk Road and Otter Drive as Dedicated on the South College Tech Center First Filing and
the South College Tech Center, Second Filing:
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 162, 1998, Authorizing the Grant of an Easement to New
Mercer Ditch Company for the Relocation ofNew Mercer Canal Within City Park Nine Golf
Course in Exchange for Abandonment of the Existing Ditch Alignment
14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 168, 1998, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code
Relating to the Fees of the Stormwater Utility.
NM
October 6, 1998
15. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 169, 1998, Approving Amendments to the Cable TV
Franchise Agreement Between the City of Fort Collins and Heritage Cablevision of
Delaware, Inc., Doing Business as TCI of Fort Collins.
31. Items Relating to the Lincoln Junior High School 1st Annexation.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 163, 1998, Annexing Property Known as the
Lincoln Junior High School 1st Annexation.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 164, 1998, Amending the Zoning District Map of
the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included
in the Lincoln Junior High School 1 st Annexation.
32. Items Relating to the Lincoln Junior High School 2nd Annexation.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 165, 1998, Annexing Property Known as the
Lincoln Junior High School 2nd Annexation.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 166, 1998, Amending the Zoning District Map of
the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included
in the Lincoln Junior High School 2nd Annexation.
Items on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 170, 1998, Amending Section 28-17 of the City Code
Relatingtyclists Riding on Recreational Trails.
17. Items Relating to Long -Term Leases of Aircraft Hangers at the Fort Collins -Loveland
Airport.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 171, 1998, Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into a
Lease Agreement for a Lot at the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport to
Mountain Capital Markets, Inc. for the Construction of an Aircraft Hangar (Site A).
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 172, 1998, Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into a
Lease Agreement for a Lot at the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport to
Mountain Capital Markets, Inc. for the Construction of an Aircraft Hangar (Site B).
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 173, 1998, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Minor Streets Capital Project Fund to be used for Upgrading the Crossing Warning Devices
at the North Lemay Avenue and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Crossing.
290
October 6, 1998
19. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 174, 1998, Rezoning 12.871 Acres. Known as
the Warren Farm Rezoning, into the MMN - Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood
Zoning District.
20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 175, 1998, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and
Unanticipated Revenue in Various Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated
Amounts Between Funds.
33. First Reading of Ordinance No. 176, 1998, Changing the Name of the Development Impact
Fee Rebate Pro am to the Develo ment Impact Fee Offset Program.
34. First Reading of Ordinance No. 167, 1998, Authorizing a Rebate of Development Fees
Associated with the Construction of a New ManufacturingFacility acility for Hewlett-Packard
36. Items Relating to the Choice Streets System Comprehensive Program.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 177, 1998, Amending the Land Use Code and the
Transitional Land Use Regulations Pertaining to Development Construction Permits
and Construction Inspection Fees.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 178, 1998, Amending the Transitional Land Use
Regulations by the Addition of Two New Sections to Be Numbered Sections 29-13
and 29-14, Amending Sections 2.2.3, 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 of the Land Use Code, and
Amending the "Design and Construction Criteria, Standards and Specifications for
Streets, Sidewalks, Alleys and Other Public Ways", All of Which Amendments
Pertain to Extended Guarantee and Bonding Requirements for Developers.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 179, 1998, Amending the "Design and Construction
Criteria, Standards and Specifications for Streets, Sidewalks, Alleys and Other Public
Ways" Pertaining to Street Repairs and Reconstruction.
D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 180,1998, Amending Chapters 15, 24 and 26 of the
City Code Relating to Right -of -Way Contractors Licenses.
E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 181, 1998, Amending Chapter 23, Article 11 of the
City Code Pertaining to Excavations on Public Property and Amending Chapter 7.5
of the City Code by the Addition of a New Article IV for the Purpose of Revising and
Establishing Certain Fees for Permission to Excavate Streets.
291
October 6, 1998
F. First Reading of Ordinance No. 182, 1998, Amending Chapter 24 of the City Code
by the Addition of a New Section 24-97 and Amending the "Design Construction
Criteria, Standards and Specifications for Streets, Sidewalks, Alleys, and Other
Public Ways" by Adding a New Section 1.03 and by the Addition of a New
Appendix "A", All of Which Additions and Amendments Pertain to Policies and
Standards for Maintenance to and Improvements of Annexed Streets and
Infrastructure.
G. First Reading of Ordinance No. 183, 1998, Amending Chapter 24 of the Code of the
City, the Land Use Code and the "Design and Construction Criteria, Standards and
Specifications for Streets, Sidewalks, Alleys and Other Public Ways" Regarding
Regulations Pertaining to Private Streets and Private Drives.
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mason, to adopt and approve
all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Azari, Bertschy, Byrne, Kneeland, Mason and Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Staff Reports
Greg Byrne, Community Planning and Environmental Services Director, recognized CPES staff
members for achievements and awards received: Linda Devocelle, Natural Resources - EPA award
for the radon program; Shirley Bruns, Natural Resources - North Front Range Solid Waste Action
Group recycling education award; Shirley Bruns and Susie Gordon, Natural Resources - 3CMA
communications and marketing award; Joe Frank, Planning - Governor's Smart Growth Award for
City Plan; Pete Wray, Planning - Governor's Smart Growth Award for joint planning with Larimer
County for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan; Sue Kinney, Natural Resources - Colorado Alliance
for Environmental Education Partnership Award for the Master Naturalist program; Brian Woodruff,
Linda Devocelle, Lucinda Smith, and Karen Manci - recognition from the Environmental Law
Institute for the Fort Collins Clean Air Program; Ann Watts, Planning - State of Colorado Housing
Conference flood housing crisis recognition.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Mason reported on the Growth Management Committee's discussions concerning
the proposed metropolitan district for Richards Lake, the Mountain Vista Subarea plan, the flood
plain development regulation program, the Poudre Corridor Land Use Plan schedule, an amendment
to the Fossil Creek Subarea Plan, and proposed changes to the land use code.
Councilmember Bertschy reported on the Legislative Review Committee luncheon at which a
portion of the legislative agenda was presented to legislators.
292
October 6, 1998
Councilmember Smith reported on the Regional Transportation group's adoption of the regional
20/20 plan and transportation improvement program. He noted that the Colorado Health Department
is looking at a clean screening program for monitoring of vehicle emissions on the road. He also
noted that an MPO training session regarding the transportation programs, processes and funding
is scheduled for November 4-6.
Items Relating to the Lincoln
Junior High School 1st Annexation Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 163, 1998, Annexing Property Known as the Lincoln
Junior High School 1st Annexation.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 164,1998, Amending the Zoning District Map ofthe City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Lincoln
Junior High School Ist Annexation.
On September 15, 1998, Council unanimously adopted Resolution 98-131 Setting Forth Findings
of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Lincoln Junior High School 1st Annexation.
Also on September 15, 1998, Council adopted Ordinance No. 163, 1998 on First Reading by a vote
of5-1 annexing Lincoln Junior High School Ist and unanimously adopted Ordinance No. 164, 1998
on First Reading on September 15, 1998, zoning the property. The Lincoln Junior High School 1st
Annexation consists entirely of right-of-way along Vine Drive. The property has 904. 00feet of its
total boundary length of 5,419.13 feet (17%) contiguous to existing City limits. This exceeds the
minimum 903.13 feet required to achieve 1/6th contiguity. "
Councilmember Byme made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Bertschy, to adopt Ordinance
No. 163, 1998 on Second Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Bertschy, Byme, Kneeland, Mason and Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to adopt Ordinance
No. 164, 1998 on Second Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Bertschy, Byme, Kneeland, Mason and Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
293
October 6, 1998
Items Relating to the Lincoln Junior High
School 2nd Annexation, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 165, 1998, Annexing Property Known as the Lincoln
Junior High School 2nd Annexation.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 166,1998, Amending the Zoning District Map ofthe City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Lincoln
Junior High School 2nd Annexation.
On September 15, 1998, Council unanimously adopted Resolution 98-132 Setting Forth Findings
of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Lincoln Junior High School 2nd Annexation.
Also on September 15, 1998, Council adopted Ordinance No. 165, 1998 on First Reading by a vote
of5-1 annexingLincoln Junior High School 2ndand unanimously adopted Ordinance No. 166,1998
on First Reading on September 15, 1998, zoning the property. This is a 100% voluntary annexation
of an area approximately 48.7 acres in size and is located on West Vine Drive, between North
Shields Street and North Taft Hill Road. The existing use of the property is a junior high school.
The property has 2, 899.84 feet of its total boundary length of 14, 692.19 feet (20%) contiguous to
existing City limits. This exceeds the minimum 2,448.70 feet required to achieve 1/6th contiguity."
Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to adopt
Ordinance No. 165, 1998 on Second Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Azari, Bertschy, Byrne, Kneeland, Mason and Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adopt Ordinance
No. 166, 1998 on Second Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Bertschy, Byrne, Kneeland, Mason and Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
("Secretary's Note: Councilmember Wanner arrived at 6:35 p.m.)
294
October 6, 1998
Ordinance No. 176,1998, Changing
the Name of the Development Impact Fee
Rebate Program to the Development Impact
Fee Offset Program, Adopted on First Reading;
Resolution 98-143 Postponed to November 3,1998
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 176, 1998 Changing the Name of the Development Impact
Fee Rebate Program to the Development Impact Fee Offset Program.
B. Resolution 98-143 Repealing andReadopting the Development Impact Fee Rebate Program
Regulations for Affordable Housing.
For Rental projects:
A. Changing the Manner in Which Offset Allocations are Paid from a Flat
Dollar Amount to a Percentage of Eligible Fees Paid.
B. Lowering the Maximum Area Median Income (AMI) Percentage for Offset
Allocations from 60% ofAMI to 55% ofAMI.
C. Revising the Offset Allocation Schedule to Start with a 50%Reimbursement
of Eligible Fees Paid for Units Affordable for Families Earning 55% ofAMI
and Increasing to a 100% Reimbursement of Eligible Fees Paid for Units
Affordable for Families Earning 30% of AMI.
2. For Homeownership Projects:
A. Eliminating the Program as it Currently Exists as a Reimbursement to the
Developer of Homeownership Units and Changing to a Loan to the
Purchaser of the Unit.
B. Establishing the Maximum AMI Percentage for Eligibility for the Loan at
60% of AMI.
C. The Loan to the Purchaser would be in the Form of a $5, 000 Zero Interest
Deferred Loan.
295
October 6, 1998
One of the programs established by the City of Fort Collins to promote the development of
affordable housing units inside the city limits is known as the Development Impact Fee Rebate
Program. This program provides a partial rebate to an affordable housing developer ofthe impact
fees paid to the City, other governmental entities, and/or special purpose utility districts. Currently,
the amount ofper unit rebate is based on a graduated scale dependent upon the commitment of the
developer to provide units as certain income levels, with higher rebates given for housing units
reserved for lower income families. In mid-1996, the City Council asked the Affordable Housing
Board to re-examine the Rebate Program and to consider making rebates based on a percentage of
fees paid instead of flat dollar amounts. The Board has reexamined the Program and forwards a
list of changes which are contained in proposed Ordinance and Resolution.
BACKGROUND:
In 1994, the City Council established the Development Impact Fee Rebate Program permitting a
partial rebate of City impact fees for the purpose of promoting the development of additional
affordable housing units. Fees eligible for rebate are currently limited to the following:
Water Plant Investment Fee
Water Rights Acquisition Fee
Sewer Plant Investment Fee
Street Oversizing Fee
Storm Drainage Fee
Neighborhood Parkland Fee
Community Parkland Expansion Fee
Library Capital Improvement Expansion Fee
General Government Capital Improvement Expansion Fee
Police Capital Improvement Expansion Fee
Fire Capital Improvement Expansion Fee
Fees in Lieu of Land Dedication Paid to a School District
Water and Sewer Plant Investment Fees and Water Acquisition fees Paid to Special
Purpose Utility Districts for Water and Sewer Services
The Affordable Housing Board isproposing a series ofchanges to the current Rebate Program. The
changes are included in Ordinance No. 176, 1998, and Resolution 98-143 for Council's
consideration and are discussed in detail in the following sections.
Changine the Name of the Development Impact Fee Rebate Program to the Development Impact
Fee Offset Program
The name "Rebate Program" has always been somewhat misleading because the "rebates" or
"reimbursements" made to a developer of an affordable housing project do not come from the
individual impact fee funds, e.g., the Parkland Fund, the Street Oversizing Fund, etc., but rather
from the City's General Fund. The developer of an affordable housing project pays impact fees to
296
October 6, 1998
the City like any other housing developer would pay. The City then uses the fees collected for their
individual specified purposes. The Parkland Fund is used for the acquisition of land and the
development of parks; the Street Oversizing Fund is used to cover the cost of expanding
transportation facilities; etc. It is recognized that the assessment of impact fees directly affects the
cost ofhousing, in other words, the cost of impact fees is passed on to the consumer by the developer
in the form of higher rents or higher purchase prices. The developer of an affordable housing
project, after completion of the project, is eligible to apply for a reimbursement offunds from the
City to "offset" the payment of impact fees. In theory, this reimbursement is part ofwhat helps keep
the rents or purchase prices of units affordable to low income families.
As indicated, the offset or reimbursement to developers ofaffordable housingprojects is made with
monies in the City's General Fund. To better clarify the intent and operations ofthe Program, the
Affordable Housing Board is recommending changing the name of the Program from the
Development Impact Fee Rebate Program to the Development Impact Fee Offset Program, and
would be accomplished by adoption of Ordinance No.176,1998. Based on past history ofthe Rebate
Program, the City has allocated about $113, 310 per year to affordable housing projects (the range
is from a low of $31,984 to a high of $201,060).
Changine the Manner in Which Reimbursement Allocations are Paid from Flat Dollar Amounts to
a Percentaee of Eligible Fees Paid
Reimbursement allocations are currently paid in a lump sum so, in other words, a reimbursement
is not dissected to provide, for example, a $100 reimbursement for Parkland Fees and a $200
reimbursement for Street Oversizing Fees, etc. The amount ofper unit reimbursement is based on
a graduated scale dependent upon the commitment of the developer to provide units at certain
income levels, with higher rebates given for housing units reserved for lower income families. For
rental projects, reimbursements range from a low of $730 for a unit reserved for a family with an
income at 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI), to a high of $5,120 for a unit reserved for a family
with an income at 30% ofAMI or lower. For homeownership projects, reimbursements range from
a low of $730 for a unit reserved for a family with an income at 80% of AMI, to a high of $5,120
for a unit reserved for a family with an income at 30% of AMI or lower. The table below
summarizes the current Rebate Schedules per unit for both Rental and Homeownership projects.
297
October 6, 1998
RENTAL
HOMEOWNERSHIP
PROJECT
PROJECT
AMI
REBATE
REBATE
80%
$ 730
70%
-
$1,460
60%
$ 730
$2,190
50%
$2,190
$2,290
40%
$3, 660
$3, 660
30%
$5,120
$5,120
Basing reimbursements on flat dollar amounts causes problems whenever fees are increased and/or
new fees are added. If the reimbursement schedules are not amended whenever fees are increased
and/or new fees are added the impact of the Program in stimulating the development of affordable
housing is reduced. In order to compensate for increased and/or new fees and avoid the need to
change the reimbursement schedules in the future, the Affordable Housing Board is recommending
that future fee offset reimbursements be based on a percentage of eligible fees actually paid rather
than flat dollar amounts.
As an example ofhow the new reimbursement allocation program would work, assume the developer
of an affordable housing project calculates the amount of fees paid to all of the above listed
categories and determines the total is an average of $5,000 per unit. Also, for the sake of this
example, assume the commitment of the developer is to reserve all units to families with incomes at
such a level to qualify the developer for a 50% reimbursement of eligible fees paid (see discussion
below). That would mean the developer would receive a reimbursement allocation of $2,500 per
unit from the Affordable Housing Fund.
Rental Proiects
The Affordable Housing Board is recommending two basic changes to the current Program for
rental projects as follows:
Lowering the Maximum Area Median Income (AMI) Percentage forReimbursements
from 60% of AMI to 55% of AMI.
2. Revising the Reimbursement Schedule to Start with a 50% Reimbursement ofEligible
Fees Paid for Units Affordable for Families at 55% of AMI and Increasing to a
100%Reimbursement of Eligible Fees Paid for Units Affordable forFamilies at 30%
of AMI.
The Board believes programs already exist, e.g., Low Income Housing Tax Credits, Private Activity
Bonds, etc., which provide incentives to developers to produce units in the 60% ofAMI range. The
October 6, 1998
Board suggests that the City should provided additional incentives to developers to increase the
affordability of units from those for families earning 60% ofAMI to those earning 55% ofAM7, or
lower.
The proposed Reimbursement Schedule as recommended by the Affordable Housing Board for
Rental Projects is summarized in the table below.
Percentage ofAM7
30910
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
0 BR Unit
$262
$293
$335
$377
$419
$461
1 BR Unit
286
334
383
430
477
525
2 BR Unit
323
376
430
484
537
591
3 BR Unit
387
452
516
581
645
710
4 BR Unit
415
485
554
623
692
762
5 BR Unit
475
552
631
710
789
868
Percentage Offset
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
In order to assess the potential financial impact of the proposed reimbursement allocation change
to the City's Affordable Housing Fund, an analysis of rebates actually given to completed projects
and those reimbursements which could potentially be given to pending projects was made and
compared to actual or anticipated rebates.
The comparison is summarized in the table below.
Completed Rental Proiects
OFFSET
ACTUAL REIMBURSEMENT
PROJECT REBATE (% OF REBATE) DIFFERENCE
CARE/Greenbriar
$ 71,400
$
22,934 (32%)
$
48,466
Rose Tree Village
$106,800
$
50,356 (47%)
$
56,444
CARE/W. Swallow
$ 79,400
$
67,562 (85%)
$
11,838
FCHC/W. Swallow
$ 54,020
$
25,759 (48%)
$
28,261
Woodlands
$119,720
$
51,433 (43%)
$
68,287
TOTALS $431,340
Pending Rental Projects
$ 218,044 (51 %)
299
OFFSET
October 6, 1998
POSSIBLE REIMBURSEMENT
PROJECT REBATE (% OF REBATE) DIFFERENCE
Bull Run $179,580 $112,035 (6201o) -$ 67,545
Buffalo Run $199,247 $164,172 (82%) -$ 35,075
Country Ranch $121,180 $ 76,336(63%) -$ 42,844
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS $500, 007 $352, 543 (71 %)
The above table clearly shows the impact of lowering the starting point of making reimbursement
allocations from 60% ofAMI to 55% ofAMI. Projects which have already received rebates would
have only been reimbursed on the average about 50% ofwhat they received if the proposed program
had been in effect when they applied for rebates and they did not provide units below 60% of AMI.
Pending projects seem to fare better with an average of about 70% when compared to the former
rebate schedule, but in both cases the amounts are lower.
If the completed projects had provided units at 55% of AMI instead of 60% of AMI, then
reimbursements would be as shown in the following table.
Completed Rental Projects
OFFSET
ACTUAL REIMBURSEMENT
PROJECT REBATE (% OF REBATE) DIFFERENCE
CARE/Greenbriar $ 71,400
Rose Tree Village $106,800
CARE/W. Swallow $ 79,400
FCHC/W. Swallow $ 54,020
Woodlands
TOTALS
$119,720
$431,340
$ 88,764 (124%) +$17,364
$218,211 (204%) +$111,411
$ 78,118 (98%) -$ 1,282
$ 40,786 (76%) - $13,234
$215, 734 (179%) +$ 96, 014
$648, 756 (150%)
The data in the above table shows that, as a whole, if completed affordable housing projects had
provided units at 55% ofAMI instead of 60% ofAMI then their reimbursements under the proposed
program would have been greater than the amounts they received as rebates. However, there are
two exceptions, the CARE/West Swallow and the FCHC/West Swallow projects, where the projects
would not receive reimbursements at least equivalent to what they received from the Rebate
Program. The reason for the lower amount is that the proposed percentage reimbursement is not
greater than the flat dollar rebate for the units they provided.
300
October 6, 1998
If the pending projects would provide units at 55% of AMI instead of 60% of AMI, then their
reimbursements would be as shown in the following table.
Pending Rental Proiects
OFFSET
POSSIBLE
REIMBURSEMENT
PROJECT
REBATE
(% OF REBATE)
DIFFERENCE
Bull Run
$282,510
$488,153(172%)
+$205,643
Buffalo Run
$199,247
$164,172 (58%)
- $ 35,075
Country Ranch
$189,800
$334,016(176%)
+$144,216
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS
$671,557
$986,351 (147%)
Based in the data above, the Buffalo Run would not gain a benefit because the units in thatproject
are already slatedforfamiliesearning 55%ofAMlorlower. The other two pendingprojects would
reap significant increases if they would provide units at 55% ofAMI instead of 60% ofAMI.
It is anticipated by the Board that the additional reimbursement which can be gained for providing
units for families earning 55% of AMI or lower will be the necessary incentive for developers to
produce such units. However, the significant loss of reimbursement amounts in the proposed
program (i.e., no reimbursements for 60% ofAMI units) compared to the existing program may be
critical in a developer's decision whether to attempt to build a project or not. If the change leads
developers to the decision not to attempt to build a project, then the proposed program will have
failed to not only achieve its goal but could have a negative affect on the development of affordable
housing in the city.
One issue the Board has struggled with is how to assure that rebates actually go into the project and
help reduce rental rates. The Program regulations will need to specifically require a proforma that
shows the "reimbursement" as a source offunding and show how the funds will be used. There are
several options available, including giving a developer a conditional commitment during the
planning process and then a firm commitment at the time of building permit issuance for their
eligible reimbursement to offset impact fee requirements. This way the developer can show how the
funds will be used and also show a local commitment to the project which would help in seeking
other funding or financial assistance.
Another way to help assure that the City's funds actually go into the project is to have the
"reimbursement" be made at the time of payment of the impact fees instead of being made to the
developer after completion of the project. Affordable housing projects are eligible for the Impact
Fee Payment Delay Program which exempts the project from paying most impact fees at the time
of Building Permit issuance and delays payment to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy
301
October 6, 1998
(CO). If this proposal were implemented, Cityfees could be paid in part with reimbursements from
the Affordable Housing Fund at the time of CO. At the present time, some fees, i. e., fees to a special
purpose utility district, would still have to be paid at the issuance of building permit. Staff is
working with special purpose utility districts to investigate thepossibility of including their fees in
the delay program.
Homeownership Projects
The Affordable Housing Board is recommending a majorphilosophical change and two associated
technical changes to the current Program for homeownership projects as follows:
Eliminating the Program as it Currently Exists as a Reimbursement to the Developer
of Homeownership Units and Changing to a Loan to the Purchaser of the Unit.
2. Establishing the Maximum AMI Percentage for Eligibilityfor the Loan at 60% of
AMT.
3. Establishing the Loan to the Purchaser at a $5,000 Zero Interest Deferred Loan.
As indicated earlier, in 1994, the City Council established the Development Impact Fee Rebate
Program permitting a partial rebate of City impact fees to developers for the purpose ofpromoting
the construction of additional affordable housing units. The Affordable Housing Board is
recommending a major philosophical change in the manner in which the "Rebate Program " deals
with homeownership opportunities. This change essentially eliminates the Program as it currently
exists as a reimbursement to the developer of homeownership units and changes the program to a
deferred payment loan to the purchaser of the unit. Thus, the "incentive" to a developer changes
from a reimbursement offends after completion of unit to an increase in the potential "market"
for the unit by making more families at lower incomes able to purchase the unit.
The Program would run in conjunction with the City's current Downpayment and Closing Cost
Assistance Program currently funded with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program
and Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program funds from the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD). The CDBG/HOME Downpayment Assistance Program provides up
to $5,000 to first-time homebuyer families at or below 80% ofAMI to assist them in purchasing a
home. Experience has shown that families between 60% and 80% ofAMIhave sufficient income to
cover housing costs but often lack the necessary "up front" money to get into a home. Council
recently approved a change to the CDBG/HOME Downpayment Assistance Program making the
assistance in the form of a zero interest deferred loan. The change to the "Rebate Program"
recommended by the Board wouldprovide an additional $5,000, again in theform ofa zero interest
deferred loan, to families at or less than 60% ofAMI to help them get into homeownership. Thus,
for families between 60% and 80% ofAMI, the City would provide up to $5, 000 of assistance from
302
October 6, 1998
CDBG/HOME funds, and for families below 60% ofAMI the City would provide up to $10, 000 of
assistance ($5, 000 from CDBG/HOME funds and $5, 000 from the Affordable Housing Fund).
Making an assistance allocation to the purchaser of a unit rather than the developer of a unit is a
way in which to insure that the City's funds actually go into the unit. This, however, means that non-
profit entities such as Habitat -for -Humanity, the Resource Assistance Centerfor Nonprofits (TRAC),
etc., as well as for profit homeownership housing developers would no longer be eligible to apply
for "rebates "from the City.
Again, the question as to the potential financial impact of the proposed change to the City was
analyzed. The CDBGIHOMEAssistance Program has helped an average of50families in the 60%-
80% ofAMI range and 20 families below 60% ofAMI obtain housing per year. If this rate were to
continue in the future, the cost would be about $100, 000 per year to the Affordable Housing Fund.
The Affordable Housing Fund has provided only about $3, 800 per year in rebates to developers of
affordable homeownership units.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD RECOMMENDATION.
The Affordable Housing Board, at its regular monthly meeting on June 4, 1998, voted unanimously
to recommend approval of the proposed changes to the City's Development Impact Fee Rebate
Program. A copy of the minutes of the Board meeting is attached.
OFFSET PROGRAM SCHED VIE ALTERNATIVES for RENTAL PROJECTS
As indicated, in the data tables above, as a whole, if completed affordable housing projects had
provided units at 55% ofAMI instead of 60% ofAMI then their reimbursements under the proposed
program would have been greater than the amounts they received as rebates at an average ofabout
150%. Likewise, the data suggests a similar average amount (14701o) for pending projects. Based
on data in the tables, the three pending projects would be eligible for almost $1 million in fee
reimbursements which would more than exhaust the current Affordable Housing Fund balance of
$600,000 and next two years' worth of allocations at $200,000 per year. Staffs concern is that
there is insufficient funding in the City's Affordable Housing Fund to cover fee offsets and cover
other current program uses if the Affordable Housing Board's recommendations were to be
implemented. As alternatives to the schedule recommended by the Board for rental projects, staff
has prepared the followingfor Council's consideration. The alternatives do not change the policy
recommendation of the Board to start offsets at the 55% ofAMI level, rather the alternatives deal
with the offset percentage of fees paid for the various AMI levels.
303
October 6, 1998
Alternative 1
Alternative I reduces the Board's recommendation by 20% for each AMllevel, i.e., going from
a 50% offset for 55% ofAMI to a 30% offset for 55% ofAMI.
Percentage ofAMI
30%
35%
40%
45%
50010
55%
0 BR Unit
$262
$293
$335
$377
$419
$461
1 BR Unit
286
334
383
430
477
525
2 BR Unit
323
376
430
484
537
591
3 BR Unit
387
452
516
581
645
710
4 BR Unit
415
485
554
623
692
762
5 BR Unit
475
552
631
710
789
868
Percentage Offset
55%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
The impact Alternative 1 would have on Pending Rental Projects, assuming the projects would
provide units below 60% ofAMI, is shown in the table below.
OFFSET
POSSIBLE REIMBURSEMENT
PROJECT REBATE (% OF REBATE) DIFFERENCE
Bull Run $282,510
Buffalo Run $199,247
Country Ranch $189,800
TOTALS $671,557
$291,023 (103%) +$ 8,513
$ 93,142 (47%) - $106,105
$199,104 (105%) +$ 9,304
$493,171 (73%)
The data suggests that for 2 ofthe 3 projects the offset would offer only a slight increase (essentially
be equivalent) to the amount that could be received under the current rebate program. It is not
known if the slight increase would be sufficient incentive for a developer to provide units below the
60%AMIlevel but, it likely would not be sufficient.
304
October 6, 1998
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 reduces the Board's recommendation by 10% for each AMI level, i.e., going from
a 50% offset for 55% of AMI to a 40% offset for 55% of AMI.
Percentage ofAM[
30916
35016
40%
45%
50%
55%
0 BR Unit
$262
$293
$335
$377
$419
$461
1 BR Unit
286
334
383
430
477
525
2 BR Unit
323
376
430
484
537
591
3 BR Unit
387
452
516
581
645
710
4 BR Unit
415
485
554
623
692
762
5 BR Unit
475
552
631
710
789
868
Percentage Offset
65%
60%
55%
50%
45%
40%
The impact Alternative 2 would have on Pending Rental Projects, assuming the projects would
provide units below 60% ofAMI, is shown in the table below.
OFFSET
POSSIBLE REIMBURSEMENT
PROJECT REBATE (%OFREBATE) DIFFERENCE
Bull Run
$282,510
Buffalo Run
$199,247
Country Ranch
$189,800
TOTALS $671,557
$384,920 (136%) +$102,410
$121,160(61%) -$ 78,087
$263,296 (138%) +$ 73,496
$769,376 (114%)
The data suggests that for 2 of the 3 projects the offset would offer an increase (136% -138%) over
the amount that could be received under the current rebate program. It is not known if the increase
would be sufficient incentive for a developer to provide units below the 60%AMIlevel. The impact
on the Affordable Housing Fund of Alternative 2 would not be as great as the Board's
recommendation, but because it essentially represents an increase in reimbursements over current
levels the fund would become depleted at a more rapid rate. "
City Manager Fischbach stated that if the proposed 50% level is approved, staff will develop a plan
concerning the funding.
Ken Waido, Chief Planner, stated that the proposed ordinance would change the name of the
program, and the proposed resolution would make changes to the rental component of the program
and how the program deals with home ownership opportunities. Waido reviewed the current
305
October 6, 1998
operation of the program and outlined the proposed changes and alternatives that have been
discussed by the Affordable Housing Board. He noted that there is insufficient funding available in
the Affordable Housing Fund to implement the Board's recommendation, and some of the
alternatives would have fiscal repercussions as well.
Bob Browning, Affordable Housing Board Chair, stated that the Board supports the proposal.
Councilmember Smith asked about the changes to the homeownership program. Waido stated that
the Resolution as drafted does not specifically implement the utilization of funds from the
Affordable Housing Fund, and revised program regulations covering the homeownership
recommendation would need to be submitted for Council consideration. City Manager Fischbach
suggested postponing the Resolution for two weeks to allow new language to be prepared.
Councilmember Smith asked about Affordable Housing Board's discussion concerning the starting
point of the graduated scale and asked why the Board did not recommend lowering the maximum
Area Median Income (AMI) percentage for offset allocations to 50%. Mr. Browning spoke
concerning the recommendation developed by the Affordable Housing Board, noted that staff rather
than the Board developed the other alternatives because of fiscal concerns, and stated that the Board
chose 55% AMI because of the tax credit structure.
Mayor Azari suggested postponing the consideration of a revised Resolution to the time of Second
Reading of the Ordinance.
Councilmember Mason asked about the cost of the homeownership changes and suggested the
Finance Committee discussion of the long term costs. Waido stated that there would be a new
demand for approximately $100,000 per year out of the Affordable Housing Fund. City Manager
Fischbach stated that the item could be scheduled for the next Finance Committee meeting.
Councilmember Wanner noted that the cost question is more properly referred to as a cash flow
question.
Councilmember Byme asked for clarification concerning the fiscal implications of approving the
Affordable Housing Boards recommendation and asked if consideration was given to capping the
amount of funding that would be available each year. Waido spoke concerning fiscal comparisons
that were done for pending projects. City Manager Fischbach stated that the existing funding cap
has created some problems for the program.
Councilmember Byme asked if the projects to be looked at would support a mix of income levels.
Waido stated that housing projects are typically stand-alone projects although housing projects with
mixed income levels are a goal in City Plan.
306
October 6, 1998
Councilmember Mason asked if the City would continue to incur funding liability when the
resources of the Affordable Housing Fund have been exhausted. Waido stated that if the Fund
becomes depleted, there would be no funding for offset payments for the balance of the budget year.
He spoke concerning affordable housing projects that are currently proceeding through the
development process. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the Ordinance contains a
provision that when funds have been exhausted the program ends unless additional funds are
appropriated.
Councilmember Wanner stated that additional work is needed on the fiscal impact and suggested that
the Finance Committee review the Resolution before it is considered by Council.
Councilmember Bertschy spoke concerning the finite amount of funds that would be available. Mr.
Browning stated that the Affordable Housing Board is discussing mechanisms to place funds in
escrow once a project applies for a rebate.
Mary Alice Murphy, Director of CARE Housing, supported rewards to projects for what they
actually do rather than what they predict they will do.
Councilmember Mason made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adopt Ordinance
No. 176, 1998 on First Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Bertschy, Byme, Kneeland, Mason, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to postpone
Resolution 98-143 to November 3, 1998 following additional review by the Affordable Housing
Board and the Finance Committee. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Bertschy, Byrne, Kneeland, Mason, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the Choice Streets System
Comprehensive Program Adopted on First Reading
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"Financial Impact
Direct Impacts - Anticipated annual revenues from the fees included in this proposal:
WYA
Development Construction Permits
Contractor Licensing Fees
Street Cut Fees
Construction Inspection Fees
CURRENT PROJECTED
$ 0 $ 15,000
$ 1,000 $ 12,000
$ 26,000 $350,000
$ 0 $320,000
October 6, 1998
Indirect Impacts - The City's long-term maintenance program will gradually be aided by the
extended warranty provisions and the improved repair standards. However, the street system
continues to grow as new developments occur, so the maintenance needs will also continue to grow,
but at a reduced rate due to these "Choice Streets "proposals.
Executive Summary
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 177, 1998, Amending the Land Use Code and the
Transitional Land Use Regulations Pertaining to Development Construction Permits and
Construction Inspection Fees.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 178,1998, Amending the TransitionalLand Use Regulations
by the Addition of Two New Sections to Be Numbered Sections 29-13 and 29-14, Amending
Sections 2.2.3, 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 of the Land Use Code, and Amending the `Design and
Construction Criteria, Standards and Specifications forStreets, Sidewalks, Alleys and Other
Public Ways", All of Which Amendments Pertain to Extended Guarantee and Bonding
Requirements for Developers.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 179, 1998, Amending the `Design and Construction
Criteria, Standards and Specifications forStreets, Sidewalks, Alleys and Other Public Ways"
Pertaining to Street Repairs and Reconstruction.
D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 180, 1998, Amending Chapters 15, 24 and 26 of the City
Code Relating to Right -of -Way Contractors Licenses.
E. First Reading of OrdinanceNo.181,1998,AmendingChapter23,Article11oftheCityCode
Pertaining to Excavations on Public Property and Amending Chapter 7.5 of the City Code
by the Addition of a New Article X for the Purpose of Revising and Establishing Certain
Fees for Permission to Excavate Streets.
F. First Reading of Ordinance No. 182, 1998, Amending Chapter 24 of the City Code by the
Addition of a New Section 24-97 and Amending the "Design Construction Criteria,
Standards and Specifications for Streets, Sidewalks, Alleys, and Other Public Ways" by
Adding a New Section 1.03 and by the Addition of a New Appendix 'A ", All of Which
Additions and Amendments Pertain to Policies and Standards for Maintenance to and
Improvements of Annexed Streets and Infrastructure.
October 6, 1998
G. First Reading of Ordinance No. 183, 1998, Amending Chapter 24 of the Code of the City,
the Land Use Code and the "Design and Construction Criteria, Standards and
Specifcations forStreets, Sidewalks, Alleys and Other Public Ways "RegardingRegulations
Pertaining to Private Streets and Private Drives.
"Choice Streets " - Construction and Maintenance of Streets and Infrastructure
The Engineering Department has prepared a program consisting ofseven action items intended to
improve the technical standards and regulatory authorities governing the construction and
maintenance ofstreets and related infrastructure. These arepresentedasseven different ordinances
but are packaged as a single agenda item because of the common purpose behind them. The seven
specific items being proposed are asfollows:
(1) A development construction permit and infrastructure construction inspection fees.
(2) Extended warranty and bonding requirements for developers.
(3) Revised street repair standards.
(4) Revised licensing and bonding requirements for contractors who work in the rights -of -way.
(5) Revised fees for street cuts.
(6) Regulations concerning annexed streets.
(7) Regulations concerning private streets and private drives.
Summary information and proposed standards, procedures and regulations on each of these items
are as follows:
I. DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND INFRASTRUCTURE
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES.
A. Description: A Development Construction Permit will be issued at the conclusion of the
plans review process. It allows the developer to break ground and commence construction
on his/her new development project. The developer may apply for the Permit and pay the
application fee during the final stages ofthe development review process. When completion
and approval of the plans and the development agreement is very close, the development
engineer for the project will schedule and conduct a Construction Coordination Meeting.
This meeting serves many coordination functions as described below. When all of the
prerequisites are completed, the Permit will be issued, and the developer may begin
construction. (Note: It is expected that any inspection fees due would be paid by the
developer at the time of issuance of this Permit.)
B. Purpose: The following are some of the benefits and reasons for the Permit:
Organizes the transition from the planning process to the construction process.
309
October 6, 1998
• Assembles and disseminates information to all concerned regarding construction
schedule, project management responsibilities and important issues raised during
the planning process.
• Sets the stageforcoordination bypublishingpointsofcontactand conducting apre-
construction coordination meeting to discuss critical construction issues.
Creates a positive control point which signals the completion of the planning phase
and the commencement of the construction phase.
• Allows City staff and utility companies to plan ahead and manage their workload
more effectively, thereby providing better service to developers and better advance
warning to affected citizens and businesses.
C. Cost:
New permit for most projects = $300. This covers the actual cost to the City for
administering the permit and conducting the Construction Coordination Meeting,
plus giving credit for time saved by City staff by having the permit process.
Small Projects Permit = $150 (where the value of the public improvements is
$20,000 or less).
Permit extension = $100. This covers administrative costs of extending or
modifying a permit when the project is not started or completed on schedule.
D. Infrastructure Inspection Fees:
Recommendation of Transportation Funding Advisory Committee (TFAC), June 19,
1998:
"The Construction Inspection fees should cover the costs of the
construction inspection program related to new development in the
Engineering department, including inspections ofpavement, water,
stormwater, wastewater, curb, gutter and sidewalk installations. "
Current situation:
1. The current construction inspection program for new development is totally
funded from the General Fund. It amounts to about $300, 000 in 1998.
1. 4.5 inspectors are required to inspect 85, 000 linearfeet ofnew water, waste
water, and storm sewer lines; 150, 000 square yards of new pavement; and
90, 000 linear feet of new curb, gutter and sidewalk per year.
Proposedfeestructure: Thefeesfor inspection ofconstruction in thepublic right-of-
way and easements, for improvements which are shown on the approved
development/utility plans are proposed to be as follows:
1. $60 for the first 100 feet or any portion thereof, plus $0.60 per linear foot
over 100 feet of trench excavated and inspected.
2. $60 for the first 100 feet or any portion thereof, plus $0.60 per linear foot
over 100 feet of pipeline installed and inspected.
310
October 6, 1998
3. $60 for the first 50 feet or any portion thereofplus $0.80 per linear foot over
50 feet of detached sidewalks, trails, curb and gutter, and curb and gutter
with walk poured simultaneously, to be constructed and inspected.
4. $90 for the first 300 square yards or any portion thereof, plus $0.30 per
square yard over 300 square yards, of concrete or asphalt pavement for
streets or alley to be constructed and inspected.
5. $3 per cubic yard, with a minimum fee of $75, for structural concrete,
masonry, or stone work to be installed and inspected for retaining walls, box
culverts, wing walls, drop structures, and other structures.
6. The following fees for each appurtenance to be installed and inspected:
Appurtenance Fee
Manhole
$90
Fire hydrant
$60
Valve and box
$60
Fitting
$30
Inlet
$90
Service line stub
$60
11 EXTENDED WARRANTYAND BONDING REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPERS.
A. Recommendation of Transportation Funding Advisory Committee (TFAC) June 19 1998:
"Staffshould restructure construction warranty terms to minimize the costs
the City incurs due to premature infrastructure failures. "
B. Current warranty requirements:
City Code Sections 15-363, 24-154, and 26-691 require a one-year guarantee for
maintenance and repair of concrete work, asphalt pavements and utilities
installations (respectively) installed by licensed contractors.
Engineering Departments " Design and Construction Criteria, Standards and
Specif cations for Streets, Sidewalks, Alleys and Other Public Ways, " Sections 3.12
and 4.12, require contractors to guarantee their portions of street construction for
a period ofone year after acceptance against defective workmanship and materials.
Above Engineering Department standards are referenced by City Code Section 24-95
and by Land Use Code Section 3.6.2(H) & (1).
311
October 6, 1998
C. Proposed warranty reguirements:
• Require the developer to maintain and repair new streets, curbs, gutters, associated
drainage structures, sidewalks, and bikeways for two (2) years from the date of
completion and acceptance by the City.
• Require the developer to provide a guarantee which assures that the developer will
correct any failures due to inadequate design or construction of the streets and
related infrastructure for a period off ve (5) years from the date of completion and
acceptance by the City.
• Require the developer to provide a development bond or other surety acceptable to
the City which assures that the infrastructure will be constructed as shown on the
approved plans.
Require the developer to provide a surety acceptable to the City which assures that
the provisions of the two year maintenance guarantee and the five year guarantee
against design and construction defects will be upheld.
• Require contractors who perform construction, repairs or rehabilitations within City
rights -of -way to warranty their work for two (2) years from the date of completion
and acceptance by the City.
III. STREET REPAIR AND RECONSTRUCTION STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES.
Two years ago, in an effort to standardize the permitting process and repair standards among
Northern Front Range governments, and to better address repair methods in existing roadways, a
committee was organized. This committee consisted ofrepresentatives from the City of Loveland,
Town of Estes Park, Town of Berthoud, Larimer County, and the City of Fort Collins. After two
years of meetings, hard work and compromise, a uniform set ofstandards has been created.
This document represents a comprehensive set ofstandards regarding the repair and reconstruction
of existing roadways, which will greatly reduce the long-term maintenance costs associated with
these repairs. It will also provide contractors, utility companies and developers with a clear set of
guidelines from which to bid, budget and construct. With the exception of a few minor details
specific to each entity involved, the standards will be uniform among all of the entities. The
adoption of this uniform set of standards will be beneficial to both the City of Fort Collins and to
the construction contracting community, since the majority of the contractors working in Fort
Collins also work in Loveland and throughout Larimer County.
The specific proposal is to delete Section "P" of the current "Design and Construction Criteria,
Standards and Specifications for Streets, Sidewalks, Alleys and Other Public Ways, " and to replace
it with these new standards.
312
October 6, 1998
IV. CONTRACTOR LICENSING, BONDING AND INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS.
The Engineering Department is proposing to re -structure the contractors are currently licensed to
work in the public right-of-way.
A. Existing S sy tem: Engineering currently issues three types of contractor licenses:
Concrete License (addressed in Chapter 15 of the City Code).
1. Licensefee = $ 5
2. Bond = $10,000
3. Warranty = One Year
Asphalt License (addressed in Chapter 24 of the City Code).
1. License fee = $ 25
2. Bond = $10, 000
3. Warranty = One Year
Utility License (addressed in Chapter 26 of the City Code).
1. License fee = $ 25
2. Bond = $10, 000
3. Warranty = Two Years
B. Concerns: A review of the current licensing system has revealed several areas of concern:
• The current license fees do not cover the City's administrative costs to process the
applications and issue the licenses.
• A $10, 000 license and permit bond does not adequately protect the City.
• Contractor licensing is currently addressed in three separate sections of the Code
(Section 15, 24, and 26). The language in each of these sections is unique, requiring
staff to administer each type of license differently. This creates unnecessary
confusion for the City and the contractor.
• There currently is no insurance requirement to become a licensed contractor.
• There are several construction activities takingplace in the public right-of-way that
currently require no licensing or bonding by the City. Examples of these are:
1. Demolition
2. Earthwork
3. Landscaping
4. Installation of non -City -owned utilities
This lack oflicensing, bonding, and insurance requirements is ofgreat concern due
to the potential impact to the durability and serviceability of the streets and
rights -of -way.
The current one year guarantee is insufficient to protect the City against defective
workmanship and materials.
313
October 6, 1998
C. Proposed System: The current proposal is to create a new "Right -of -Way Contractors
License". This license would be issued to any contractor wishing to work in thepublic right-
of-way, regardless of what type of work is to be performed. A contractor would then need
to further qualify and obtain an endorsement under the umbrella of this license to perform
work in the following areas:
Non -Structural Concrete - Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk, Crosspans, Trickle Pans, etc.
Asphalt - Patching, Paving, Slurry Seal, Crack Seal, Etc.
Structural Concrete - Concrete Box Culverts, Bridges, Inlets, Head Walls, etc.
Utili - Any utility which will be owned and maintained by the City or which will connect
to and become apart of a City owned utility.
Bond requirements would increase from $10,000 to $20,000 for the Right -of -Way Contractors
License, with an additional and separate $10, 000 bond required for each ofthe four endorsements.
The City's Risk Management Department has strongly recommended that a $1 million commercial
general liability insurance policy be required, with the City named as an additional insured on the
policy, therefore, this has also been included in the proposed Code language.
V REVISED FEES FOR STREET CUTS.
A. Description: In an effort to cover both the costs of utility cut inspection and the increased
maintenance costs caused by utility cuts, it is staffs intent to initiate a revised fee structure.
This fee will have threeparts: (1) administrative costs, (2) inspection costs, and (3) pavement
impact costs. The permits will continue to be administrated though the City of Fort Collins
Engineering Department.
Recommendation ofthe Transportation FundingAdvisory Committee (TFAC), June,
1998:
"Street Cut and Construction Inspection fees sufficient to cover the
costs ofthe respective programs should be instituted. The Street Cut
Fee should be designed to cover both the costs ofstreet cut inspection
and the increased maintenance costs caused by street cuts. "
It has been apparent to maintenance staff that cutting an existing pavement causes
damage to the surroundingpavement. This observation is supported by a1995study
conducted by the University of Cincinnati and sponsored by the City of Cincinnati
and the American Public Works Association. Recovering the cost of the damage to
the surrounding pavement will aid our maintenance program in keeping up with
deterioration of our street system as a result of these cuts. Given impacts ofthe age
314
October 6, 1998
and varying conditions of the existing pavements, staff believes that a realistic fee
structure is being proposed.
• The street system receives over 400 utility cuts per year. It is hoped that the
pavement impact fee will encourage utilities to consider alternatives to cutting our
streets, such as boring under the pavement, and locating new utility installations
outside of our pavement. Along with upgrading our street cut standards and
contractor licensingprocedures, this can significantly reduce our future maintenance
costs.
B. Current Fee: Our current "Excavation Permit" fee is $65 per permit. This fee falls far
short of covering the impacts as well as the costs of administration and inspection. The
following is a list of the proposed fees for excavations in the right-of-way:
C. Proposed Fee:
• ANon-refundable Permit Application Fee of$25 shall accompany each application
for an excavation permit to cover the costs ofadministration. Ifthepermit is denied,
the Application Fee shall not be refunded. If the permit is approved an Inspection
and a Pavement Impact Fee shall be charged. These Fees shall be as follows:
• An Inspection Fee of $45 will be charged for each 1,000 square feet or portion
thereof.
• A Pavement Impact Fee will be assessed as follows:
Square Feet of Excavation
1 to 100
101 to 500
501 to 3, 000
over 3, 000
Pavement Impact Fee*
Cost Per Square Foot
$3.50
$2.50
$2.00
$1.50
* The Pavement Impact Fee will be tripled for streets that have been constructed, reconstructed,
overlaid or have received a sealcoat within the lastfiveyears. Conversely, the Pavement Impact Fee
maybe waived or reduced for utility repairs made in advance ofscheduled pavement rehabilitation
projects, or when the utility company performs a complete street overlay in conjunction with the
utility repairs performed.
315
October 6, 1998
VI. ANNEXED STREETS
A. Description: Policy and standards have been developed to provide direction to City stafffor
handling maintenance issues and for the eventuality that annexed streets will someday have
to be improved to meet City standards.
B. Purpose: The City has annexed many streets. Some meet City standards but the majority
do not. It has been an unwritten policy of the City that annexed streets must be upgraded
to City standards before the City would maintain the streets, other than filling potholes to
keep a street safe. With the passage of City Plan and a revision early this year, the City now
has a formal policy that annexed streets must be upgraded to City standards before the City
would take on full maintenance. This proposed policy and standards will formalize criteria
in the City Code and Street Standards to provide clear direction to staff, and to provide clear
information for those whose streets are annexed, on what to expect.
Annexed arterial and collector streets serve public at large traffic in addition to the local
traffic, and therefore, the City may maintain arterials and collectors to a higher level than
local streets. When the arterials and collectors are upgraded to City standards, the
adjoining property owners will be responsible to pay for their local street portion of their
frontage.
C Who nays:
• Upgradine the streets -For local streets the adjoining property owners will have to
pay for the total cost to improve their annexed street to meet city standards. A
Special Improvement District (SID) is the preferred method for financing and
assessing costs to the property owners.
• For arterial and collector streets the adjoiningproperty owners will be obligated to
pay for their local street portion of the street. The oversized portion will be a City
obligation to pay.
• Maintenance Be%re U rading -City pays for minor maintenance. Property
owners must pay for more extensive maintenance or upgrade.
• Maintenance After Upgrading - City pays for full maintenance as it would with all
streets built to standards in the City.
VII. PRIVATE STREETS AND PRIVATE DRIVES.
A. Description: Policy and standards have been developed to provide direction for City staff
in handling requests from developers to build private streets and private drives, and in
handling requests from homeowners adjacent to private streets that want to convert their
streets from private to public.
316
October 6, 1998
B. Purpose: The Cityfrequently receives requests from developers to useprivate streets and/or
private drives within their subdivisions. In the recent past, the City has approved the use of
private streets and drives for unique circumstances, but only after much discussion about the
need to create individualized criteria for their use. Staffhas operated on the assumption that
a street is a street, whether private or public, and required that private streets be designed
to the same City standards as public streets.
In the more distant past, private streets and drives were approved that did not meet City
standards. This practice has caused problems for both adjacent property owners and the
City. For these cases, the City is often approached by these property owners wanting their
streets to become public.
The City has no specific written criteria for private streets and private drives to deal with
these issues. This written policy will provide staff with clear criteria for the efficient
handling of private street and private drive issues.
C. Costs:
Private Streets - No more than the cost to build a public street.
Convert Private Street to Public -Full cost to upgrade must bepaid by the adjoining
property owners. A Special improvement District (SID) is the preferred method for
financing and assessing costs to the property owners. After upgrading, the City
would take on maintenance costs as with all other streets built to City standards.
Private Drives - No cost to the City. Adjoining property owners must maintain at
their expense.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed package of ordinance changes.
TRANSPORTATIONBOARD RECOMMENDATION:
The Transportation Board, at its monthly meeting of August 19, 1998, voted unanimously to
recommend approval of the complete "Choice Streets "package of proposed ordinances.
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Board, at its monthly meeting of September 3, 1998, voted unanimously
to recommend approval of the complete proposal.
Discussions on the extended warranty proposal indicated that two of the members present favored
a three-year total warrantyperiod, while the other three members present endorsed the proposed
five-year total warrantyperiod.
317
October 6, 1998
Discussions on the private streets policy indicated that one of the members present favored
disallowing private streets altogether. The other four members present endorsed the proposal as
presented, which would allow private streets under certain conditions.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
The Affordable Housing Board, at its monthly meeting of September 3, 1998, voted unanimously to
recommend disapproval ofthe "Choice Streets "proposal. This board is opposed in principle to any
increased regulations or fees which would tend to increase housing costs.
FORT COLLINS UTILITIES RECOMMENDATION.
The Fort Collins Utilities supports the creation of a development construction permit and the
extended warranty and bonding requirements for developers.
The proposed street repair standards and fees for street cuts, however, will affect the Electric,
Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Utilities. The cost of Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater
capital projects in paved areas will increase between 5 and 20 percent due to the street cut fees and
street repair standards. For example, construction costs of the next phase of the Harmony Water
Transmission Line will increase an estimated $130, 000 or about 10 percent. The compaction effort
required for narrow electric trenches in the right of way but not under pavement may require the
use of flow fill at an additional cost of over $300, 000 per year. In addition, the cost of installing
electric service to a single family lot would increase 20 percent. The impact on the electric
underground conversion program would be comparable and would delay or prohibit completion of
the project. Although the exact impacts are difficult to predict, utility budgets, labor hours,
equipment needs, and ability to respond to customers will be affected. Additional appropriations
maybe needed on projects already budgeted. These increased costs will eventually be reflected in
increased rates and development fees or reduced service levels.
The Utilities would like to see a pilot program to evaluate the practical aspects of the proposed
compaction guidelines for trenches in the right of way but not under pavement. This would allow
additional time for the Utilities to work with Engineering to investigate effective, cost efficient
alternatives.
In the next six months, the Fort Collins Utilities intend to begin construction inspection oftheir own
facilities. The proposed fee schedule for infrastructure inspections will need revision at that time.
This should reduce the work load on the engineering inspectors and improve levels of service for
both Fort Collins Utilities and Engineering. This will also reduce the projected revenue and budget
requirements for the construction inspectors. "
318
October 6, 1998
City Manager Fischbach stated that several other new fees are under discussion and are expected to
be brought forward for Council consideration: a County regional road impact fee and (tentatively)
a transportation maintenance fee. He noted that water and wastewater fees have been approved by
Council and will take effect on January 1, 1999, and stormwater development fees are scheduled for
periodic review every four to six months.
Cam McNair, City Engineer, stated that the purpose of the seven proposed Ordinances relating to
the Choice Streets System Comprehensive Program is to provide the Engineering Department with
tools needed to ensure safe, functional, structurally sound and attractive street systems on a
continuing basis, while minimizing the burden for that service on the taxpayers. He showed slides
depicting the varying conditions of streets in Fort Collins that are less than five years old and
addressed some of the comments and questions that were brought up at the Study Session on this
matter. McNair gave a detailed explanation and outlined the rationale for each of the seven
proposals: a development construction permit and infrastructure construction inspection fees,
extended warranty and bonding requirements for developers, revised street repair standards, revised
licensing and bonding requirements for contractors who work in the rights -of -way, revised fees for
street cuts, regulations concerning annexed streets, and regulations concerning private streets and
private drives.
Councilmember Kneeland asked why some streets have been built well while others have not and
asked about the source of funding for street repairs. McNair stated that rigorous review for the
design process was put in place about two years ago, and in some newly developed areas soil
conditions and high water tables contribute to street problems. He noted that funding for repairs
comes from the pavement management program, and the cost to repair streets newer than five years
currently ranges from $60,000 to $100,000 per year.
Councilmember Kneeland asked if proposed Ordinance No. 181, 1998 will address concerns about
the cost and frequency of street cuts should there be multiple telecommunications providers. McNair
stated that the Ordinance should help with that potential problem and noted that the proposed
Ordinance relating to street repairs is proposed to take effect immediately because of TCI's upgrade.
Councilmember Kneeland asked about discussions surrounding the issue of payment of inspection
costs by the developer and how much should be offset by the City because of the public good, noting
that inspection seems to be a protection for the community. Gary Diede, Transportation Operations
& Projects Group Leader, stated that the issue was looked at in terms of the new development paying
the cost if the development creates the expense.
Councilmember Bertschy asked if the proposed Ordinances will adequately cover concerns about
bringing old streets up to improved standards and the warranty of those types of repairs. McNair
stated that a two-year warranty period for repairs would replace the current one-year warranty
requirement and spoke concerning the proposed requirements for upgrades.
319
October 6, 1998
Councilmember Bertschy asked about the percentage of work contracted out for repair work for
existing streets and asked if the City is subject to its own street standards. Diede stated that
approximately 10% of street maintenance work performed by the Streets Department and 90% by
contractors. McNair stated that the City must meet the street standards.
Councilmember Bertschy asked about the process to notify property owners concerning
improvements to existing streets and who has the liability for any impacts or disruption ofbusinesses
during street work. McNair spoke concerning the notification process.
Councilmember Smith asked about the possibility of including language that would specify that the
City does not accept the street until the end of building construction. McNair stated that
development permits are released upon the street approval date, and any change would impact a
number of other processes and systems. Ron Phillips, Transportation Services Director, spoke
concerning timing issues relating to street completion and certificates of occupancy.
Councilmember Smith asked about cost savings and costs resulting from these changes, the impacts
on infill development that might have a small number of units, the sliding scale for excavation fees,
and frequency issues for wavy pavement. McNair stated that the fee structure is based on the amount
of public improvements in a development. Diede spoke concerning discussions relating to the
sliding scale for excavation fees.
Councilmember Wanner asked about the standards for warranties and bonds on repairs to older
streets that are performed by contractors and if the standards are comparable to contractors for new
development work. McNair stated that Ordinance No. 180, 1998 would apply to contractors who
are doing repair work and increases license bond and insurance requirements. Phillips spoke
concerning the differences between older street repair where the City is the owner and new
development where the owner is accountable, and stated that the street construction requirements
are comparable for the two types of street work.
Tim Johnson, 1337 Stonehenge Drive, Transportation Board Chair and Transportation Finance
Advisory Committee (TFAC) member, stated that both groups have worked on these transportation
finance issues and that a large amount of capital is needed for street maintenance and operations. He
spoke concerning discussions relating to warranties, inspections, and how to deal with streets that
fail prematurely. The TFAC discussed a construction materials tax and did not reach agreement on
such a tax. Some of the main issues discussed were apportioning costs to the source, preventive
maintenance, funding sources, and expansive soil conditions.
Linda Stanley, 2040 Bennington Circle, TFAC member, spoke concerning the mixed interests
represented on TFAC and noted that the proposals before Council have a unanimous TFAC
recommendation and that the Committee agreed that preventive maintenance will be important to
reduce the funding gap for street maintenance.
320
October 6, 1998
Bill Gorsky,1979 Massachusetts, President ofNorthern Colorado Homebuilders Association, spoke
concerning problems with extending the warranty periods and noted that the costs will be passed
along to the homebuyers. He stated that there is no arbitration process for resolving any future
disputes concerning responsibility for street damage during the warranty period.
Chris Ricord, Transportation Board, supported the proposed Ordinances as a means of transferring
costs from the taxpayers to new development.
Kimberly Maevers, Director of Governmental Affairs, Northern Colorado Homebuilders
Association, expressed concerns regarding increased costs for installing electric service to single-
family lots, plans for a Utilities construction inspection process, clarification of terms and
definitions, exemptions, the impact on infill projects and affordable housing, the gap between
projected annual costs and anticipated revenues, and the calculation of inspection costs.
Sister Mary Alice Murphy, Director of CARE Housing, spoke concerning the impact on small infill
projects and affordable housing. She noted one case where older development will benefit from
streets installed for a new development and expressed a concern that the developer might be held
accountable for problems that happened because of poor inspections.
Nancy York, a Fort Collins resident, asked about the number of permits issued each year and noted
that streets are built for 20 years but only a five-year warranty is being required.
Greg Beaver, 1413 Waterbury, questioned the need for inspection fees for projects that are under
warranty and are built to City standards.
Sally Craig, 1409 South Summitview, supported moving forward quickly on the package of
Ordinances.
Councilmember Kneeland expressed concerns about driving smaller developers out of the market
and the requirement for five-year bonding. McNair outlined the time line for inspections and
warranties, explained what would be covered under the two-year maintenance and five-year repair
guarantees, described the types of security that would be acceptable for the guarantees, and noted
that letters of credit can be renewed in annual increments. Phillips commented that there has been
significant input from developers on this package of Ordinances, and most of the concerns have been
mitigated.
Councilmember Kneeland asked for clarification that the guarantee is unsecured after the two-year
maintenance period. McNair stated that this would be the case if the street work passes inspection
and there is minimal risk to the City at the end of the two years.
321
October 6, 1998
Councilmember Kneeland asked if there is some redundancy in requiring a warranty for work that
has been built to City standards and passed inspection. McNair stated that the City does not prepare
the design, the inspectors spot check the work, and the developer is ultimately responsible for the
work.
Councilmember Bertschy asked how terms such as "normal wear and tear" and "defects in design
and construction" would be interpreted if there are no standard definitions, and suggested a need to
spell out a method of appeal. McNair stated that determinations would be based on judgment and
experience and the burden of proof would be on the City. Phillips stated that there are no specific
definitions under the current process, and there have been no problems to date. Paul Eckman,
Deputy City Attorney, stated that many of the definitions and terms such as "normal wear and tear"
are well defined in the law and common usage.
City Attorney Roy stated that staff could take a look at the appeal issue and the need for definitions
prior to Second Reading.
Councilmember Bertschy asked about exemptions. McNair stated that there are exemptions from
obtaining a license, not from following the standards.
Councilmember Kneeland asked about the duplication of inspection costs. McNair stated that
Engineering currently inspects streets, City storm drainage, water, and sewer.
Councilmember Byrne asked about situations where older development will benefit in improved
access as a result of a new development and asked about collector streets. Diede stated that it is not
unusual to have a situation where an older development will benefit from improved access that
results from a new development.
Councilmember Byrne asked about the impact on affordable housing. McNair spoke concerning the
waiver of fees for affordable housing projects.
Councilmember Wanner stated that he will support the ordinances but will be asking further
questions.
Councilmember Kneeland noted that staff has prepared a comparison of fees between Fort Collins
and surrounding communities and asked if these kinds of fees contribute to pushing development
out of the City. McNair stated that each City operates differently, and it is difficult to make
comparisons.
322
October 6, 1998
Councilmember Byrne made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Bertschy, to adopt Ordinance
No. 177, 1998 on First Reading.
Councilmember Kneeland spoke in support of the package of ordinances, commented on the need
to manage growth and to make decisions that will provide for the kind of infrastructure that will
serve the community well in the future, and requested work on some of the definitions and more
information concerning the impact on smaller developers prior to Second Reading.
Councilmember Mason spoke in support of the ordinances and in favor of looking at all the ways
taxpayers are subsidizing growth and development.
Councilmember Bertschy supported the package of ordinances and spoke concerning the need for
consistency across the board.
Councilmember Wanner stated he would support the package of ordinances and that it is important
for growth to pay its own way.
Mayor Azari spoke in support of the package of Ordinances and noted that additional work needs
to be done prior to Second Reading.
The vote on Councilmember Byrne's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari,
Bertschy, Byrne, Kneeland, Mason, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Byrne made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mason, to adopt Ordinance No.
178, 1998 on First Reading.
Councilmember Smith stated that there might be other ways outside of the existing process to
achieve the agreed upon goal of making this a vital and attractive community.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Bertschy, Byrne, Kneeland,
Mason, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Byrne made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adopt Ordinance
No. 179, 1998 on First Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Bertschy, Byrne, Kneeland, Mason, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
323
October 6, 1998
Councilmember Byme made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mason, to adopt Ordinance No.
180, 1998 on First Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari,
Bertschy, Byrne, Kneeland, Mason, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Mason made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adopt Ordinance
No. 181, 1998 on First Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Bertschy, Byrne, Kneeland, Mason, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mason, to adopt Ordinance
No. 182, 1998 on First Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Bertschy, Byrne, Kneeland, Mason, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Byme, to adopt Ordinance
No. 183, 1998 on First Reading.
Councilmember Smith clarified that this package of ordinances will appear on the discussion agenda
for Second Reading. City Manager Fischbach replied in the affirmative.
The vote on Councilmember Wanner's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari,
Bertschy, Byrne, Kneeland, Mason, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Kneeland asked for more information relating to the impact on small developers.
Councilmember Bertschy noted that there are some inconsistencies in the exceptions clause in
Ordinance No. 180, 1998, and requested more information from the City Attorney's Office.
Councilmember Smith asked for clarifications regarding the processes associated with Ordinance
No. 178, 1998.
Councilmember Mason spoke regarding the need to make a program fair initially, and then address
affordable housing needs.
324
October 6, 1998
Councilmember Bertschy requested further work on the appeal process prior to Second Reading.
Mayor Azari supported proceeding with the package of ordinances to build a good infrastructure and
to the need to answer Council's questions prior to Second Reading. She spoke concerning the need
to remember where the street plan fits into City Plan as details are developed.
Ordinance No. 169,1998,
Approving Amendments to the Cable TV Franchise Agreement
Between the City of Fort Collins and Heritage Cablevision of Delaware,
Inc.. Doing Business as TCI of Fort Collins Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
City staff and Heritage Cablevision of Delaware, Inc., doing business as TCI of Fort Collins
("TCI') have reached a proposed settlement agreement that would enhance service for local cable
TV customers. The settlement is a result ofongoing negotiations between TCI and the City of Fort
Collins regarding a disputedprovision oftheFranchiseAgreement between TCland the City ofFort
Collins. The City's Cable TV Franchise Agreement with TCI required a cable system upgrade to
be completed by November 6, 1997. Since November, 1997, the City and TCI have been in a
disagreement over interpretations ofcertainprovisionsoftheFranchise Agreement. Whenongoing
discussions between City staffand TCI failed to result in resolution ofthe disagreement, a hearing
to consider revocation of TCI's franchise was scheduled before Council for Tuesday, August 18,
1998. However, prior to the hearing City staffand TCI negotiated a settlement which both parties
believe is fair and, most importantly, which will provide greater and better services for the citizens
of Fort Collins. Ordinance No. 169, 1998, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on
September 15, 1998, amending the Cable TV Franchise Agreement. "
City Manager Fischbach stated that this item was withdrawn from the Consent Calendar for
discussion because the Charter requires that franchises be open for public comment.
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adopt Ordinance
No. 169, 1998 on Second Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Bertschy, Byme, Kneeland, Mason, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
325
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
October 6, 1998
Councilmember Wanner requested information from staff concerning all costs added to housing over
the past four years adjusted for inflation (fees, guarantees, standards upgrades, planning changes,
policy changes, and facility construction process) and the impact on a typical, basic affordable
housing or rental unit.
Mayor Azari requested information from staff showing the percentage of building costs that are
associated with City fees.
Adjournment
Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mason, to adjourn into
Executive Session for the purpose of discussion of legal questions relating to litigation. The vote
on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Bertschy, Byrne, Kneeland, Mason,
Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned into Executive Sessior
meeting reconvened and was adjourned at 10:
ATTEST:
0
City Clerk
326