HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-06/15/2004-RegularJune 15, 2004
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, June 15, 2004,
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: Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and
W eitkunat.
Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Krajicek, Roy. (**Secretary's Note: Interim City Manager
Atteberry was seated in place of outgoing City Manager Fischbach at 12:00 midnight.)
Citizen Participation
Mark Brophy, 1109 West Harmony Road, stated he was circulating a petition for repeal of the
grocery tax in Fort Collins. He stated there was a front page article about the petition in the
Coloradoan newspaper a week ago and that a City employee took a partisan position against the
petition. He stated he did not believe that City employees should take partisan positions on issues.
He stated Assistant City Manager Atteberry, who was being appointed as the Interim City Manager,
should be left in place as the City Manager. He stated City documents indicated that there were 25
people in the City Manager's Office while there were only five in the Loveland City Manager's
Office. He stated retaining Mr. Atteberry as City Manager would eliminate 4% of the staff in the
office.
Adam Bowen, 415 South Washington Street, Board President of Lamda Community Center
representing the Gay/Lesbian/Transexual/Transgender population of Northern Colorado, stated the
Center was sponsoring the first annual Pride in the Park event at Library Park.
Al Baccili, 520 Galaxy Court, thanked outgoing City Manager Fischbach for his service and
supported the immediate appointment of Darin Atteberry as City Manager. He also stated a City
employee (Sherrie Temple) who wrote an article in the newspaper about the sales tax on food and
that she should be fired for writing the article. He asked that the Council speak out in support of the
repeal of the food sales tax.
Kelly Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, stated the selection of a City Manager should be selected
based on desired skill sets, personality types, collaborative ability, etc. He stated "turning over the
politics to staff' was not good because staff was less objective than the elected body. He stated it
had been portrayed to the media and Council that City staff did not get increases in wages last year
and that he had a print-out that showed the 570 City employees that had actually received wage
increases last year. He stated employee wages and benefits should be fair to the employees and to
358
June 15, 2004
the taxpayers. He stated the newspaper had reported that City employees did not receive salary
increases and that this was inaccurate. He asked that Council demand that staff accurately portray
to the Council and the media the broad picture that 570 City employees received salary increases
in 2003 ranging between 6-30%.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Mayor Martinez asked that the City Manager address the salary increase issue. City Manager
Fischbach stated he had consistently told the City Council that there were no labor -market
adjustments given to City employees for 2003. He stated there were about 1,700 City employees
and that roughly one-third were not at the top of their pay range. He stated those eligible for merit
increases were moved up within their pay ranges. He stated some of the increases were also due to
employees moving from one position to another position with higher pay. He stated 49 people had
received pay increases out of 1,700 employees in 2004 due to reclassifications and other reasons.
He stated the City was obligated to pay employees at the fair market value. He stated no labor
market adjustments had been given in 2004 and that no merit increases were approved in 2004. He
stated skill ladder increases had been approved for 2004. He stated the information given to the
news media was absolutely correct.
City Manager Fischbach also addressed the issue broached by Mr. Brophy regarding Sherrie
Temple. He stated Ms. Temple did not violate the State law. He stated there was no valid ballot
measure at this point and that all City employees had First Amendment rights to free speech. He
stated Ms. Temple was exercising her First Amendment rights by talking to the newspaper.
Mayor Martinez asked the City Attorney to address the issue of First Amendment rights. City
Attorney Roy stated the question was whether Ms. Temple's statements violated any provision of
the Fair Campaign Practices Act. He stated the Act did not come into play unless and until a local
ballot measure had been placed on the ballot.
Councilmember Hamrick asked what items the food sales tax covered. City Manager Fischbach
stated non-food items sold at grocery stores were taxed. He stated the Building Community Choices
tax did not apply to food. He stated he understood that the sales tax referred to by Mr. Brophy was
the 2.25% that represented roughly $7 million per year collected by the City. He stated it would be
very harmful to the City if that tax was repealed. He stated tax applied to groceries.
Councilmember Hamrick stated Mr. Ohlson had asked if there were any wage and salary increases
for 2003. He stated it was his understanding that the Council had agreed that there would not be any
labor -market adjustments for 2003. He asked that the City Manager send the memo to Council
again. City Manager Fischbach stated he would ask Interim City Manager Fischbach to have that
memo sent to the Council again.
Councilmember Hamrick stated citizens deserved a forum to speak freely and openly when
addressing the Council. He suggested that staff and Councilmembers be as professional as possible
in responding to the free speech rights of the citizens. City Manager Fischbach stated he believed
359
June 15, 2004
that staff also had a right to freedom of speech and that he believed that it was fine for citizens to
speak provided they had the facts.
Councilmember Tharp stated the impression in some of the news articles was that no City
employees received raises. She stated it was true that there were merit, reclassifications and other
raises.
Mayor Martinez stated there had been an open discussion at Council meetings and Study Sessions
about the wage and benefits issues.
Agenda Review
City Manager Fischbach stated item #9 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 091, 2004, Making
Various Amendments to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code was being moved to the "Pulled
Consent' portion of the agenda at the request of Councilmember Kastein.
CONSENT CALENDAR
7. Consideration and approval of the Council meeting minutes of April 20 May 4 and May 18
2004 and the adjourned meeting minutes of April 29, 2004.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2004, Amendinp, Section 2-29 of the Code of the
City of Fort Collins Relating to Special Meetings.
This Ordinance, which was adopted 6-0 (Councilmember Tharp was absent) on First
Reading on June 1, 2004, amends Section 2-29 of the City Code relating to the calling of
special meetings and the notice requirements for said meetings.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 091, 2004, Making Various Amendments to the City of
Fort Collins Land Use Code.
Staff identified a varietyof proposed changes, additions and clarifications in the Spring 2004
biannual update of the Land Use Code. This Ordinance, which was adopted 6-0
(Councilmember Tharp was absent) on First Reading on June 1, 2004, makes various
amendments to the Land Use Code.
360
June 15, 2004
10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 094 2004 Amending Chanter 26 of the City Code Related
to Wastewater Discharges of Mercury from Dental Offices.
This Ordinance establishes requirements for wastewater discharges from dental offices that
place or remove dental amalgam containing mercury. The regulations are based on best
management practices.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 095, 2004, Authorizing the Purchasing_ Agent to Enter into
an Agreement for the Financing by Lease -Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment
This Ordinance will authorize the Purchasing Agent to enter into a lease -purchase financing
agreement with Koch Financial Corporation at 4.19 percent interest rate. The agreement is
for an original term from the execution date of the agreements to the end of the current fiscal
year. The agreement provides for renewable one-year terms thereafter, to a total term of five
(5) years, subject to annual appropriation of funds needed for lease payments. The total
lease terms, including the original and all renewal terms, will not exceed the useful life of
the property. This lease -purchase financing is consistent with the financial policies of the
City of Fort Collins.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 096, 2004, Authorizing the Grant of a Non-exclusive
Easement to Owest Corporation upon City -owned Property.
The proposed easement is located within Tract `B", Brown Farm First Filing, 850' south of
West Prospect Road on the west side of South Taft Hill Road. This property is owned by
the City and is maintained by the Parks Department. The easement area would be used for
a telecommunication cabinet to provide DSL service to the community
13. Items Relating to the Colorado Department of Transportation Proposed Rest Area.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 097, 2004, Authorizing the Conveyance of
Approximately 16 Acres of City Property and a Related Temporary Easements to the
Colorado Department of Transportation for Use and for a New Public Rest Area in
Exchange for Approximately 22 Acres of Land and Related Access Easements.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 098, 2004, Authorizing the Amendment of the City's
Mining and Reclamation Agreement With LaFarge for Mining on the Resource
Recovery Farm in Connection with the Exchange of Land for a New Colorado
Department of Transportation Rest Area.
These items relate to a voluntary exchange of parcels to allow the Colorado Department of
Transportation to develop a new rest area immediately south of the current Colorado
Welcome Center on Prospect Road near Interstate 25. This proposed exchange will allow
361
June 15, 2004
a new rest area to be built on a 16.024 acre site designed to be compatible with and enhance
existing adjacent improvements.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 099, 2004 an Ordinance Approving and Authorizing the
City of Fort Collins, Colorado, to Enter into a Site Agreement Between the City and Fort
Collins Capital Leasing Corooration a Lease Agreement Between the Corooration and the
City, a Certificate Purchase Agreement among the Corporation the City and George k
Baum & Company and a Financial Guaranty Agreement Between the City and the
Certificate Insurer and Approving a Trust Indenture Between the Corporation and the
Trustee, a Leasehold Deed of Trust from the Corporation to the Public Trustee of Larimer
County for the Benefit of the Trustee and a Preliminary Official Statement and a Final
Official Statement Relating to Certain Lease Certificates of Participation Series 2004A.
The City has been planning for the construction of a Police Services building for many years.
Monies for the acquisition of land for the facility were approved by the voters as part of the
Building Community Choices dedicated quarter cent sales and use tax. Police Services, with
the assistance of Operations Services, has identified a site to serve as the location for the new
facility. The building will be approximately 92,800 square feet and will be located on
approximately 10 acres of land on the west side of Timberline Road between Drake and
Prospect Roads. The cost of the Police Services facility transaction, including land costs,
will be approximately $30.1 million which includes $585,000 in financing costs.
The lease transaction will also provide a funding source for the construction of a storage
facility to contain deicing materials at the City's existing Streets facility on North Lemay.
The estimated cost of the storage facility will be about $1.7 million with $30,000 of
financing costs.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No 100 2004 an Ordinance Approving and Authorizing the
City of Fort Collins. Colorado, to Enter into a Site Agreement Between the City and Fort
Collins Capital Leasing Corporation a Lease Agreement Between the Corooration and the
City, a Certificate Purchase Agreement among the Corporation the City and George k
Baum & Company and a Financial Guaranty greement Between the City and the
Certificate Insurer and Approving a Trust Indenture Between the Corporation and the
Trustee, a Leasehold Deed of Trust from the Corporation to the Public Trustee of Larimer
County for the Benefit of the Trustee and a Preliminary Official Statement and a Final
Official Statement Relating to Certain Lease Certificates of Participation Series 2004B
By adoption of this Ordinance, Council would approve and authorize the legal documents
necessary to complete a lease purchase certificate of participation transaction for land
conservation in compliance with the City Council approved Land Conservation Focus Area
Map and the Natural Areas Program's Framework for Land Conservation. With the
proceeds from the transaction, the Program will acquire the Bobcat Ridge Natural Area,
acquire the Andrijeski property, and reimburse the City for the acquisition of the Soapstone
362
June 15, 2004
Ranch. The total amount of land to be acquired and conserved through these transactions
is 18,318 acres with a value of $11.6 million. The Program will have an additional $3.4
million for other projects.
The use of COPS is a cost efficient and effective way to maximize the land conservation
efforts of the Natural Areas Program. The cost of these primarily regional conservation
projects, which were acquired to take advantage of "once in a life time opportunities," will
be spread over fifteen years. The proceeds from the COPS will be focused almost
exclusively on local and community separator conservation projects, where much of the land
will either be too expensive to conserve in the future or simply not longer available for
conservation.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 2004, Amending Section 2-596 of the City Code and
Setting the Compensation of the Interim City Manager.
City Council appointed Darin Attebeny as Interim City Manager, effective June 16, 2004,
via Resolution 2004-065 on May 25, 2004. City Council appointed Mr. Atteberry to this
position with the understanding that his compensation would be adjusted and that the
compensation increase would be made effective with the date of his appointment as Interim
City Manager. The Ordinance also makes a City vehicle available to Mr. Attebeny during
the period of his service as Interim City Manager.
17. Resolution 2004-072 Approving and Adopting Chapter 3 — Air Quality Policy of the Air
Quality Plan as a Policy Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
City Council is being asked to adopt an update to the City's air quality policies, which are
now over ten years old. The Policy Chapter of the 2004 Air Quality Action Plan, if adopted
by Council, will supercede the 1993 Air Quality Policy Plan. Council action will also
incorporate the Policy Chapter as an element of City Plan. Staff worked closely with the Air
Quality Advisory Board and obtained input from the public and other Council advisory
boards during the update process.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance_ No. 090, 2004, Amending Section 2-29 of the Code of the
City of Fort Collins Relating to Special Meetings.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 091, 2004, Making Various Amendments to the City of
Fort Collins Land Use Code.
23. Items Relating to the Trailhead Annexation.
363
June 15, 2004
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 092, 2004, Annexing Property Known as the
Trailhead Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 093, 2004, Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Trailhead Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 094, 2004, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code Related
to Wastewater Discharges of Mercury from Dental Offices.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 095, 2004, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into
an Agreement for the Financing by Lease -Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 096, 2004, Authorizing the Grant of a Non-exclusive
Easement to Owest Corporation upon City -owned Property.
13. Items Relating to the Colorado Department of Transportation Proposed Rest Area.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 097, 2004, Authorizing the Conveyance of
Approximately 16 Acres of City Property and a Related Temporary Easements to the
Colorado Department of Transportation for Use and for a New Public Rest Area in
Exchange for Approximately 22 Acres of Land and Related Access Easements.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 098, 2004, Authorizing the Amendment of the City's
Mining and Reclamation Agreement With LaFarge for Mining on the Resource
Recovery Farm in Connection with the Exchange of Land for a New Colorado
Department of Transportation Rest Area.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 099, 2004, an Ordinance Approving and Authorizing the
City of Fort Collins, Colorado, to Enter into a Site Agreement Between the City and Fort
Collins Capital Leasing Corporation a Lease Agreement Between the Corporation and the
City, a Certificate Purchase Agreement among the Corporation, the City and George k.
Baum & Company and a Financial Guaranty Agreement Between the City and the
Certificate Insurer and Approving a Trust Indenture Between the Corporation and the
Trustee, a Leasehold Deed of Trust from the Corporation to the Public Trustee of Larimer
County for the Benefit of the Trustee and a Preliminary Official Statement and a Final
Official Statement Relating to Certain Lease Certificates of Participation Series 2004A
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 100, 2004, an Ordinance Approving and Authorizing the
City of Fort Collins, Colorado, to Enter into a Site Agreement Between the City and Fort
364
June 15, 2004
Collins Capital Leasing Corporation a Lease Agreement Between the Corporation and the
City, a Certificate Purchase Agreement among the Corporation the City and George k
Baum & Company and a Financial Guaranty Agreement Between the City and the
Certificate Insurer and Approving a Trust Indenture Between the Corporation and the
Trustee, a Leasehold Deed of Trust from the Comoration to the Public Trustee of Larimer
County for the Benefit of the Trustee and a Preliminary Official Statement and a Final
Official Statement Relating to Certain Lease Certificates of Participation Series 200413
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 2004, Amending Section 2-596 of the City Code and
Setting the Compensation of the Interim City Manager.
Councilmember Tharp made amotion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to adopt and approve
all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Consent Calendar Follow-up
Mayor Martinez asked the City Manager to explain item #10 First Reading of Ordinance No. 094,
2004, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code Related to Wastewater Discharges of Mercuryfrom
Dental Offices. City Manager Fischbach stated the Ordinance was being adopted in response to an
EPA requirement.
Councilmember Hamrick spoke regarding item #13 Items Relating to the Colorado Department of
Transportation Proposed Rest Area. He requested information on the easement work that would
be done with regard to the floodplain.
Councilmember Kastein spoke regarding item #13 Items Relating to the Colorado Department of
Transportation Proposed Rest Area and item #] 4 First Reading of Ordinance No. 099, 2004, an
Ordinance Approving and Authorizing the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, to Enter into a Site
Agreement Between the City and Fort Collins Capital Leasing Corporation, a Lease Agreement
Between the Corporation and the City, a Certificate Purchase Agreement among the Corporation,
the City and George k. Baum & Company and a Financial Guaranty Agreement Between the City
and the Certificate Insurer and Approving a Trust Indenture Between the Corporation and the
Trustee, a Leasehold Deed ofTrust from the Corporation to the Public Trustee ofLarimer County
for the Benefit of the Trustee and a Preliminary Official Statement and a Final Off cial Statement
Relating to Certain Lease Certificates of Participation, Series 2004A. He stated he would be
following up with staff with questions on both agenda items.
Councilmember Tharp spoke regarding item #14 First Reading of Ordinance No. 099, 2004, an
Ordinance Approving and Authorizing the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, to Enter into a Site
Agreement Between the City and Fort Collins Capital Leasing Corporation, a Lease Agreement
365
June 15, 2004
Between the Corporation and the City, a Certificate Purchase Agreement among the Corporation,
the City and George k. Baum & Company and a Financial Guaranty Agreement Between the City
and the Certificate Insurer and Approving a Trust Indenture Between the Corporation and the
Trustee, a Leasehold Deed ofTrust from the Corporation to the Public Trustee ofLarimer County
for the Benefit of the Trustee and a Preliminary Official Statement and a Final Of Statement
Relating to Certain Lease Certificates of Participation, Series 2004A. She stated she was glad to
see progress on land for a police building.
Staff Reports
City Manager Fischbach reported that the Government Finance Officers Association had informed
him that the City was receiving a Distinguished Budget Presentation Award. He recognized Deputy
City Manager Jones and Budget Director Doug Smith for their work on the budget. He stated this
was the 19'h year in a row that the City had received this award. He also reported on the closing on
a gift of 3.64 acres of land (the Oxbow property) for flood levee improvements that would remove
the homes in the Buckingham Neighborhood from the Poudre River floodplain.
City Manager Fischbach thanked the Mayor and the City Council for the ability to serve the
community for the past nine years.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Bertschy read Resolution 2004-073 expressing appreciation to outgoing City
Manager John Fischbach.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt
Resolution 2004-073.
Councilmember Kastein thanked City Manager Fischbach for his years of service
Councilmember Weitkunat stated City Manager Fischbach would be missed and thanked him for
his service to the City.
Councilmember Bertschy stated the City had an outstanding staff that reflected well on City
Manager Fischbach'sleadership.
Councilmember Tharp stated City Manager Fischbach's expertise and hard work were unmatched.
Councilmember Roy stated City Manager Fischbach had provided dedicated service to the City
Council and to every citizen of Fort Collins. He stated he would remember the "sheer effort and
determination" given by Mr. Fischbach every day.
366
June 15, 2004
Mayor Martinez expressed his gratitude for the service of City Manager Fischbach and his
"intuitiveness" in selecting staff and making the right decisions. He stated Mr. Fischbach was good
at "making things happen."
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein,
Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Councilmember Tharp reported on the regional I-25 EIS Policy Committee meeting and noted that
there would be a public gathering on July 1, 2004 for public input on the direction that CDOT would
take on expansion of I-25.
Councilmember Roy reported on the Housing Justice Symposium that addressed a variety of topics
relating to housing needs and homelessness issues in Fort Collins.
Mayor Martinez reported that there was a Sensible Housing Summit on June 3 hosted by him and
the Board of Realtors. He stated this would be aired on Channel 27 during the month of July.
Councilmember Kastein reported on North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning
Council discussions on the allocation of roughly $1 million to several small projects, the approval
of the weighted vote mechanism and a report from the State Air Quality Commission regarding
ozone compliance and the action plan.
Resolution 2004-074
Expressing Council Support for a Package of
Financial Assistance for the "Summit Front Range" Lifestyle Shoaaina Center. Adopted.
The following is staffs memorandum on this item
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommended financial package to support the Lifestyle Center will impact the City in several
ways:
According to estimates, the center will generate $4.5 million ofsales tax revenue each year —based
on the full City 3.0% sales tax. This financial package deals only with the City's 2.25% general
fund sales tax. The Center will generate $3.4 million in revenue from the 2.25% generalfund sales
tax. It is estimated that of the $3.4 million — about half, or $1.5 million, will be retail sales tax
dollars not currently Qenerated elsewhere in the retail community. This is the net new sales tax
revenue to the City. Over a 10 year period, the Center will generate $15 million in net new sales
tax revenue for the general fund.
367
June 15, 2004
Equally important is that a Fort Collins Lifestyle Center will stem the potential loss of $20 million
in sales tax revenue over the next 10 years if a center is located in another city.
From proceeds of net new sales tax generated by retailers at the Center, the City will share back
up to $5 million of sales tax proceeds. The anticipated time frame for this amount of revenue is
between six and seven years. Through the development agreement with Bayer Properties, the City
may defer fees related to the project for up to five years. With the $5 million share back the City
will realize a $10 million net sales tax increasefor the general fund over the initial ten year period.
This, coupled with the "net new "sales tax, accountfor a conservatively estimated $30 million gain
to the City's general fund over a ten year period.
The final element of the package is the imposition of a pubic improvement fee to be collected on
retail sales at the site. The fees would be collected by the City for the developer pursuant to a
collection agreement.
An added benefit is that the City's Open Space Tax would collect an additional $4.2 million over
ten years from new revenues generated by the Center. If extended, the two remaining Building
Community Choices quarter -cent sales taxes would generate $8.4 million.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Through the adoption of this Resolution, Council would indicate its intent to set up an agreement
between the City ofFort Collins and Bayer Properties, the developer ofa retail project located on
Harmony Road, just west of Ziegler Road (the `Lifestyle Center" or the "Center'). The Project
includes approximately 53 0, 000 squarefeet ofretail space. The estimated net cost ofthe Center and
related public improvements exceeds $70.5 million. The total value of the financing package is
approximately $13.7 million, of which $8.0 million is from a public improvement fee and $5.0
million as the City's share. The remainder is from anticipated interest savings related to the
deferral of development and impactfees. (See Attachment A for a summary.)
Based on analysis ofthe market area for the project, an independent economic consultant hired by
the City concluded that in thefirst year, the Center would generate $4.5 million ofsales taxfor the
City. Of this amount, approximately $1.5 million would be annual net new revenue for the General
Fund, a substantial increase to the tax base of the City. According to the study, the Center would
keep and potentially add retail sales in Fort Collins, thereby stemming the growing leakage to other
shopping venues. Of the net new revenue, 50% would be shared with the developer until the sum
of $5 million is reached. While this level is expected to be reached in approximately 6-112 years,
any share back arrangement is not to exceed ten years.
In addition to the sharing ofsales tax, the City would agree, through the development agreement,
to defer a portion of the fees for the Center for up to five years. The City will charge interest on the
deferral, but at a rate lower than the developers' expected interest cost. The lower interest rate will
yield a maximum interest savings to Bayer Properties of $656, 000.
c•:
June 15, 2004
The developer will impose a public improvementfee, a charge on retail sales. This fee is a privately
imposedfee. This fee will be remitted to the City (collected with City sales tax) and then paid to the
developer. The amount of total collections from the public improvement fee will not exceed $8
million.
The final piece of the package is that the developer may pass certain development fees to Center
businesses. This would lower the costs to the developer and also lower the value of the fee deferral.
BACKGROUND
Introduction
On February 10, 2004, the Council met in Study Session to discuss strategies for the retention of
sales tax. Background information about the Bayer Properties Lifestyle Center and the Mcninney
Centerra project in Loveland was included in the presentation. The Agenda Item for the Study
Session is attached for more detailed information. (See Attachment B.)
From the Council 's discussion, staff identified the following parameters for considering a package
ofpublic investment that could support the Lifestyle Center.
• The developer should investigate the use of a public improvement fee to offset its cost of the
public improvements at and near the site.
• The City should base any commitment of sales tax based on net new sales tax to be
generated by the project.
• Sharing of City sales tax from the Center should be limited to the 2 .25% tax levy, which
supports general government services. The dedicated quarter cent levies for the Building
Community Choices capital projects program and the extended quarter cent levy for Open
Space should not be included in the cost sharing because voters approved these taxes for
only specific purposes.
• The City should only consider sharing of sales tax based on the determination that the
Center's sales are above the average of other retail projects in the City.
• Deferring development and impact fees for a retail project may be a part of a financial
package, but should not exceed five years.
• The City could use special district financing. Through this mechanism, the developer and
subsequent owners could benefitfrom tax-exemptfinancing which allows lower than regular
market interest rates. This tool could lower the costs of financing and help the developer
spread costs over time.
369
June 15, 2004
Staff used this direction from Council in the discussions with Bayer Properties. The package that
has been developed for consideration meets the basic guidance provided by the Council. The
financing package consists primarily of three parts:
Developer Requiring Tenants to Collect a
Public Improvement Fee $8,000,000 58.6%
City Sales Tax Sharing 5,000,000 36.6%
City Deferral of Certain Fees (interest savings) 656,000 4.8%
Total Package $13.656.000 100.0%
01
Financing Package
City Deferral of
Certain Fees
4.8%
City Saks Tax
Sharing
36.6%
Developer Public
Improvement
Fee
58.6%
Total Project Costs and Public Improvements
Based on construction cost estimates from The Neenan Company, the Lifestyle Center will cost
approximately $70.5 million. This figure includes revenue from future land sales that Bayer
Properties expects to make. It also accounts for the expected street oversizing reimbursement that
the City will make to this project, a standard process in the City for projects that incur costs that
will serve future development.
Based on the project cost estimates, City staffinembers have determined that the total fees and taxes
for the project will be approximately $5, 980, 000. The estimated costs ofpublic improvements at the
site are approximately$13,237,000. Examples oftheLifestyle projectpublicimprovements include
a regional detention pond, extension and improvements of Corbett Lane, anew road from Corbett
to Ziegler, and improvements to Harmony and Ziegler Roads. These public improvements will be
370
June 15, 2004
used by members of public as well as the customers of the Center. The public improvements form
the public policy basis for the cost sharing package that is being proposed.
The total amount ofthe fees, the developer's business objectives, the anticipated public benefit from
the public improvements, new jobs and the projected sales tax revenues provide the underlying
rationale for the deferral of fees and tools to offset a portion of the costs.
An added benefit to the City that has been discussed by Bayer and City staffis locating the proposed
southeast library building on the Lifestyle Center site. While there is no firm commitment at this
point, Bayer has expressed interest in making a site available for the library structure. The Fort
Collins Library is planning a 20, 000 square foot branch library to serve the southeast area.
Rationale for the City Making Public Investments in the Proiect
Regional Competition. For the past several years, Fort Collins has faced an increased level of
regional competition for retail sales. The City has been a regional focus of retail activity for many
years. As other cities in Northern Colorado have increased their populations and purchasing
power, retailers have expanded in their jurisdictions. For example, the City of Greeley has
experienced tremendous retail growth in the last six years. It now has many of the same retailers
for which shoppers would come to Fort Collins. The City of Loveland has been aggressively
developing the Highway 34 corridor with "big box" retailers, such as the super Target store and
the Sportsman's Warehouse. At Highway 34 and Interstate 25, Loveland and the McWhinney
Companies are developing a large mixed -use development that includes a large retail center, which
could draw additional retail sales out of the Fort Collins economy.
Economic Planning Systems, a firm commissioned by the City, concluded that the proposed
Loveland center could draw $1.9 million of sales tax from the Fort Collins economy. The chart
below shows the difference between additional sales from the Bayer Lifestyle Center and the
Loveland center.
Estimated Net New Retail Sales
(Millions of Dollars)
$80
_..-. -$7.3 _....
Net inflow it located in Fort Collins
-
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Net outlow if located In Loveland
($64) (664) (664)
June 15, 2004
As previously reported to Council, the Loveland project could have a detrimental effect on Fort
Collins revenue, similar to the impact Broomfield Flatirons Mall has had on the City ofBoulder.
Boulder - Broomfield Sales Tax Comparison
1998-2002
$80,000,000
$70,000,000
C
$60,000,000
O
'.
a,
$50,000,000
_. —
Boulder
U
$4o,000,000
_ _ _ -- Broomfield -
M$30,000,000
m
$20,000,000
A
V)
$10,000,000
$_
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Year
Higher Amenity Level. According to organizations that study trends in the industry, the retail
sector "reinvents" itself every seven to ten years. In Fort Collins, we have seen the changes in the
original mall, strip development, redevelopment of the downtown, upsizing of the mall, big box
development, super discounters, and now the possible addition of a lifestyle center. The
demographics of our community indicate that ample income is available in this trade area to
support a 'lifestyle center, " a retail center that will have amenities and draws above and beyond
a regional mall. The center is expected to have numerous quality retailers that will keep people in
Fort Collins shopping locally, foregoing travel and dollars from going to Denver, Broomfield, and
even Loveland. The quality of the construction and the ambiance of the center are expected to be
a level above the existing mall and other retail outlets in Fort Collins and Northern Colorado.
Council Policy: Protect the Retail Base. The City of Fort Collins, like the vast majority of
Colorado cities and towns, is dependent on the sales tax as the major source of revenue for
governmental services. In each budget process, the Council reviews this trend and considers means
by which to diversify the revenue base. As has been demonstrated in the recent economic downturn,
when the sales tax decreases, the City has to make tough decisions on how to balance spending with
the revenue. As a direct result of declining revenues, the City lost $5.9 million of resources for
services related to recreation, library, affordable housing, street maintenance, and fire. By
partnering in the proposed cost -sharing approaches for the Lifestyle Center, the City will be acting
in a manner consistent with the City's Financial Management revenue policies.
372
June 15, 2004
City of Fort Collins
Life Style Center - Sales Tax Analysis
First Year
Additional Revenue for Open Space and Capital Projects. The proposed sharing of sales taxis
predicated on the use of net new sales tax revenue from the base 2.25%sales tax rate. All (10001o)
of the sales tax revenue from the center dedicated to the existing Building Community Choices
(BCC) packages will flow to those uses; the projected sales taxes from the center will benefit the
current BCC and future packages. The open space tax that extends to 2030 will be a prime
beneficiaryfrom the sales at the center; over a 10 year period it is estimated that the open space
will receive an additional $4.2 million as a result of the sales tax revenues from the center. If the
voters extend the other dedicated sales tax levies or adopt additional sales taxes, all of the dedicated
levies will receive their full share of the Lifestyle Center sales tax revenues.
Other Ouestions and Answers
Are New Retail Jobs Really a Benefit to the Community?
Last August City Council approved an amendment to the Harmony Corridor Plan to allow a
Lifestyle Center as an acceptable use. In considering the amendment, Council questioned whether
the City would be better off using the site for future use as the locus for employment, either
manufacturing or office or research and development. It is not an easy question to answer. To
assist, staffenlisted the help of Colorado State University, specifically Professors Harvey Cutler and
Steve Davies. Using a model developed from Fort Collins economic data, they concluded that a
high -end retail center would have certain beneficial effects that would not be received from regular
manufacturing employment or high-technology employment. A retail center would actually assist
373
June 15, 2004
low and moderate income household gain a greater share of the total income in the City. The costs
identified in the model were lower for retail use when compared to the two manufacturing
alternatives. The retail use also captures a greater share of income generated by existing
employment in Fort Collins.
Why Not Use Special District or Urban Renewal Financing Techniques?
The application ofspecial district and urban renewal approaches offers lower cost financing to the
developer. They also entail more complexity and other types of risks. These two factors would take
significant time to address. Bayer Properties believes that the success ofthe center and attributable
benefits to Fort Collins depends on the ability to move quickly and complete its project before the
Loveland center begins construction (if that is to occur). Given the risks, complexities and timing
of the economic benefits of special district or urban renewal, these options were not pursued.
Tax-exemptfinancing through a special district did not prove to be viable. Afinancing comparison
between the current tax-exempt rate ofapproximately 4.1 %and the Bayer cost offunds rate of 7.0%
was calculated. Over ten years, the savings are about $2.7 million. Given the present value of the
savings, the $2.7 million savings does not meet Bayer's business objectives.
Does this set a Precedent for Future Retail?
Providing an incentive for the Lifestyle Center may be seen as an invitation for other projects to
request financial support. An element of the City's current Economic Policy states: "The City will
continue to afford new and existing business and industry the opportunity to seekspecific assistance
pursuant to Council adopted ordinances and other programs enabled by state or federal
legislation. " The opportunity for any existing and new business to request financial assistance is
available. However, the City is not obligated to provide financial assistance to any project and
examines each request on its own merits and the goals of the City.
How is this Center "Better than Average" Retail?
The tenant mix of the Lifestyle Center concept is comprised of upscale apparel, home furnishing
stores, and restaurants — examples of the type of businesses likely to be in the Lifestyle Center
include, Talbots, Williams Sonoma, Pottery Barn, Banana Republic, California Pizza Kitchen, or
the Cheesecake Factory. Local independent stores would add local flavor to the mix. Bayer
Properties has shared some information about the retailers that it is trying to place in the Lifestyle
Center. Staff and the consultants from EPS agree that many of these retailers would be new to Fort
Collins and Northern Colorado and constitute new choices for goods and services. Such retailers
would allow Fort Collins residents to shop locally rather than drive to spend in Denver and
Broomfield. Many oftheproposed retailers are considered "up -scale "and would have higher sales
per square foot than numerous existing Fort Collins retailers. This would also reduce vehicle miles
and will help air quality in the region.
374
June 15, 2004
Was the Investment in Anheuser-Busch Good for the Community?
In the early 1980s, the City provided an economic investment package for the Anheuser-Busch
Brewery, a major employer in the region and a major property taxpayer in the City and County.
To assist AB in lowering its costs, the City issued tax-exempt bonds to lower their cost of public
improvements that would serve the site. AB committed to paying its share of the water, sewer, and
streets facilities. The City used revenues generated from the construction of the facility, sales and
use taxes, and property taxes to pay offa portion of the bonds. While not formally a tax increment
district, the project operated on a similar premise. Revenue, sales, use and property taxes,
generated by the project (approximately $6.8 million over a 15 year period) was used for the cost
ofpublic improvements. Overall, this project has many economic benefits for the community. The
facility is the largest property taxpayer in the City. The brewery employs more than 700 people with
above average salaries. It draws many visitors to the City and they help the retail economy.
Anheuser-Busch has also proven to be a good corporate neighbor, and the company and its
employees participate in many philanthropic activities.
What happens to the Lifestyle Center if the Loveland Project is Built and the Foothills Mall is
Renovated?
It is common for multiple developers/sites to compete for a major regional shopping center.
However, due to the size ofthe market, as well as the limited pool ofpotential tenants, usually only
one center is built. It is therefore unlikely that the Bayer Lifestyle Center, the Centerra project and
the Foothills Mall expansion will move ahead at the same time in their currently planned
configurations. The trade area is not currently large enough to support an additional 1.0 to 1.5
million square feet of space expected in the three projects combined.
The projects are also competing for the same limited group of department store and specialty retail
tenants. While a few ofthe target retailers have the market strength to warrant more than one retail
outlet, the majority of them will be interested in only one retail outlet in Northern Colorado at this
time.
It is difficult to answer this question without a better understanding ofhow Foothills Mall proposes
to redevelop as well as an understanding of their proposed timeline. Foothills Mall does have the
advantage of being a department store anchored center in a prime retail location in close proximity
to other retail establishments along a heavily traveled primary arterial. All other factors being
equal, most fashion apparel tenants would prefera regional shopping center location. On the other
hand, there are difficult obstacles, the most important being the potential, for expansion, tenanting,
and the ability ofthe company to negotiate these deals in a timely fashion. Their ability to energize
the center and make it look and feel comparable to a new retail product is critical.
There will be sales losses to Loveland, particularly if Centerra is able to bring in a number of
upscale tenants that would be attractive to Fort Collins shoppers. However, the nature ofthe losses
will depend on the extent to which a redeveloped Foothills Mall can be competitive with a new,
exciting retail product.
375
June 15, 2004
Why does Bayer Properties Need the City Investment?
To be successful, Bayer Properties must have a major anchor tenant for the Lifestyle Center. Given
the competition for major tenants, they (the tenants) can dictate rental and ownership relationships
with retail center developers. To secure a major retail anchor, Bayer will have to provide rent and
ownership concessions. This, in turn, will lower its rate of return on investment.
How does the Proposed Financial Support for the Fort Collins Lifestyle Center Compare to
Loveland's Financial Support for the Centerra Lifestyle Center?
It is difficult to make a direct comparison without more information. This is because the incentives
offered in Loveland were offered to Centerra, the master developerfor the 1,300 acre development.
The amount of incentives passed on by Centerra to Poag & McEwen is unknown. For example, the
PIF of 1.25 percent as well as the property tax increment are going to the Centerra Metropolitan
District(s) which will construct and maintain public improvements for the entire development, a
portion of which will benefit the Lifestyle Center.
The similarities of the packages negotiated in Loveland and under consideration in Fort Collins
include the impact fee deferral, as well as the credit for oversizing fees. Both communities have a
Public Improvement Fee (PIF), as well as some type of sales tax sharing agreement. Loveland's
L25% PIF is (for all intents and purposes) really a sales tax share back because the City is
voluntarily reducing the 3.0 percent sales tax rate to 1.75 percent. It is also imposing a 1.0 percent
retail sales tax fee over and above the basic rate (3 percent). Bayer Properties is proposing a 0.5
percent (PIF) increase over and above the 3 percent rate.
Once the Lifestyle Center is Developed, What are the Added Public Service Costs?
The City's costs for infrastructure, mostly streets, storm water management, and other utilities will
be met by the developer. The City estimates ongoing operations and maintenance costs using a land
use fiscal impact model. The size of the first phase of the project is approximately 59 acres. Using
the existing base of land uses within the City and prorating the ratio to governmental services
budgets, the additional cost is expected to be less than $300, 000 annually. As other phases of the
project, City staff expects this amount to grow incrementally.
Is there any Effect from the Deferral of Fees to the City's Financial Position?
There is little if any impact on the future capital uses or projects for which the fees are earmarked.
The City does not collectfeesfrom commercial developmentforpark or libraryfacilities. Theshort
term deferral will not impactplanned capital construction projects in Utilities. Street oversizing
fees are not part of the deferral package; full street oversizing fees will be paid as part of the
construction costs the developer bears for the required collector and arterial street improvements. "
376
June 15. 2004
City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item. He stated this was a "legacy decision" for the
City that had major significance. He read portions of a letter that he had sent to Ken Tharp at
Councilmember Roy's request: "David Roy has asked that I respond to your question for `advice
on financing public services affecting Fort Collins taxpayers.' This is of course a fundamental
question, and the staff and I spend a great deal of time discussing this very question as we prepare
the budget each year for the City Council's consideration. The question is really one of priorities
and revenue sources. All services cost the taxpayers money. I think we do a pretty good job in
measuring how well we do in providing each service and the cost of each service once the decision
is made to offer it. This is our performance -based budgeting that we follow. I encourage you to
look at our budget book if you haven't done so yet to see the results which are all reported in the
document. The revenue side of the equation is of course tougher in that it is beyond our control.
We are very much in a reactive mode depending on the performance of the local and national
economy and other influences beyond our control also. I believe we do a pretty good job of
managing in this environment given all of the factors. The most fundamental thing we as a City can
do in this arena is to approve the Lifestyle Center financing package this evening. This action will
ensure that the City maintains its dominance in the retail sector for some time, and dominance
translates into `increased share of the sales tax pie' for the foreseeable future. The investment of
$5 million by the City will produce income many times that for future services and for future BCC
type projects. For example, assuming that the Lifestyle Center is built in Fort Collins will mean an
increase of $4.2 million over the next 10 years in revenue to the open space tax alone. If the other
two quarter cent sales taxes are reapproved, it will mean an additional $8.4 million in taxes collected
for those two measures. As structured, it means a difference of $15 million in net new sales taxes
to the General Fund and over $20 million in sales taxes saved from that which would go to
Loveland. That's a significant difference to our General Fund of over $35 million over a 10 year
period. And it is important to note that these numbers are based on very conservative estimates.
In a nutshell, Ken, this is a defining vote that is scheduled for this evening."
Deputy City Manager Jones presented background information regarding the agenda item. She
stated this was one of the final steps to determine whether or not a Lifestyle Center would be located
in Fort Collins. She stated the focus of the discussion was the recommended financial package to
support the Lifestyle Center in the community. She stated historically Fort Collins had been a
magnet for retail customers from within the region. She stated shifting retail was an element in the
decline of sales tax revenue and the City's ability to provide the quality and depth of general
municipal services. She stated 60% of the City's General Fund revenue depended on sales tax
collections. She stated the process for consideration of the Lifestyle Center began last year. She
presented visual information depicting the last seven years of sales tax revenue and stated revenue
had a steady growth through 2001 and began to decline in 2002. She stated this was the first time
in the City's history that sales tax collections showed a decline from the previous year. She stated
many general municipal services were supported by sales tax dollars. She stated in February the
Council reviewed tools to help the City remain a strong retail center, bring in more sales tax dollars
and provide more jobs. She stated there was a highly competitive environment in which shoppers
went to other communities to shop and in which Loveland had provided development incentives to
377
June 15, 2004
Centerra. She described the Lifestyle Shopping Center project. She stated the tools reviewed by
the Council were a tax increment district, a special district, a public improvement fee, sharing of
new net sales tax, and the deferral of impact fees. She stated the Council gave direction regarding
the parameters: to look at the public improvement fee, to consider sales based on the new net sales
tax, to focus on the 2.25% levy, to consider that the retail center would be above average in sales
receipted, to look at the fee deferral for not more than five years, and to look at special district
financing.
Alan Krcmarik, Finance Director, spoke regarding the package that had been developed and the
project that had been presented. He stated the Bayer Companies, Inc. would spend between $70-75
million to assemble the land and develop the parcel. He stated the company would sell some of the
land and receive some reimbursement from the City. He stated the package assumed that Bayer
would have $75 million on the table for this project. He stated the company, their consultants and
City staff had developed a list of the estimated public fees and taxes based on the best information
available in the last week in May. He stated the numbers would change before the project was
completed and that the costs could go up. He stated the amount of public fees and taxes involved
was estimated to be $5.9 million, including fees for construction inspection, capital expansion fees,
utility charges, raw water requirement, stormwater fees, etc. He stated one focus was on the cost
of the public improvements and that this was an important figure for any cost sharing that could take
place. He stated it was estimated that there would be $13,236,723 of public improvements that
would benefit the project and people living in or visiting the neighborhood. He stated examples
included a regional detention pond (over $3 million), an open air plaza, improvements along Corbett
Road, and off -site improvements on Harmony Road and Ziegler Road ($3.5 million). He stated the
total public improvements would be over $13 million. He stated the question was why Bayer
Properties was talking with the City about some type of financial support and that the reason was
that the Lifestyle Center was one of the largest investments seen by the City (over $75.5 million).
He stated this was an era when the tenants (high end retailers) of retail centers tended to demand
concessions from the developer. He stated this would also compete directly with the Loveland
center and that the Loveland package was estimated to be from $350 million to over $500 million
in financing over the next 20 years. He stated the Lifestyle Center was a much more strategic type
of investment on the part of the City. He stated based on Council direction that the staff focused
primarily on the public improvement fee, a private fee imposed by the developer on the retailers that
would be at the site. He stated the fee would be added directly to the customers' bills and would
offset a public improvement. He stated staff also looked at deferring impact fees and found a way
for the City to defer fees for up to five years. He stated the City would collect interest on the fee
deferral and would lower the cost to Bayer because the charge on interest would be lower than their
cost to capital. He stated the value of the fee deferral was estimated to be $656,000. He stated up
to $5 million of City sales tax out of the net new sales tax could be shared back to Bayer Properties.
He presented visual information showing who would bear the cost for the financial package: 59%
would be the public improvement fee passed on to shoppers, and 41 % would be the $5 million from
the City plus up to $656,000 of interest savings from the deferral of fees. He stated the public
improvement fee was to be privately imposed and paid by customers and would amount to 50¢ on
378
June 15, 2004
a $100 purchase or 5¢ on a $10 purchase. He stated the consultants estimated that it would take 8-10
years to generate the $8 million. He stated the purpose was to offset the cost of the public
improvements. He stated all fees would be paid by the developer or passed along to tenants and that
in that case the amount of interest lost to the City would be even lower. He stating the sales tax
share -back would involve net new sales tax generated at the site on the base 2.25% sales tax rate.
He stated the consultant's report indicated that the 2.25% yield would be about $3.4 million and the
amount to be shared back to Bayer in the first year would be about $734,000 or roughly 22% of the
$3.4 million. He stated at this rate that in 6% years the $5 million share -back cap would be reached.
He stated the share -back would not go longer than 10 years. He stated the purpose of this was also
to offset the public improvements. He stated at a 3% sales tax rate the Lifestyle Center would
generate $4.5 million and at a 2.25% sales rate would generate $3.4 million. He stated the total net
new sales tax at the 2.25% rate was $1.5 million and that the amount to be considered for sharing
back in the first year would be $734,000. He presented visual information showing the lost revenue
that would migrate from Fort Collins to Loveland if the Lifestyle Center was not developed in Fort
Collins and the Centerra project was developed in Loveland.
Deputy City Manager Jones stated staff took into account the parameters set by the Council in
February in looking at the options. She stated staff believed that the recommendations were
reasonable approaches. She stated the public would benefit through added City revenue. She stated
there was an anticipated net $10 million over a 10 year period and that this was important due to the
City's loss over the last two years of $6 million of General Fund monies. She stated revenue was
important for the addition of amenities and keeping facilities that added to the quality of life in the
community. She stated the public would also benefit due to the addition of $4.2 million over the
10 year period to the natural areas program. She stated there was a potential for about 1,200 jobs.
She stated high end retail such as the Lifestyle Center would have beneficial effects for low and
moderate income households in that they would have a greater share of total job income. She stated
there would also be a public benefit in the placement of the southeast branch library in the Lifestyle
Center. She stated the City had been working with the developer to make this happen. She stated
this was a reasonable public investment for a number of reasons. She presented visual information
relating to the net outflow and inflow of sales tax dollars. She stated if the Lifestyle Center was
located in Fort Collins that in the early years that there would be $65 million gross retail sales upon
which the sales tax would be collected, and that if the Lifestyle Center located in Loveland that there
would be a net outflow of $64 million of retail sales. She presented visual information relating to
the proposed tax sharing. She recapped the financial package as follows: (1) a public improvement
fee that would amount to about $8 million; (2) a fee deferral or the interest savings from that of
$656,000; and (3) City sales tax sharing not to exceed $5 million. She stated the total would be
$13,656,000. She stated there would be no cash outlay in this package and that the developer was
financing the full development at $70.5 million. She stated there would be an increase in City
revenues and that the City retail base would be strengthened. She stated there would be new choices
in the overall retail climate. She stated the City would gain $15 million over a 10 year period. She
stated without the financing package and without the Lifestyle Center that the City would lose $19
million.
379
June 15, 2004
City Manager Fischbach stated staff had been working for many months with Bayer Properties. He
stated the approach had been one of partnership and that Bayer Properties had shared proprietary
information with the City staff: He stated staff believed that this was a good deal. He stated staff
had been looking at the difficult question of whether this would set a precedent and that staff was
concerned that a proper precedent be established. He stated in staffs estimation that this was a
proper precedent. He stated "net new" was an important concept and that this was a small
percentage of the entire package. He stated the scope of the infrastructure was significant. He stated
when this project was completed that the benefits to the entire community would be substantial. He
stated Bayer Properties was asking for assistance in developing the excess infrastructure
components. He stated the infrastructure used by the Lifestyle Center would be paid for by the
developer and that the infrastructure that would be used by the citizens would be paid for by the
citizens. He stated the challenge in negotiating such a deal was to present something that was within
the parameters established by the Council and to maintain the strong quality of life of the
community. He stated staff believed that this was accomplished. He stated with regard to precedent
that if something deserved this type of support in the future that staff would support it. He stated
staff was working on a different kind of redevelopment based package with the mall (General
Growth Properties). He stated the important parts of this package were: (1) "net new" and the City
not giving away anything; and (2) no cash outlay and the developer paying for everything up front,
although some fees would be deferred. He stated he was pleased that staff could negotiate a package
that was totally consistent with the City Council's direction.
Mayor Martinez stated citizen comments would be limited to three minutes.
Tim Johnson, 1337 Stonehenge Drive, stated this was a "bad legacy" for the City that was driven
by recent revenue trends. He noted that the revenue trends for this year had not been used in the
discussion. He stated revenues were up this year and that this might suggest that this economy does
well on its own. He asked the Council to vote against this Resolution and spoke in opposition to
incentives. He stated incentives were anti -local business in general and unfair to local people who
had invested in the City and paid the required fees. He stated sales could be "cannibalized" from
local business and that this could allow the developer and chain corporations to take profits out of
the City. He asked the Council to find ways to support local business rather than a planned central
economy. He stated the one element of the proposed package that was worth keeping was the public
improvement fee.
Glen Colton, 625 Hinsdale Drive, asked that the Council not approve the incentive package as
written. He asked that the package be amended to remove the $5 million sales tax share -backs and
either leave it out entirely or increase the public improvement fee to $13 million to replace the $5
million in sales tax share -backs. He stated this package would be unfair to local businesses that had
paid their own way. He stated this was a bad precedent and that everyone should be required to pay
their own way. He stated at the time the rezoning of the property was considered by the Planning
and Zoning Board that the developer had indicated that he would not be asking for any subsidies.
380
June 15, 2004
He stated the Lifestyle Center would create low -paying service jobs and that there would be more
demand for affordable housing and services for people coming to the City for these jobs. He asked
how much profit the developer would be getting from this deal, what the competitive position was
compared to Centerra, and how the "net new" would be calculated. He stated the public
improvement fee and some of the deferrals were fine. He stated a better market solution would be
a bigger public improvement fee.
Jim Clark, small business owner, stated there was an inherent value judgement in passing this
Resolution. He stated this would set a very dangerous precedent. He stated with regard to the issue
of competing with Loveland that Fort Collins was closer to Fort Collins businesses than to Loveland
businesses.
Alfred Koppel, 1219 Ticonderoga, stated the City would "take a momentous hit' if it did not have
the Lifestyle Center. He stated the Finance Department and consultants had done a credible job in
the financial analysis. He spoke regarding the information that had been presented regarding the
impact of people migrating out of the City for shopping.
Brent Hunter, small business owner, spoke in support of the Resolution. He stated this would be a
legacy decision for the City. He stated businesses often made location decisions based on the
incentives offered. He stated this would be a "pivotal decision" and urged the Council to consider
the available tools, opportunity costs, and long term benefits to the community.
Greg Snyder, 619 Bear Creek Drive, reminded the Council that employers provided jobs for citizens
in the area and that citizens spent their earnings somewhere. He stated if the money was spent
outside of the City limits that the revenue would go to a different community.
Al Baccili, 520 Galaxy Court, spoke in opposition to the Resolution and opposed any subsidies to
Bayer Companies. He stated other businesses did not receive such breaks. He noted that sales tax
revenues were up for this year and that the City did not need Bayer Companies.
Bruce Hendee, BHA Design, supported the Resolution. He stated he was working on the land
planning and landscape architecture for the project. He stated he had reviewed Bayer Companies
projects in Birmingham, Alabama and that those projects were high quality. He stated Bayer
Companies had shown the highest level of integrity and honesty. He stated the project plan would
have a "village center concept' that would have a community benefit. He stated there would be a
public benefit in reduced vehicle miles traveled and that people would be able to shop in a high
quality environment closer to home. He stated the Lifestyle Center would attract shoppers who
would also shop in downtown.
David Silverstein, Bayer Companies, stated he respected the decision that the Council would have
to make on behalf of the City. He stated the Bayer Companies was looking at investing $70 million
or more in the City. He stated this project would be unique because of the level of public
381
June 15, 2004
improvements that would be part of the development plan. He stated the high quality development
that was planned would be expensive. He stated Bayer Companies was prepared to make a $70
million investment and was asking the City to help the company to absorb some of the costs. He
stated there would be more than $13 million in public improvements that would remain
permanently. He stated this would not be a traditional strip shopping center.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb Street, opposed the Resolution. She stated this was a precedent -
setting vote and that there was an issue regarding fairness to the community and other businesses.
She stated the sharing back of the sales tax was an unfair advantage to a company that would be
successful. She stated she liked the option of extending the public improvement fee. She stated she
had questions about whether the construction companies that would be involved in the project would
be local. She asked about the arrangements for the library and whether the City would have to pay
to locate the library there.
Randy Fischer, 3007 Moore Lane, spoke in opposition to the Resolution. He stated the public
improvement fee would be an excellent tool for such projects. He stated the public improvement
fee was a market -based solution. He recommended increasing the amount of the public
improvement fee to cover the $5 million tax share -back. He expressed concerns that the process had
not been open and that the Council and the citizens did not know all of the details that staff knew.
He stated the sales tax share -back was not fair and that it was not known for sure that there would
be a net benefit to the City. He asked that Council reject the Resolution and direct staff to go back
and look at other solutions.
David May, Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce Executive Director, spoke in support of the
Resolution. He stated the Chamber was concerned about primary jobs in the community and about
this project taking primary land off the tax rolls. He stated after looking at all of the issues that this
project was work doing. He stated if the project would be built at Centerra instead of in Fort Collins
that a lot of business would bypass Fort Collins. He stated people who would come to Fort Collins
to shop at the Lifestyle Center would also spend dollars elsewhere in Fort Collins. He stated the
project would have an overall benefit to the retail trade sector and that it was unknown which Fort
Collins businesses might be impacted by this project. He stated this was a self-financing package
and that the City was not going to be responsible for a cash outlay. He stated if the project was not
done that there would be no sales tax to share.
Mark Brophy, 1 ] 09 West Harmony Road, spoke in opposition to the project. He stated it was
unclear whether this project would work since it could not be seen from the Interstate and might not
be able to compete effectively with Loveland. He stated this project would compete against other
businesses and the existing shopping mall in Fort Collins. He stated there would be traffic impacts
as people who did not live close to the Lifestyle Center would travel there. He stated this project
would exacerbate traffic problems and that development closer to the center of the City should be
382
June 15, 2004
encouraged. He stated the Lifestyle Center would pay less taxes than the businesses on College
Avenue. He asked that the Council decline any special tax breaks for this project.
Joe Solomon, 1721 Lindenwood Drive, stated the standards to which this project would be held were
far removed from the standards for individual locally owned and operated businesses. He stated this
project was on a large scale and that significant public benefits and improvements would accrue.
He stated from a marketplace standpoint that the City was introducing "social objectives" on a high
dollar level. He stated he believed that it was fair to consider the financing package which
represented a careful analysis of what consumers were willing to spend, what the developer had to
present to prospective tenants, and what would make the project successful. He stated this project
should compete entirely on its own on a market base. He stated if the City was not imposing high
standards for significant public improvements that the cost of the project would be less and the
developer would not need to ask the City for a package of incentives. He stated if the project was
not successful that the City would still have the public improvements. He asked that the Council
vote in favor of the project.
Councilmember Kastein asked Mr. Silverstein how the Bayer Companies would view the public
improvement fee as opposed to the sales tax share -back. He asked about the viability of a public
improvement fee that would be at a higher rate than what was being proposed. Mr. Silverstein stated
the project must remain competitive and that any time another cost was added to the consumer that
it would become an issue. He stated consumers would not shop there if they had to pay more money
in addition to the sales tax. He stated the Bayer Companies could not endorse a financing package
that would be only a public improvement fee paid by the consumers. He stated if the public
improvement fee was the only mechanism that it would jeopardize the competitive position of the
Lifestyle Center. He stated he had been reluctant to endorse the public improvement fee at all
because it could be used by competing sites to show that the cost to shop in Fort Collins would be
higher.
Mayor Martinez asked how the infrastructure would be a permanent addition to Fort Collins. Mr.
Silverstein stated the improvements that would be part of the development plan included an
extension to Corbett Drive, major roadway networks through the project, sidewalks and bicycle
paths, a park area intended to be a public meeting and gathering place, detention ponds to serve this
development and other sites, and Harmony Road and Ziegler Road improvements. He stated the
extent of public improvements was extraordinary for this project. He stated this was a major burden
for the front-end of the project. He stated there had been discussion about the impact of this project
on other retail within the community and that it was important to recognize that Fort Collins had
been the retail hub of northern Colorado for many years. He stated there was erosion into the retail
base and that there were competing sites that were trying to take the retail center standing away from
Fort Collins. He stated Bayer Companies had done studies that reflected the impact of the project
on other retail, such as the Foothills Fashion Mall. He stated market research indicated that if this
project did not go forward and the Loveland site did go forward that there would be a serious
impact on the Foothills Fashion Mall's sales per square foot. He stated research also indicated that
383
June 15, 2004
if the project went forward that it would bring further synergy to this marketplace i.e. consumers
would be brought here to shop at the Lifestyle Center, the mall and the downtown. He stated the
creation of a strong retail hub would preserve the City's place within the northern Colorado sector
and marketplace.
Councilmember Tharp asked if the market study showed what would happen to the Lifestyle Center
and the City's sales tax if Centerra was built. Mr. Silverstein stated the market study indicated that
if the Lifestyle Center and Centerra project both went forward that the mall would have a slight
increase in sales because the Lifestyle Center would capture retail dollars for the community. He
stated the worst case scenario for the mall was if the Lifestyle Center did not go forward and the
Loveland project did. He stated the best case scenario for the mall was for the Centerra project not
to go forward and for the Lifestyle Center to go forward. He stated this would require the mall to
go through an upgrade and redevelopment. He stated the City was large enough to support more
than one retail venue.
Councilmember Tharp stated she would like to see a financial analysis of tax dollars for the scenario
in which the Lifestyle Center and Centerra were both built. She asked about mechanisms for
guaranteeing that the City would not lose the fees that would be deferred for up to five years in the
event the Lifestyle Center would not succeed. Mr. Silverstein stated the City would have the power
to turn off the power, pull business licenses, etc. and that this would work as if the City had a lien
on the project in the event the deferred fees were not paid at the end of five years.
Councilmember Tharp asked if there was any kind of legal contract that would provide that the City
would not be "stuck with the bill" for the deferred fees. Mr. Silverstein stated he would be happy
to work with the City Attorney to ensure that the City was protected. He stated when there was a
$75 million investment that there was a lender standing behind the project. He stated the
development agreement with the City would be reviewed closely by the lender as part of the overall
financing package. He stated the lender would also have an interest in making sure that the fees
were paid.
Councilmember Roy asked if the financial analysis included projections for total retail sales for the
Lifestyle Center for the first 5-8 years. Krcmarik stated the total taxable sales would be
approximately $l41 million in the first year, $146 million in the second year, $150 million in the
third year, $155 million in the fourth year, $159 million in the fifth year.
Councilmember Roy asked how those numbers would change if Centerra was built. Krcmarik stated
Centerra would compete directly for some of those sales. He stated the consultant's report indicated
that it would be unlikely that all three projects (the mall redevelopment, the Lifestyle Center and the
Centerra project) could all be successful in this market.
Councilmember Roy asked how the building of Centerra would affect the sales projections for the
Lifestyle Center. Krcmarik stated an analysis would have to be done.
RM
June 15, 2004
Councilmember Roy asked how the Lifestyle Center sales projections would change if the Foothills
Fashion Mall would be redeveloped. Krcmarik stated an analysis would have to be done. Mr.
Silverstein stated if the mall redevelopment alone went forward that the mall's sales in the year 2010
were projected to be $212 million, that if the Lifestyle Center project and mall redevelopment both
went forward that mall's sales in 2010 would be approximately $250 million. He stated the best
scenario for the mall was a mall redevelopment and building of the Lifestyle Center. He stated the
two projects would work together to increase sales tax revenue for the community.
("Secretary's Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point.)
Councilmember Roy asked about the expected wage structure for the employees of the Lifestyle
Center. Krcmarik stated jobs in the retail sector were lower paid than those in the manufacturing
sector. He stated the data from several years ago showed that an average full time salary within
retail was in the $22,000 to $25,000 range.
Councilmember Roy asked how many jobs would be created. Krcmarik stated the estimated number
of jobs was 1,200 and that not all were full time jobs.
Councilmember Roy asked what the average hourly salary would be. Krcmarik stated it would be
slightly more than $10 per hour.
Councilmember Hamrick asked about the EPS market analysis that was presented last year, which
indicated that 35% of the total sales for the Lifestyle Center would be new sales. He asked if staff
agreed with that projection. Krcmar k stated staff had been using the EPS analysis throughout the
process.
Councilmember Hamrick noted that several individuals had referred him to a Salt Lake City study
for a similar project that indicated that 10% in new sales was anticipated. He asked if staff looked
at similar studies. Krcmarik stated staff looked at the Salt Lake City study and talked with the
consultant for that study. He stated Salt Lake City was looking at two projects at the same time (a
mega mall project near the airport and a downtown redevelopment). He stated EPS reviewed the
Salt Lake City study. He stated the key differences were in the demographics of the two
communities, purchasing power and mall locations. He stated both consultants agreed that both
studies could be correct and that there could be that much difference (10% in Salt Lake City and 35-
40% in Fort Collins).
Councilmember Hamrick asked if the difference was in the widespread area of Salt Lake City.
Krcmarik stated Salt Lake City was a large urban area and that there were many existing malls. He
stated a mall in Fort Collins would have a different dynamic because it would stop people from
going to Denver to shop, while a new mall in Salt Lake City would keep people from going to one
of the other malls. He stated there were different community patterns and income profiles.
385
June 15, 2004
Councilmember Hamrick stated 65% of the total sales dollars would be about $100 million for one
year. He asked if existing businesses would be impacted to the tune of $100 million and stated this
would be a major impact to existing businesses. He asked if any analysis had been done to indicate
where the impact would be felt i.e. which businesses would be impacted. Krcmarik stated the
consultants did not provide specific names of businesses and that they did say that the competition
from the Lifestyle Center could cause other businesses in the Fort Collins area to go out of business.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if EPS had indicated that the businesses that would be impacted
would be smaller or medium sized businesses. He noted that the Lifestyle Center would contain
larger "big box" style chain stores at the expense of smaller businesses. He stated retail sales tax
had gone down because Fort Collins had become more sensitive to the national market through the
bigger chains. He stated this could tend to give the City more potential exposure to the cycles of
business. He asked if an analysis had been done regarding whether this would be an impact to
smaller or medium sized businesses. Krcmarik stated EPS did not reach any conclusions on the size
of businesses that would be impacted. He stated certain "tenuous" businesses that had difficulty
competing with the businesses such as the new Wal-Mart Supercenter might be put into jeopardy.
He stated EPS concluded that a successful small local business in a niche market could actually do
better because of more traffic due to the Lifestyle Center and that a marginal local business might
not survive.
Councilmember Hamrick stated $100 million was a lot of impact for one year on existing
businesses. He asked how staff would answer the charge that this would create an unfair
competitive advantage for the subsidized businesses. Krcmarik stated the Lifestyle Center would
generate about $155-160 million in sales, that about $60 million would be "net new" and that the
other $100 million would not be "net new." He stated he understood Councilmember Hamrick's
comment to be that retail sales were being taken away from other retail stores. He stated the
question was whether this was fair and that the response would be that this was for a greater public
purpose i.e. stronger retail overall.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the $100 million referenced by Councilmember Hamrick would
be lost if the Lifestyle Center did not go forward and the Centerra project did go forward. Krcmarik
stated if Centerra was built and the Lifestyle Center was not that the money would leave Fort Collins
and be collected elsewhere.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the $100 million would be lost in that case. Krcmarik stated there
was a potential that it would be lost.
Mayor Martinez asked how much sales tax would be lost. Krcmarik stated there would be a
migration of $1.9 million in sales tax to the Centerra project.
Mayor Martinez asked if businesses would go under if Centerra was built and the Lifestyle Center
was not. Krcmarik stated this was a possibility.
0i
June 15, 2004
Councilmember Hamrick asked if Centerra was built how the "net new" sales tax for the Lifestyle
Center would be affected. Krcmarik stated it would be reduced by as much as one-third to one-half.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if that would impact the pay back time line. Krcmarik replied in
the affirmative.
Councilmember Hamrick stated the Agenda Item Summary indicated that there would be a $30
million gain to the City's General Fund over a 10 year period and asked how staff arrived at that
figure. Krcmarik stated the figure factored in the loss to Loveland and the gain to Fort Collins in
"net new." He stated adding in the gain for open space would make this a higher number.
Councilmember Hamrick asked why staff would not recommend using the public improvement fee
to cover all of the cost when Loveland was using a public improvement fee of 1 % for the Centerra
project. Krcmarik stated Loveland was reducing their sales tax rate at the Centerra project from 3%
to 2% and was adding a public improvement fee of 1 %. He stated consumers at the Lifestyle Center
would be paying an additional half cent public improvement fee on sales.
Councilmember Hamrick stated staff had indicated that the Lifestyle Center would create about
1,200 low wage jobs. He asked how many of those jobs would be going to Fort Collins citizens.
Krcmarik stated the study using the CSU equilibrium model indicated that the majority of jobs (over
80%) would be filled by people from Fort Collins since many people will not commute for retail
wages.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if an analysis had been done on the impact of people moving or
driving to Fort Collins for the jobs. Krcmarik stated the CSU study indicated that the commuting
miles would be minimal.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if the people moving to Fort Collins would have an impact on
affordable housing, emergency room visits, social services, etc. Krcmarik stated the CSU study
indicated that this would not harm the affordable housing situation. He stated staff had used
techniques from the Fiscal Impact Handbook published by APA to estimate the high end of annual
costs due to the new residents at $75,000 to $250,000.
Councilmember Tharp stated she would like to more firmly address the issue of a spot for the
southeast library at the Lifestyle Center. She stated the addition of a governmental purpose would
add traffic and would be a plus for the community and the shopping center. She stated it had been
indicated that serious consideration would given to a 20,000 square foot spot for a branch library.
She asked how this could be made more than a "consideration." City Manager Fischbach stated he
had talked with Bayer Companies about the idea and that they were supportive of the idea and had
indicated that they could probably donate the land for such a facility. He stated the appropriate time
to discuss the specifics would be at the time of the development agreement which would be brought
387
June 15. 2004
back for Council approval. He stated the discussion was about a 10,000 square foot second floor
site.
Councilmember Tharp stated a synergy between the downtown, mall, and Lifestyle Center had been
discussed. She stated it would be a good idea to have a shuttle between the three to reduce miles
traveled and air pollution. She asked if that could be worked into the development agreement. City
Manager Fischbach stated there had been general discussions with the applicant about that matter.
He stated the Downtown Business Association had unanimously endorsed the project.
Councilmember Tharp asked staff to explain for the viewing public why the sales tax projections
were based on 2.25% rather than 3%. Krcmarik stated the City had a 3% sales tax rate and that the
first 2.25% was a permanent tax available for all governmental purposes. He stated the voters had
approved the other .75% for specific purposes and that staff believed that it was appropriate to
follow the voter -approved uses.
Councilmember Tharp asked for clarification that none ofthe .75% sales tax would go to the share -
back. Krcmarik replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Roy asked what kind of incentive package the Foothills Fashion Mall would likely
request. City Manager Fischbach stated the mall would be soliciting assistance through an urban
renewal district because it would be a redevelopment in -fill project. He stated it was expected that
the mall would ask for assistance in building a parking structure and replacing some buildings with
outside shopping.
Councilmember Roy asked for an estimate on the value of the incentive package that would be
requested by the mall. City Manager Fischbach stated it would probably be in the $ l 0 million range.
Councilmember Roy stated information had been presented regarding how expensive this project
and investment would be and that local businesses would see a drop of approximately $100 million
in the first year. He asked if there was information on the aggregate investment of the small
businesses that would be impacted. Krcmarik stated staff would have to prepare such an analysis.
Councilmember Roy stated one audience participant indicated that one reason the project was so
expensive was because the City was imposing high standards. He stated he had also understood that
Bayer Companies wanted to bring a high quality project to the community. Jones stated the
company did want to bring a high quality project to Fort Collins and that some of the off -site public
improvements that would be required were substantia and would serve the greater community.
Krcmarik stated the City's approach to the provision of services was different than other
communities. He stated many other communities did not require regional stormwater facilities and
that many assumed that the City would build all streets and improvements. He stated Fort Collins
pushed some of those costs over to the developers.
June 15, 2004
Councilmember Roy commented that the scale of risk should be commensurate with the scale of
reward.
Councilmember Hamrick asked what the developer's return on investment would be for this project.
Krcmarik stated staff estimated this to be approximately 11.5% net revenue on cost in the first year.
Councilmember Hamrick asked how much this would be in a year. Krcmarik stated could be
proprietary information.
Councilmember Hamrick stated he would like to know that information if possible. He stated the
use of tax dollars took this project outside of the context of a free market. He stated if the taxpayers
were to subsidize part of the profit that the City should know what that profit would be. Krcmarik
stated the profit could be estimated at $7.5 to $8 million for the first year.
Mayor Martinez asked for a definition of the difference between a "subsidy" or "investment" or
"incentive." Krcmarik stated in the case of a subsidy the City would recognize that it might never
be paid back the initial amount of money. He stated an investment would be made with the
expectation that there would be some type of return on the investment.
Councilmember Kastein stated the precedent issue was important to him and that he had been
concerned about how this action would affect later developments. He stated one issue was how
"above average" this particular project would be. He stated he was interested in the return on
investment per square foot or some other measurable determination. Krcmarik stated staff looked
at all retail across the City to attempt to arrive at an average retail return on investment per square
foot estimate and to compare that figure to the probable level at the Lifestyle Center. He stated the
return on investment per square foot at the Lifestyle Center was significantly higher than the average
and significantly higher than the current retail activity at the Foothills Fashion Mall.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the 50% share -back was proportional given the above average
return on investment per square foot. Krcmarik stated based on the comparison that a share -back
that would be slightly higher than 50% was supportable.
Mayor Martinez asked for confirmation that the sales tax collections had increased in 2004 over
2003 collections but not over 2001 collections. City Manager Fischbach replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Martinez asked if that meant the City was not in complete recovery mode. City Manager
Fischbach stated the collections were way up a month ago and slightly up last month. He stated that
there was not an assured path of growth in sales tax collections at this time.
Mayor Martinez asked what would happen if Centerra was built and the Lifestyle Center was not
with regard to potential losses to businesses and jobs in Fort Collins. Krcmarik stated there would
be a loss of approximately $100 million in retail sales. He stated additional analysis could be done.
:'
June 15, 2004
Councilmember W eitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adopt Resolution
2004-074 as written.
Councilmember Hamrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to amend the motion
to strike out the $5 million in share -back dollars and to collect the $13 million through a public
improvement fee.
Councilmember Hamrick stated the public improvement fee would be growth paying its own way.
He stated this would level the playing field for existing businesses in Fort Collins and that it would
mean the addition of a surcharge to every purchase at this site to create a more competitive field.
He set that this would set a good precedent for the community. He questioned whether this project
would be successful even with public subsidy if it could not work without public subsidy. He stated
he supported having the Lifestyle Center come to Fort Collins but that he had concerns about
creating a competitive advantage for the property over existing businesses. He stated a public
improvement fee would help level the playing field.
Mayor Martinez stated there might be some misunderstanding of a "subsidy" versus an
"investment." He stated the City would have an expected return on this investment. He asked how
the public improvement fee would work to the benefit of the Lifestyle Center.
Councilmember Hamrick stated a 1 % or .5% public improvement fee paid over a longer period of
time would ensure that existing businesses would have to collect less taxes from consumers than the
Lifestyle Center would have to collect. He stated this would ensure that the Lifestyle Center did not
have an unfair competitive advantage. He stated there was not always a return on an "investment."
City Manager Fischbach stated from a financing standpoint that the banks would have a concern
with the public improvement fee approach. He stated existing businesses were important to the City
and that one of the reasons for the City to invest in this partnership was that this project would
generate retail sales and sales tax. He stated it was not an unfair disadvantage to existing businesses
because this was a major development. He stated this was different than working with an individual
store. He stated the intent was to protect the City's regional position in the taxes received. He noted
that this was one of the Council's goals set forth in the work plan.
Mayor Martinez stated he would not support the amendment. He stated it appeared to be an attempt
to deliberately sabotage the ability of the Lifestyle Center to be built.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would not support the amendment. She stated the Council
needed to recognize that the people who would be shopping there were citizens of Fort Collins. She
stated the shoppers would pay the burden with a public improvement fee. She stated the proposed
amendment would work to penalize the citizens. She stated it would only make sense to impose a
higher public improvement fee if the sales tax was reduced as well. She stated the EPS report
indicated that Fort Collins shoppers spent 85-90% of their dollars on retail in the City. She stated
it was critical to keep those dollars here. She stated the share -back was not money out of the City's
390
June 15, 2004
pocket. She stated she believed that this was a fair and reasonable financing package. She stated
the proposed amendment would encourage the project to fail.
Councilmember Tharp asked Mr. Silverstein to respond to the practicality of a total public
improvement fee package. Mr. Silverstein stated the public improvement fee would make the
project "an island unto itself' and would put the Lifestyle Center at a distinct competitive
disadvantage. He stated additional cost to the consumer to shop there would defeat the efforts that
were being made to make this a success.
Councilmember Tharp asked how an extension of the public improvement fee for a longer period
of time would impact the project. Mr. Silverstein stated the components of the financing package
worked together. He stated the share -back of "net new" sales tax dollars took into account the
displacement of sales within the community and also provided for the collection of sales tax dollars
that the City would not otherwise receive. He stated he would be spending money on the front-end
to help produce the revenue that would be shared back. He stated the "net new" sales tax concept
was key to the financing package. He stated if the project was not successful that there would be
no share -back. City Manager Fischbach stated Mr. Silverstein had indicated that there could be
problems with the lenders with the public improvement fee mechanism. Mr. Silverstein stated Bayer
Companies were making a business decision and that it was important to know net operating income
compared to the cost to build the project. He stated Bayer Companies needed some assurances that
if the project and public improvements were built that the company could recoup some of the dollars
spent for public improvements on some basis other than long term public improvement fees. He
asked that the Council not impose upon the project a full public improvement fee as the only
mechanism by which the company could recoup some of the public improvement dollars.
Councilmember Roy asked what the high end of retail sales would be for the Lifestyle Center in the
first year. Krcmarik stated sales could be as much as 20% higher than the numbers used.
Councilmember Roy asked if sales could be as high as $180 million or even more. Krcmarik stated
this would be the high end of retail sales.
Councilmember Roy asked how the higher rate of success would change the target number.
Krcmarik stated if sales were 20% higher that the target would be reached about two years sooner.
Councilmember Kastein stated the issue was that there would now be competition for sales and that
the competitors were doing things like reducing the sales tax while imposing a public improvement
fee. He stated staff had negotiated in good faith with Bayer Companies and that this financing
package could work for the company. He stated there would be a migration of sales tax even if the
Lifestyle Center was not built. He stated he would not support the amendment.
Councilmember Roy stated Fort Collins had led the way with sound fiscal policies for many years
i.e. stormwater fees, street oversizing, parks and open space, etc. He stated those fiscal policies set
391
June 15, 2004
the City apart from other communities that did not have sound infrastructures. He stated the City
had a high quality of life and that the City was not deeply in debt. He stated the City had balanced
quality of life with fiscal responsibility. He stated the proposed amendment attempted to maintain
that vision and balance.
Mayor Martinez stated the City had made investments in the past with Budweiser, H-P, etc. City
Manager Fischbach stated staff was suggesting that this was the way to protect the future quality of
life. He stated if the Lifestyle Center was not built that the quality of life of the community would
go downhill. He stated the proposed financing package would cost the citizens of Fort Collins
nothing and would ensure the successful dominance of Fort Collins in the regional retail market for
years to come.
Mayor Martinez asked if people would lose business and jobs in Fort Collins if Centerra was built
and the Lifestyle Center was not. Krcmarik stated the analysis showed that the Centerra project
would compete against Fort Collins business and that business and jobs would be lost.
Councilmember Hamrick stated there would be higher end shoppers at the Lifestyle Center. He
stated a public improvement fee might not even be noticed by the shopper. He asked what type of
shoppers there would be at the Lifestyle Center. Krcmarik stated the per square foot sales would
be higher because the cost of goods sold would be higher. He stated this would attract a higher
income shopper from Fort Collins who was now driving to shopping in Denver, Boulder, or other
states, etc. He stated such shoppers might not even notice the higher tax.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated people knew what they were paying. She stated the bottom line
was that this was a place where people would spend money and a profit would be made. She stated
her concern was that dollars would stay in Fort Collins. She stated this was an opportunity to keep
dollars in Fort Collins and that this would cost the City nothing. She stated this was an important
decision and that the decision should be made on the basis of what was good for Fort Collins. She
called for the question.
Councilmember Bertschy stated he had asked many questions and received answers to those
questions. He stated he believed that in all of the other instances in which assistance was provided
to projects that it had been in the form of funded districts (special improvement districts, authorities,
or bonded indebtedness). He stated this was a fine project and that it would be valuable to the
community. He stated he had a fundamental problem with the sales tax share -back portion of the
financing package. He stated his preference would be for the public improvement fee and one of
the other mechanisms. He stated this would set a bad precedent. He stated the City could do a lot
with the $5 million in sales tax that would be shared back. He stated he had asked why a SID could
not be done and that the response had been that it would take too long or would be too complicated.
He stated the SID mechanism had worked for other projects. He stated he would support the motion
to amend and that he could not support the main motion.
392
June 15, 2004
Councilmember Roy stated he did not want to get "beat" by Loveland and that he did want Fort
Collins to maintain its strong role. He stated it was not right to do things to accommodate a single
project. He stated there was a tremendous investment by other businesses in the community. He
stated a community was made up of individuals working hard every day. He stated the Council had
to be fair. He stated the world had changed and that it was important to make sure that the things
that had been done right and fairly should be continued. He stated the motion to amend was an
effort to achieve that.
Councilmember Weitkunat again called for the question. City Attorney Roy stated the Mayor could
test with the majority of the Council whether it was time to vote or whether debate should continue.
Mayor Martinez stated he would like to allow all Councilmembers an opportunity to make a final
statement.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated if the project was not built that zero sales tax would be collected.
She stated if the project was built and there was a .5% sales tax share -back that the City was not
giving up or losing anything. She stated she did not understand the logic of the arguments against
the share -back. She stated there would be a five year commitment on the share -back and that the
City would still have the rest of the sales tax collected.
Councilmember Tharp stated the share -back would be half of the sales tax.
The vote on the motion to amend was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick and
Roy. Nays: Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez, Tharp and Weitkunat.
THE MOTION FAILED
Councilmember Roy stated he had strong feelings about this. He stated he did not want to see Fort
Collins have an empty mall like the Crossroads Mall in Boulder. He stated nothing was guaranteed
about the project. He stated the City had frozen wages and had a stalled infrastructure in the
community. He stated much of the City's "fiscal conservatism" was "going out the window." He
stated the jobs at the Lifestyle Center would pay $10 per hour in a community in which you needed
to make $16.40 to be able to afford a two -bedroom apartment. He stated he was glad that this issue
was bringing forward the concept of a livable wage for the citizens of Fort Collins. He stated the
City would be approached by the Foothills Fashion Mall for assistance and that the decision on the
Lifestyle Center would have an effect on that. He stated he was disappointed that an analysis of a
built -out Centerra compared with a built -out Lifestyle Center had not been done. He stated this was
"rolling the dice" and that the choice that was being made was "counter to every instinct that has
served this community well." He stated this was the wrong direction and that the $100 million lost
to other businesses would affect neighbors. He stated this project was not "egalitarian" and that it
went against sound fiscal policy. He stated this would give a distinct advantage to something that
would serve a few people and create a "horrible pathway to the future." He stated this might give
393
June 15, 2004
the City a "moment of economic brilliance" but that it would not be healthy for the community in
the long term.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated this was a step in a positive direction to help Fort Collins move
forward again. She stated the City was in a "paradigm shift" with regard to retail. She stated this
would be good and valuable for the citizens of Fort Collins and that this was a win -win situation for
everyone. She stated she could see only positives about this decision.
Councilmember Kastein stated the "gloom and doom" referenced by Councilmember Roy would
be true if this project was not built and if Centerra would go in. He stated the City had been faced
with competition and had to react. He thanked the staff for their work on this issue. He stated the
proposed financing package was the best that could be done and that he recognized that some
Councilmembers agreed with it while others did not.
Councilmember Hamrick stated much of the discussion centered on the financial support for the
project rather than the project itself. He stated he believed that all of the Councilmembers would
welcome this project to Fort Collins. He stated the issue was how it would be financed and whether
it would be financed with taxpayer money. He stated this package would subsidize the competition
for existing businesses and would create an unlevel playing field. He stated existing businesses
would be impacted by the Lifestyle Center in the amount of $100 million per year. He asked if it
was a wise choice to use taxpayer money to create low paid jobs. He stated he did believe that the
Lifestyle Center would stem the revenue leakage to Loveland and that he simply disagreed with how
it would be financed.
Councilmember Tharp stated it was important for Fort Collins to keep its place as a regional retail
center. She stated there was a reality of competition from the south. She stated if the Lifestyle
Center was not built that the City would be further "in the hole' and that if it was built that the City
would maintain its focus as a regional center.
Mayor Martinez stated he would support the motion. He stated the Lifestyle Center would be an
important asset to the community. He stated allowing the retail to go to Loveland would contribute
to urban sprawl and more vehicle miles traveled. He stated for a $5 million investment that the City
would get about $35 million and that was a good investment. He stated this was not a subsidy but
was an investment.
The vote on the motion to adopt the Resolution was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Kastein,
Martinez, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick and Roy.
THE MOTION CARRIED
394
June 15, 2004
Resolution 2004-076
Authorizing and Directing Staff to Prepare an
Urban Renewal Plan and Blight Study for the
North College Corridor Area, Adopted.
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 198Z the Fort Collins City Council created an Urban Renewal Authority (URA) for the purpose
of eliminating blight in the community, and designated itself as the governing authority. A URA
exercises its powers by planning and carrying out urban renewal plans in urban renewal areas.
Revitalization of the North College Corridor has been relatively slow and spotty. It is clear to most
that if the area is to be successful, a comprehensive approach to revitalization is necessary. The
City has been approached by the North Fort Collins Business Association to recognize the North
College Avenue Corridor as an urban renewal project area and to create an urban renewal plan
for it, including the requisite blight study. Adoption of the resolution authorizes and directs staff
to prepare the plan and blight study, involving potentially affected interests.
BACKGROUND
General. In 1982, the Fort Collins City Council created an Urban Renewal Authority (URA) and
designated itself as the governing board (known as the "Authority'). The boundaries of the URA
are the municipal limits. The Fort Collins URA was created to prevent and eliminate conditions of
blight in the community. State Statutes gives the URA broad powers to carry out its statutory
mandate. Included are the powers to enter into contracts, borrow funds and acquire property
voluntarily or by eminent domain, among others. Urban renewal projects may be financed in a
varietyofways. URAs are authorized to borrow money, issue bonds, and accept grants from public
orprivate sources. The principal method offinancing urban renewal projects is through obligations
secured by property tax or sales tax increments from the project area ("tax increment financing ).
A URA exercises its powers by planning and carrying out urban renewal plans in urban renewal
areas.
Unmet Needs. In 1995, the City Council adopted the North College Avenue Corridor Plan as an
element of the City's comprehensive plan. Among its goals were to:
• Revitalize the area to improve the "neglected commercial strip" image, and
• Increase the opportunityfor development and expansion of business and industry
The North College Corridor was also targeted as an area for redevelopment and infll in the
recently updated City Plan document, the City's Comprehensive Plan.
395
June 15, 2004
One of the outstanding concerns byproperty owners in the Corridor is the area's economic viability
in terms offuture business development and commercial growth. Several factors contribute to this
issue including: lack of infrastructure improvements —particularly for storm water drainage, street
connectivity, and street improvements (curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street trees, and bike lanes).
Unfortunately, revitalization of the North College Corridor has been relatively slow and spotty.
It is clear to most that if the area is to be successful, a comprehensive approach to the areas
revitalization is necessary.
Proposal. For the past several months, a few property owners, developers, members of the North
Fort Collins Business Association (formerly known as the North College Business Association), and
City staff have been meeting to discuss opportunities to inject momentum into the revitalization
efforts. One of the tools that have been discussed is the City's Urban Renewal Authority and its
authority to use tax increment financing of needed improvements.
The City has now been approached by the Business Association to recognize the North College
Avenue Corridor as an urban renewal project area and to create an urban renewal plan for it.
Before an urban renewal plan for this area can be approved, the area must be found by the
Authority (City Council) to be a blighted area as defined in State Statutes. Hence, the North Fort
Collins Business Association is also requesting that a blight study be prepared.
The procedures for adopting an urban renewal plan are set forth in the state statutes and generally
described in the attachment. Staff can prepare the plan and blight study for the Authority's
approval before the end of this year or sooner. The planning effort includes forming a staff
appointed citizens committee and offering many opportunities for review and comment by the
Authority, as well as area property owners, residents, School District, Larimer County, and the
general citizenry. The NFCBA has committed to provide direct assistance in the preparation of the
Plan and outreach efforts to area businesses, property owners and residents. In addition, the
Planning and Zoning Board will review the plan and provide a recommendation to the Authority.
The following are some common questions and answers about an Urban Renewal Authority, urban
renewal plan, financing techniques, etc.:
1. What are some of the ways an Urban Renewal Authority could work?
Response: An Urban Renewal Authority works through an urban renewal plan. The plan paves the
way for the establishment of urban renewal projects, which may include the acquisition and/or
transfer ofproperties within the urban renewal project area. The plan generally includes matters
such as the types ofimprovements to be constructed, anticipatedfinancing mechanisms, zoning and
land use, etc. After the plan is adopted, it controls the land area, land use, building requirements
(which may include design standards), and other related matters. While existing cityzoning, design
and building requirements still generally apply, the urban renewal plan is an additional layer of
396
June 15, 2004
control over the use of property in the project area. The plan can specify which set of regulations
(URA versus normal City ordinances) will take precedence.
Among the powers ofa URA are the powers to undertake the projects, execute contracts, commence
legal actions, provide for public facilities and improvements, acquire property, dedicate property,
borrow money, provide relocation plans and/or payments for displaced residents, etc.
3. What are the ways for a URA to create a cash flow into the area from improvements and
developments?
While a URA does not have the power to levy or assess taxes of any kind, an urban renewal plan can
provide for tax increment financing (TIF) for the Authority. The TIF is generally a URAs primary
source of revenue, and it can be either a property tax increment or a sales tax increment, or both.
The TIF can continue for up to 25 years. Also, the TIF can be used to front the cost of project
improvements. The bonds can be paid either from the TIF or from general fund revenues, income
derived from any project of the authority, federal or state grants, mortgages held on any project,
etc. The URA bonds are not technically a debt of the City.
4. Can the City use condemnation in an Urban Renewal area?
Any URA condemnations would be undertaken by the URA rather than the City. At present, the
condemnation powers ofa URA are basically the same as those of the City. Essentially, a URA can
use its condemnation powers to acquire properties in a blighted area for the purpose of
redevelopment. The redevelopment can either be done by the URA or by a private developer.
5. How would the Authority separate out the sub -area of North College from the Urban Renewal
Authority of the entire City of Fort Collins?
This would be done through the adoption of an urban renewal plan for that area.
6. What would be the boundaries of the Plan?
The urban renewal plan will firmly establish the boundaries of the North College urban renewal
area. However, staff anticipates that the boundaries of the urban renewal plan area will likely
encompass a similar area as the North College Avenue Corridor Plan, approximately 1000 acres
in size, bounded by County Road I on the north, Vine Drive on the south, Redwood Street on the
east, to a line approximately '/z mile west of College Avenue. All of the property in the urban
renewal plan would be within the City limits.
7. What constitutes a "blighted area"?
397
June 15, 2004
URAs are created to prevent and eliminate conditions ofslum and blight. Few if any urban renewal
projects in Colorado include conditions that qualify as a slum area under State Statutes. Rather,
the establishment of URAs and urban renewal plans are commonly based on the definition of
blighted area in the State Statutes. A blighted area means an area that, in its present condition and
use, contains at least four* of the following factors: a) slum, deteriorated or deteriorating
structures; b) predominance of defective or inadequate street layout; c) faulty lot layout in relation
to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness; d) unsanitary or unsafe conditions; e) deterioration
ofsite or other improvements; fi unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities;
g) defective or unusual conditions of title rendering the title non -marketable; h) the existence of
conditions that endanger life or property by fire or other causes; I) buildings that are unsafe or
unhealthy; j) environmental contamination of buildings or property; or, k) the existence of health,
safety or welfare factors requiring high levels of municipal services or substantial physical
underutilization or vacancy of sites, buildings, or other improvements.
A condition present in the area may satisfy as many of the above factors as apply to the condition.
If there is no objection by a property owner and any tenants, only one of the factors: a) through h)
is necessary to qualify.
*Ifthe URA contemplates utilizing the power of eminent domain, then the number of blight factors
is increased from four to five. "
City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item and stated the change that was enabling the
urban renewal concept for North College Avenue to go forward was that the Dry Creek problem was
being addressed through the City's investment of $8 million to correct the problem. He stated there
would be a construction boom in the North College Area. He stated the North College Business
Association had unanimously approved a request to the City Council to implement the Urban
Renewal Authority that was created in 1982, to create an urban renewal plan, and to do a blight
study for this area.
Joe Frank, Director of Advance Planning, presented background information regarding the agenda
item. He stated the main issue had been infrastructure and that conservative estimates placed the
cost of needed improvements at about $70 million while only about $50 million of the
improvements had some sort of funding. He stated the lack of infrastructure was clearly a barrier
to significant redevelopment. He stated one of the tools discussed with the area property owners
was the long dormant Urban Renewal Authority, which would have the ability to do tax increment
financing. He stated the Urban Renewal Authority would exercise its powers by planning and
carrying out urban renewal plans in project areas. He stated the Resolution would authorize and
direct the preparation of such a study to determine if and how the powers of the Urban Renewal
Authority should be applied to the North College area. He stated staff believed that the plan and
blight study could be prepared fairly quickly utilizing the help of area business owners, property
owners and residents. He stated the plan would need to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning
Board, the School District and Larimer County and would ultimately be considered by the City
June 15, 2004
Council acting as the Urban Renewal Authority. He stated the North College Business Association
and City staff were recommending adoption of the Resolution.
David May, Executive Director of the Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support
of the Resolution and asked the Council to move forward on the study.
Mark Brophy, 1109 West Harmony Road, spoke in opposition to the Resolution based on his
experience with a blight study in Vail. He stated it was guaranteed that the study would find blight.
Ron Lotzenhizer, North Fort Collins Business Association, supported adoption of the Resolution.
He stated North College Avenue was 100% small businesses and that it was proposed that they
would pay their own way through tax increment financing.
Dean Hogue, President of the North Fort Collins Business Association, spoke in support of the
Resolution and stated the Association had endorsed adoption of the Resolution unanimously. He
stated this was a way to bring the North College area up to the standards of the rest of the
community. He stated North College Avenue was the northern gateway to the City.
Councilmember Bertschy asked about the boundary for the Urban Renewal Authority and whether
there would be some overlap with the Downtown Development Authority. Frank stated the
boundary had not been established and that would be one of the tasks in the urban renewal plan. He
stated the boundary would likely correspond with the North College Corridor Plan Study Area. He
stated areas outside of the City would not be included. He stated the intent was that the DDA
boundary would not be overlapped. City Manager Fischbach stated the boundary would not overlap
the DDA boundary and that the area of the Urban Renewal Authority would be north of Vine Drive
to the City limits and both sides of College Avenue about one -quarter mile. He stated the exact
boundary was not yet known and that it had not been decided whether residential properties should
be included.
Councilmember Bertschy asked about the City limits along the Poudre River. Frank stated there was
a question regarding ownership of a portion of the river and that a team was working on whether that
portion of the river was in the City and whether it was owned by the City.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked about the process for classification of blight, setting the
boundaries, and creation of the urban renewal authority area. City Manager Fischbach stated this
would be done in-house. Frank stated the State Statutes provided criteria for "blight' and the
processes to be followed. He stated the City Council would be the Urban Renewal Authority and
would make the decisions regarding the urban renewal plan.
Councilmember Tharp made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Resolution 2004-
076.
399
June 15, 2004
Councilmember Tharp stated this was an opportunity for development of underdeveloped land and
to help the business owners improve the area. She spoke regarding the City's role in the area
floodplain improvements. She stated the County chose not to fund improvements and that the City
was in a position to fund the improvements on its own. She stated this was a major investment by
the City.
Councilmember Bertschy stated he would support the motion. He thanked the North College
Business Association for its persistence and support. He stated there would be many opportunities
in this area now that the floodplain issues had been resolved.
Councilmember Roy thanked the North College Business Association for their support of change
in this part of town.
Councilmember Hamrick stated he was supportive of the study and that he was happy to see projects
moving forward in this neglected part of town.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated this was one of the first steps toward fulfillment of some of
Council's policy direction over the last 20 years. She stated City Manager Fischbach was
instrumental in helping the North College Business Association move this forward.
Mayor Martinez stated he was glad that this was happening at last.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein,
Martinez, Roy, Tharp, and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Items Relating to the Trailhead Annexation, Adopted
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 2004-075 Amending the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Map and the City's
Structure Plan Map.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 092, 2004, Annexing Property Known as the Trailhead
Annexation to the City ofFort Collins, Colorado.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 093, 2004, Amending the Zoning Map of the City ofFort
Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Trailhead
Annexation to the City ofFort Collins, Colorado.
RIt
June 15, 2004
On June 1, 2004, Council adopted Ordinance No. 092, 2004, on First Reading by a vote of 6-0
(Councilmember Tharp was absent) annexing the Trailhead property. Also on June 1, 2004,
Council adopted Ordinance No. 093, 2004, on First Reading with the recommended zoning of the
Trailhead Annexation to the Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood District (LMN) by a vote of 5-1
(Councilmember Tharp was absent and Councilmember Hamrick opposed). As a result, an
amendment to the Mountain Vista Subarea Area Plan and the City o/Fort Collins Structure Plan
is accompanying the annexation and zoning ordinances on Second Reading. The plan amendments
will re -designate the Trailhead property from E— Employment to Low Density Mixed Use
Neighborhood. This zone district is consistent with the zoning adopted by Council on First Reading.
During the hearing, Council requested additional information concerning the recent negotiations
with Anheuser-Busch and City staff. These negotiations mainly focus on the possible location of a
regional detention pond located north of the Trailhead property and the proposed changes to the
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. The key points are included within the attached memorandum. One
Councilmember also requested that a representativefront Anheuser-Busch attend the June 15, 2004
Council hearing. Based on this direction, staff has extended an invitation to Anheuser-Busch.
This is a request to annex and zone approximately 91.25 acres of land located along the north side
of East Vine Drive, south of the Burlington Northern Railroad, west of the Waterglen Subdivision.
The project is located within the Mountain Vista Sub -Area Plan. The proposed zoning is LMN—
Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. The anticipated land use would be single and multi family
residential, consistent with the standards in the LMN zone district.
RECOMMENDATION
Staffrecommends that the City Council adopt the resolution amending the Mountain Vista Subarea
Plan and the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan, and adopt the annexation and zoning ordinances
on Second Reading, annexing the Trailhead property and placing it in the LMN zone district. "
City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item.
Greg Byrne, CPES Director, stated the voted for a different zoning district than the one suggested
by staff on First Reading. He stated this would require a Structure Plan change as well the Second
Reading of the zoning ordinance. He stated staff had prepared a Resolution to amend the Structure
Plan. He noted that the Council had requested that representatives from Anheuser-Busch be invited
to this meeting and that representatives were present.
Rick Zier, attorney representing the applicant, 322 East Oak Street, stated when the applicant
purchased the property it was designated for LMN zoning and that shortly after the Subarea Plan
was adopted and designated the property for E zoning based on assumptions having to do with Vine
Drive, the truck bypass, the intersection at Vine Drive and I-25 and the proximity of the railroad for
401
June 15, 2004
E type uses. He stated since then an irrigation canal had been realigned parallel to the railroad tracks
making the former connection to the property impossible. He stated the assumptions relating to the
bypass and interchange were no longer valid. He stated the best use of the property was now LMN
and that the applicant had submitted a plan to show his good faith that this will be an affordable
housingproject. He asked for Council's favorable consideration of the annexation and LMN zoning.
Linda Ripley, VF Ripley Associates, representing the applicant, presented visual information
regarding the proposed Trailhead development. She stated the project was ready to move forward
in the City's process as soon as the appropriate LMN was acquired. She stated this would be a
model project that would achieve many of the existing City policies embodied in the Land Use Code
and was appropriately located. She stated the proposed LMN zoning would support the classic
development pattern and that zoning the property E would create an illogical development pattern.
She stated the Trailhead development would provide housing close to employment opportunities and
would mix housing types to encourage neighborhood diversity. She stated virtually all of the units
would be priced at the lower end of the market. She spoke regarding the public improvements that
would be constructed as a result of this project. She stated the applicant had been working with the
City's Parks and Recreation Department for over two years on the extension of trail systems through
this area. She stated the applicant would sell the City approximately 36 acres north of the project
to be used for a regional stormwater facility that would help resolve stormwater issues in the
northeast, reduce flooding in some areas currently zoned E and create permanent open space for the
area. She stated the design team had been working on the project for three years and asked that the
project be allowed to move forward without further delay.
Ken Crum, representing the Hartshorn Farm Properties Ownership Group, stated the group
successfully developed 500 housing units at the Waterglen project immediately adjacent to the
proposed Trailhead project. He stated Waterglen provided affordable housing and that the group
would like to repeat that process with the Trailhead project. He stated he had a successful track
record in developing affordable housing in other northern Colorado communities. He stated he
believed that the project did not have initial support from staff and the Planning and Zoning Board
due to assumptions made in certain reports that characterized E-Employment ground as being scarce
with as little as 12 years of availability. He stated more recently there was an additional report done
on the buildable lands inventory that substantiated that there was about 55 years of Employment
land and 13.5 years of housing land. He stated the project had been held back because of feelings
that Employment land was "sacred" when in fact the real crisis facing Fort Collins was a lack of
housing. He stated it took five years to produce housing at Waterglen and that three years had
already been spent on Trailhead. He stated limiting the supply of housing would significantly drive
up the cost of housing. He stated the project had met the standards for change, that the request was
legitimate, and that the applicant could substantiate the fact that the project would contribute to the
quality of life in this community.
402
June 15, 2004
Candace Mayo, Executive Director for Fort Collins Habitat for Humanity, spoke on behalf of the
project. She stated Habitat for Humanity had built homes in the Waterglen Subdivision and hoped
to build homes in the Trailhead Subdivision. She spoke regarding the need for affordable housing.
Kevin Westhuis, 2944 Telluride Court, stated he had statistics that showed that during the first six
months of 2004 a new single-family home in Fort Collins had an average sales price of $278,166.
He stated the average new home in Waterglen cost $174,900. He stated conditions had changed
along Vine Drive and that LMN zoning now made sense.
Councilmember Tharp asked about the original information from staff making a strong
recommendation in favor of E-Employment zoning. She asked why the staff recommendation had
shifted and whether the figure that there were 55 years of available E land took into account the
Anheuser-Busch property. Bob Barkeen, City Planner, stated staff recommended for the June 1
Council meeting that the property remain E-Employment. He stated one of the primary concerns
was the E property inventory. He stated on June 1 the Council voted to adopt the annexation with
LMN zoning. He stated the staff recommendation reflected that Council action.
Councilmember Tharp stated her question was whether there was enough Employment land or
whether taking this property out of Employment would hamper the future employment base. Byrne
stated staff could not say with certainty that there was sufficient Employment land. He stated staff
agreed that LMN was a better zoning designation for this property given the changes that had taken
place in the area. He stated staff had hoped to accomplish the zoning within the context of an
overall amendment to the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. He stated Council had indicated on June
1 that it was comfortable with LMN zoning. He stated staff could not say what Anheuser-Busch
would do with its property. He stated staff believed based on conversations with Anheuser-Busch
that they were leaning toward making the property available for the right kind of users that would
be compatible with their operation.
Councilmember Tharp asked if the 55 year projection was an accurate picture. Byrne stated this
differed from the projections made by City staff. He stated there had been testimony in previous
rezoning actions from members of the development and real estate industries indicating that there
was a 100 year supply of Industrial and Employment land. He stated the staffs projection was
considerably less than the 55 year projection. He stated staff recognized that some property had
been taken out of the inventory i.e. the purchase for natural areas of the resource recovery fund, the
conversion of land around LSI from Employment for the Lifestyle Center. He stated Council's
expression of concern over those two actions gave staff pause in bringing forth a recommendation
on this property. He stated the City Plan update provided a fairly good balance between
Employment and housing opportunities in the community over the life of the plan. He stated staff
was not prepared to resolve at this time the differences between staff s projection and the projections
from the development and real estate industries. He stated staff could work on that issue if directed
to do so.
June 15, 2004
Councilmember Tharp asked how crucial it would be to count on some Employment development
in the undeveloped Anheuser-Busch land. Byrne stated it was very important to the future of the
community that the Anheuser-Busch land be in the inventory and available for appropriate
development for the realization of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan.
Councilmember Tharp asked the Anheuser-Busch representative to speak regarding the issue.
Colin Diehl, Faegre and Benson, 1700 Lincoln Street, Denver, Anheuser-Busch outside counsel,
stated for the record that Anheuser-Busch had no objection to the Trailhead annexation project as
proposed. He stated he had submitted a letter to the Council on June 11 that laid out Anheuser-
Busch's issues with stormwater planning. He stated Anheuser-Busch was different than a classic
developer because the company was also a "neighbor." He stated the company had invested a lot
of money in this community in the form of the brewery and intended to stay here for a long time.
He stated the company was interested in seeing the excess property develop over time if two
conditions were met: (1) if there was demand for developing the property, and (2) if the
development around the brewery was compatible with the brewery. He stated the company was
willing to see development on its property under those conditions. He stated the company was not
in a position to talk about E zoning on the property because of extensive discussions with the
Utilities Department over stormwater planning in this particular basin. He stated Anheuser-Busch
was meeting on a monthly basis with the Utilities Department, investing considerable money in
looking at stormwater engineering, and working to help solve a regional problem. He stated
Anheuser-Busch was willing to look at the issue to try to help plan the basin with the City to try to
figure out a solution that would be acceptable to Anheuser-Busch and the City. He stated the
various solutions were still being examined, such as stormwater detention in the County rather than
in the City. He stated Anheuser-Busch was not in a position to answer any questions about how
much acreage would be needed for stormwater improvements.
Councilmember Roy asked for a short list of what kinds of uses would be incompatible with the
brewery. Mr. Diehl stated he was not in a position to answer that question or other questions about
Anheuser-Busch's intentions with regard to its property. Byrne stated Anheuser-Busch had
indicated that it did not want residential development or a McDonald's within a certain distance of
the brewery. He stated the company was also concerned about traffic loading on the interchange
and compatibility of traffic operations with their trucking. He stated uses that would be high traffic
generators, such as a large retail project, might not be considered to be compatible.
Councilmember Hamrick asked how donation of acreage by the Trailhead developer for stormwater
retention would impact the stormwater discussions with Anheuser-Busch. Mr. Diehl stated
Anheuser-Busch's engineers were working with the City on a variety of solutions to the stormwater
problems in the basin. He stated the proposed solutions had not yet been brought back to the group.
He stated the Trailhead retention area was a "possible piece of the puzzle." Jim Hibbard, Water
Operations and Planning Manager, stated staff was negotiating an option on the property and that
EM
June 15, 2004
it could be part of the solution for this basin. He stated there was no commitment to any specific
location at this time for a retention pond.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Bertschy, to adopt
Resolution 2004-075.
Councilmember Tharp stated she had been reluctant to support this due to the amount of
Employment land available. She stated after hearing staffs modified recommendation and because
this project would allow for affordable housing that she would support the motion. She stated she
was not quite convinced that there was a housing shortage and that there was not a shortage of
Employment land.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated there were still sizable pieces of land for Employment according
to the recent report. She stated she would support the motion.
Councilmember Hamrick stated he voted for the annexation and against zoning the property LMN
on First Reading. He stated he had reconsidered his position although he still have concerns about
the amount of Employment land within the City. He stated he would like to see a clear picture of
the land inventory within the City. He stated "large chunks of Employment" needed to be preserved
and that there needed to be a balance with housing. He stated he had concerns about staff changing
its position between First Reading and Second Reading based on Council's vote. He stated he would
support the motion.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated with the intent would have been to change the Structure Map and
Subarea Plan to make this property LMN in the near future.
Councilmember Bertschy stated he believed that this was a great potential development for
affordable housing. He stated it would be compatible with how the area had evolved. He thanked
those involved in continuing with the project.
Councilmember Roy stated he would be supporting the motion. He thanked the representatives from
Anheuser-Busch for attending the meeting. He stated the land owned by Anheuser-Busch was
important to the company and important to the community. He stated he appreciated the opportunity
for a public dialogue about their needs and the future vision for Fort Collins. He stated that this
project would help the City meet its housing needs.
Councilmember Kastein stated he appreciated having the Anheuser-Busch representatives attend
the meeting and the willingness of the company to continue its discussions with the City. He stated
it was important to have starter homes for families.
Mayor Martinez stated he would support the motion.
405
June 15, 2004
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein,
Martinez, Roy, Tharp, and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember, to adopt Ordinance No.
092, 2004 and Ordinance No. 093, 2004 on Second Reading. The vote on the motion was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp, and Weitkunat.
Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
City Manager Fischbach noted that there were several items remaining on the agenda.
Councilmember Hamrick stated he would like to do the Land Use Code item (item #9) first.
("Secretary's Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point.)
City Manager Fischbach stated representatives from Colorado Department of Transportation
(CDOT) were present at the meeting.
Mayor Martinez stated he believed that the Council should consider the CDOT item first because
representatives from CDOT were present.
Councilmember Roy asked if a motion was needed to continue the meeting. City Attorney Roy
stated if the CDOT agenda item was begun before 10:30 p.m. that the meeting could continue until
the item was completed. He stated to continue the meeting to address the Land Use Code item that
a motion would be required to suspend the rules.
The consensus was to proceed with the agenda and to consider the CDOT agenda item prior to
consideration of the Land Use Code agenda item.
("Secretary's Note: Discussion of the CDOT agenda item commenced at 10:25 p.m.)
012
June 15, 2004
Resolution 2004-077
Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Agreement
Between the City and the Colorado Department of
Transportation for the Purpose of Transferring Ownership
of Carpenter Road/Larimer County Road 32 and all Construction
and Maintenance Obligations Appertaining Thereto from the City
to the Colorado Department of Transportation, Adopted.
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
Unlike other jurisdictions involved in discussion with CDOT, the City of Fort Collins assumes no
new road miles from the State as part of this agreement. The City is divesting itself of financial
responsibilityfor improvements and operation and maintenance of Carpenter Road. Transferring
jurisdiction of Carpenter Road/LCR-32 to CDOT will relieve the City of Fort Collins ofas much as
$15-33 million dollars in future capital and Street Oversizing costs, and as much as $20, 000-46, 000
dollars per mile, per year in Operating & Maintenance (O&M) costs, depending on roadway design.
Failure to cede jurisdiction of Carpenter Road to CDOT will continue to add fiscal pressure to the
City's growing transportation infrastructure needs, and will likely delay needed capacity and safety
improvements. Failure to improve Carpenter Road will have spillover congestion effects to
surrounding roads, including the Harmony Road corridor. These collateral negative effects will not
help commerce and economic vitality along this key employment corridor in Fort Collins.
The City and County have invested a great deal of money in natural area land nearby this road.
Great care must be taken by CDOT in the planning and design of future improvements to this
corridor. Improvements must minimize the road's impact and maximize mitigation of impacts in
order to preserve the City's natural areas investment.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CDOT has entered into discussions with Larimer County, Weld County, City of Greeley, and now
the City of Fort Collins, to explore the trade ofjurisdiction on several Northern Colorado roadways.
Ofparticular interest to the City of Fort Collins, is the proposal that CDOT assume jurisdiction of
Larimer County Road 32 (Carpenter Road) from Latimer County and the City of Fort Collins.
Ceding jurisdiction of Carpenter Road could save the City of Fort Collins millions of dollars in
future capital, Street Oversizing, and maintenance costs. These savings could be applied to other
priority needs in the City's transportation system. Portions ofthe Carpenter Road/LCR-32 corridor
are near environmentally sensitive areas owned by either Fort Collins or Larimer County. Great
407
June 15, 2004
care must be taken to ensure the preservation ofthis natural areas investment in the area. Similarly,
nearby residents and property owners' concerns and quality of life must be considered when
planning and designing improvements to this road. Mobility needs must be balanced with
environmentalpreservationandprotection. Future CDOTimprovements to this road will be subject
to strict National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis and mitigation policy and procedures.
BACKGROUND
CDOT has entered into discussions with Larimer County, Weld County, City of Greeley, and now
the City of Fort Collins, to explore the trade ofjurisdiction on severalNorthern Colorado roadways.
Ofparticular interest to the City of Fort Collins, is the proposal that CDOT assume jurisdiction of
Larimer County Road 32 (Carpenter Road) from Lorimer County and the City of Fort Collins.
Under this arrangement, Carpenter Road/LCR 32 between Interstate 25 and US-287 would become
the extension of SH-392. Currently, Carpenter Road/LCR 32 operates as a two lane County Road.
Larimer County currently controls 3.2 miles of this road, while 1.3 miles fall within the City of Fort
Collins limits. Most of this corridor lies within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA)
boundary and may come under City control in the future. The City is currently considering
expanding the GMA boundary to include all of the Carpenter/LCR-32 corridor.
The Carpenter Road/LCR-32 corridor is important to Fort Collins for both natural
lands/environmental preservation, as well as for current and future mobility needs both from a local
and regional transportation perspective. Mobility needs, environmental concerns, and f nancial
impacts must be considered in deciding on a course of action.
Mobility Issues
• Carpenter Road/LCR 32 has been identified by the Transportation Master Plan (2004) as
a key southern gateway into and out of the community.
• The North Front Range MPO and CDOT have identified Carpenter Road/LCR-32 as a
Regionally Significant Corridor.
• Carpenter Road/LCR-32 acts as a regional roadway. North Front Range MPO analysis
shows over 50 percent of all trips using Carpenter Road have an origin or destination other
than Fort Collins.
• Traffic volumes on this corridor are forecast to reach 45, 000 vehicles per day (vpd) by 2025,
regardless of 4 lane or 6 lane roadway classification.
• Asa result ofcurrent travel patterns andforecast travel demand, this road classification was
recently changed from a four lane arterial street to a future six lane major arterial facility
on the City's Master Street Plan (Transportation Master Plan, March 2004).
• Failure to make necessary capacity improvements on Carpenter Road/LCR-32 will result
in negative spillover of congestion and air quality issues on surrounding roads, including
Harmony Road, LCR-30, Timberline, Lemay, and South College/US-287.
M.
June 15, 2004
The City and CDOT have an on -going agreement that roadway improvements to State
Highways within our community are designed according to the adopted Larimer County
Urban Area Street Standards, rather than the typical CDOThighway design standards. This
agreement facilitates multimodal transportation improvements and context sensitive design
strategies in future roadway improvement projects.
Environmental Issues
• Some of the land proximate to the roadway consists of sensitive natural areas land owned
by the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County (see attached graphic).
• Environmental interests in the community, including the Natural Resources AdvisoryBoard,
are very concerned that this road will negatively impact nearby City and County natural
areas and open lands. They are concerned that ceding jurisdiction of this road to CDOT
will minimize the ability to protect the City's natural resources investments.
• Future improvement to the corridor would be subject to rigorous federal and state
environmental study and mitigation mandates aspart of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). This in-depth process requires high levels ofpublic input from all stakeholder
interests and communities, and requires design and mitigation measures to minimize impacts
to a full range of potential environmental assets and to surrounding communities.
• CDOT has a strong history of environmental mitigation in or near sensitive areas. CDOT
is currently performing an Environmental Analysis according to the NEPA requirements on
the North College Avenue/US 287 corridor widening project from SHI to the LaPorte
Bypass. This project has been in the works for over 5 years. Previously, CDOT has done
environmental mitigation on several major corridorprojects throughout Colorado, including
Big Thompson Canyon, Cameron Pass, and Glenwood Canyon.
Financial Issues
• Unlike other jurisdictions involved in discussion with CDOT, the City of Fort Collins
assumes no new road miles from the State as part of this agreement. The City is divesting
itself of financial responsibility for improvements and operation and maintenance of
Carpenter Road.
• Transferring jurisdiction of Carpenter Road/LCR-32 to CDOT will relieve the City of Fort
Collins of as much as $15-33 million dollars in future capital and Street Oversizing costs
in the future.
• Transferring jurisdiction of Carpenter Road/LCR-32 to CDOT will relieve the City ofFort
Collins of as much as $20,000-46,000 dollars per mile, per year in Operating &
Maintenance (O&M) costs, depending on roadway design.
• Capital and O&M savings can be used for other necessary high priority transportation
infrastructure improvements in the City.
M.
June 15, 2004
OUTREACH
Transportation staffis actively providing information and soliciting input from key advisory boards
and property owners/residents along this corridor regarding the various benefits and concerns
related to CDOT's proposal. Outreach efforts include:
Growth Management Lead Team (GMLT)
Transportation Staff met with the GMLT in mid -April, 2004 to introduce the CDOT proposal and
to solicit input and assistance from relevant departments. Representatives (staff and management)
from Transportation Services Management, Transportation Planning, Engineering, Traffic,
Stormwater, CPESManagement, Advance Planning, Current Planning and Natural Resources were
in attendance and provided feedback.
Public Meeting/Open House
A public meeting/open house was held on June 3"d. This meeting was conducted in conjunction with
the Advance Planning department, who is presenting a proposed expansion of the Growth
Management Area (GMA) boundary in this area. This meeting was held at the Lutheran Redeemer
Church, located at the corner of Timberline and Carpenter Road, from 6:30-8: 30 pm. Over 3, 000
invitations were mailed to nearby residents, property owners and businesses. A press release was
issued as well as notice of the meeting placed on the City's Calendar of Events and Advance
Planning and Transportation Planning web pages.
The meeting was very well attended by nearly 100 residents, business owners, and interested
stakeholders. Representatives from CDOT, Larimer County and the North Front Range MPO were
also in attendance. Comments were generally supportive of any measure that might increase the
likelihood ofmaking needed safety and capacity improvements to this road in thefuture. There was
concern that care be taken in designing future improvements so as to minimize impacts to nearby
residents and natural areas, but most were satisfied that the NEPA process would provide guidance
and control to ensure protection. See Attachment 4 for a log of comments received.
Advisory Board Input
To date, staffhas met twice each with the Transportation Board and the Natural Resources Advisory
Board as well as the Planning and Zoning Board. General comments received from these groups
include:
Natural Resources Advisory Board (05105104, 06102104)
NRAB has many concerns about the proposed jurisdictional change and does not support staffs
recommendations at this time. They urge that City staff undertake a City -sponsored and funded
preliminary corridor study before considering ceding jurisdiction of the road. This analysis must
show benefit to the City and intent to minimize and mitigate impacts to nearby City and County -
owned natural areas. They also question the urgency ofadopting the proposal by MOU on June 15`h.
The NRAB also asks that the MOU contain language that binds the parties to mitigate the impact
410
June 15, 2004
of a state highway on the natural areas land nearby. NRAB will review the most recent draft
MOU/Agreement at their June 2nd meeting.
A follow up meeting with ARAB was held June 2"d to discuss the draft MOU and update the Board
on progress, changes, and additional information. While there were some elements of the draft
MOU that the NRAB agreed with, they still maintain their original position that the City should not
cede jurisdiction of Carpenter Road to CDOT until such time as the City has undertaken a
Preliminary Corridor Analysis. NRAB is still cautious and concerned about CDOT's commitment
to preserving and protecting City and County owned natural areas near the corridor.
Planning and Zoning Board (05115104)
While some members ofthe P&ZBoard had remaining questions as to the relative benefits and costs
to the City, the Board in general supports continued efforts, analysis, and communication with
CDOT. Some members of the Board felt the City should allow CDOT to assume jurisdiction of
Carpenter Road, calling it a "no brainer ".
Transportation Board (04121104 & 05119104)
The Transportation Board initially had several questions about the NEPA process and asked staff
to return on May 19th with follow up information. The Transportation Board appreciates the
potential savings in capital dollars but some members had concerns as to environmental impacts
to the nearby natural areas. A subsequent follow up presentation provided greater detail as to the
NEPA process, relative benefits, and review and comment on the form of the MOU The T-Board
reviewed the exchange proposal and made a recommendation (see Attachment 5) to the City Council
to approve with conditions, 5-1. Those conditions state that the final MOU contain language that
reinforces:
1. CDOT's roadway design is comparable to the design standards employed by the City and
Larimer County.
2. CDOTdesign Carpenter Road improvements with a minimalfootprint and in such a manner that
minimizes the road's environmental impacts and maximizes mitigation.
3. The recommended Preliminary Corridor Study includes potential design alternatives and
alignments that minimize the road's environmental impacts and maximizes mitigation.
4. Capital and maintenance costs shift to CDOT.
SUMMARY
Staff has made a great effort to solicit input and direction from the community at large, affected
stakeholders, and relevant City advisory boards. Staffhas incorporated comments and suggestions
received to the greatest degreepossible. Thepotentialfinancial benefits to the City ($18-33 million
savings in capital costs, plus additional operations and maintenance (O&M) costs of $25-40
thousand per mile, per year), combined with the rigorous environmental analysis, protection, and
411
June 15, 2004
mitigation afforded nearby sensitive natural areas by the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) make this proposal worthy of Council consideration.
It is important for the City of Fort Collins to be involved in this proposed trade with CDOT since
other agencies —particularly Weld County and Larimer County — are in position to take the CDOT
highways as County roads, and the City of Fort Collins is not required to take any additional
roadways as apart of this larger trade scenario. If the City waits until later, we may have to deal
with CDOT alone and take some CDOT highway in trade for Carpenter Road. The City's position
at this time is ideal. "
City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item.
Mark Jackson, Transportation Planner, introduced Rick Gable (CDOT Region 4 Northern Program
Engineer). He stated this matter had been presented to Council at a Study Session and outlined the
outreach efforts to the advisory boards and the public.
Ron Phillips, Transportation Services Director, stated Council had discussed this matter previously
and that staff would be available to answer questions.
Nate Donovan, chair of the Natural Resources Advisory Board, read the board's statement that
supported the performance of the proposed corridor study prior to the transfer to CDOT. He stated
the board appreciated the inclusion in the proposed agreement of language regarding the mitigation
of environmental impacts and context sensitive design. He stated the alternatives analysis required
under the federal NEPA process did not guarantee acceptable environmental outcomes. He stated
staff was recommending performing the corridor analysis at some point within three years. He
stated the NRAB was suggesting that the transfer to CDOT was premature if done prior to
completion of the analysis. He stated the City did not have enough information at this point to make
a good decision on the proposed transfer. He stated the study would be contingent on available
funding and that the NRAB was concerned that the study would not be completed given CDOT's
tight fiscal situation. He stated on his own behalf that he had a concern with the ability of CDOT
to condemn City or County property for an alignment. He stated he was concerned that CDOT
could condemn an alignment over Duck Lake and effectively take away the value of the lake as a
resource for the City and the citizens.
Kelly Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, spoke in opposition to the Resolution and stated adoption
would be bad governance. He stated nothing this important had ever moved this fast and that this
would have "staggering ramifications" for this community. He stated staff's environmental
justification for this was the NEPA process rather than the "product." He stated the City and County
had millions of dollars in open space investment that would be jeopardized by a six -lane road. He
stated he trusted the City government and the Council much more than he trusted the State of
Colorado and CDOT to do the "right thing" in designing and building a road. He stated this action
would vacate the responsibilities that should be kept by the Council and the community. He
412
June IS, 2004
questioned why this "massive" decision had to be made within a two -month period. He stated there
should be more community involvement and more study. He stated there should be an
intergovernmental agreement rather than a memorandum of understanding. He stated there should
also be built-in mediation and binding arbitration. He stated this was a "poorly constructed
document."
Sherrie Grant, Chair of the Legislative Affairs Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, stated the
proposal was an opportunity that should be approved. She stated CDOT would take over financial
responsibility for a regional roadway and was asking nothing in return. She stated staff had
estimated a potential 20-year saving of $4.5 million for operations and maintenance and $33 million
for future capital improvements. She stated the savings could be used for other priority
transportation projects in the City. She stated this was also an opportunity to ensure that the
environmental areas located near the roadways would be protected and considered with care. She
stated the NEPA analysis and mitigation procedures that would have to be followed when future
roadway improvements would be made would far exceed any process currently utilized by the City
and would be undertaken at no cost to City taxpayers. She stated this would be a win -win situation.
She stated the Chamber of Commerce strongly supported the transfer of ownership of Carpenter
Road and all construction and maintenance obligations to CDOT.
Greg Snyder, 619 Bear Creek Drive, supported adoption of the Resolution. He stated supporting
this measure would indicate support for small business. He stated his small business depended upon
good transportation. He stated this was a common sense measure and a prudent financial move.
Randy Fischer, 3007 Moore Lane, asked that Council not adopt the Resolution and suggested that
it be tabled for further study. He questioned why this issue was moving so quickly. He stated the
issue was "control"of a roadway near a huge investment in open space and natural areas. He stated
assigning control to CDOT could mean that a road could be built that the City might not like. He
stated this agreement was too weak with regard to environmental protection. He stated NEPA would
only require that a procedure be implemented to identify the correct alternatives. He stated NEPA
would not protect the values in which the City had invested and would not require any
environmental mitigation. He questioned the economic benefit to the City since impact fees were
being collected for future improvements to this road. He stated the agreement needed a lot more
work and information needed to be made available regarding possible alignments. He stated the
analysis would only be done if the funding was available.
David May, Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce, stated this would be a good deal for the City.
He stated this would eliminate a major financial obligation for the City. He stated there would be
environmental oversight with the NEPA process. He asked that Council adopt the Resolution.
Glen Colton, Natural Resources Advisory Board member, stated detailed work was always done on
subarea plans. He stated no plan was done with regard to this to determine if it would be good for
the community. He stated the City was discussing the expansion of the Growth Management Area
413
June 15, 2004
and large annexations in the area. He questioned why this was being done so quickly. He stated the
corridor analysis should be done first and that control should not be given up on this roadway
prematurely.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked what the City could "control" on this roadway. Jackson stated
Fort Collins had control of approximately 1.3 miles of the roadway within the City limits. He
presented visual information showing the portions of the roadway in the City and in the County.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the City would only give up "control" of slightly more than one
mile. Jackson replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if a corridor analysis would be done if the road was not in the
City's jurisdiction. Jackson stated the City would consider doing a corridor analysis because a
portion of the roadway was within the Growth Management Area.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the corridor analysis would cover the area from College Avenue
to I-25. Jackson stated a corridor analysis would address the entire corridor and would be done in
partnership with Larimer County.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked about the recommendations ofthe Transportation Advisory Board.
Jackson stated the Board recommended by a 5-1 vote that the Council adopt the Resolution given
four conditions, which were met by incorporation into the agreement.
Councilmember Roy asked what portions of land were natural areas. Jackson presented visual
information regarding the locations of City and County natural lands and a conservation easement.
Councilmember Roy asked about the area being considered for addition to the Growth Management
Area. Jackson presented visual information regarding the current and possible Growth Management
Area boundary.
Councilmember Roy asked if the value of land in the area was primarily natural areas. Jackson
stated was the case in the referenced area, that there was developable land to the east, that there was
existing residential development to the west and that there was retail and commerce near the
intersection with Highway 287.
Councilmember Roy noted the willingness of the community to support natural areas and the fact
that there was a tremendous investment in natural areas in this area. He asked why the City would
not take the time to do a proper analysis of how best to treat those valuable public lands. Jackson
stated there were two good reasons to allow CDOT to take the point with the preliminary (pre-
NEPA) corridor analysis: (1) a lack of resources by the City and County to do such an analysis; and
(2) this was a "golden opportunity" offered by CDOT in that the City was not being asked to assume
the responsibility for any additional roadway in trade.
=A
June 15, 2004
Councilmember Roy stated this area would likely become the City's southeast border with
tremendous natural area assets. He asked what assurance could be given that the State of Colorado
would treat those areas in a sensitive manner. Jackson stated CDOT had a policy within urbanized
areas to work with the communities that would be impacted to try to meet local standards to the
extent possible. He stated a substantial and rigorous environmental analysis would be required by
NEPA.
Councilmember Roy asked how the proposed agreement would protect the City. City Attorney Roy
stated language had been added relating to an obligation to conduct the preliminary corridor analysis
contingent upon the appropriation of sufficient funds. He stated there was a provision that stated
the recommendations and findings of the NEPA analysis would need to be incorporated into the
improvements. He stated any specific recommendations and findings would be made enforceable
through that provision. He stated the language of the agreement also provided for the incorporation
of context sensitive design principles. He stated much would depend upon how specific the NEPA
recommendations and findings would be.
Councilmember Tharp asked if the proposed expansion of the Growth Management Area would be
south of Highway 392. Jackson stated it would be slightly south of Highway 392.
Councilmember Tharp asked if this was a Memorandum of Understanding or an Intergovernmental
Agreement. City Attorney Roy stated it was an Intergovernmental Agreement.
Councilmember Tharp stated there would be value in having the ability to resolve conflicts written
into Intergovernmental Agreements i.e. levels of arbitration. She asked why this agreement did not
contain such provisions. City Attorney Roy stated an effort was always made to put into an
agreement what staff had agreed to, and that there was no desire expressed to include arbitration.
He stated there was case law on the kinds of matters that could be submitted to binding arbitration.
He stated not every matter could be resolved by arbitration between governments and that policy
matters could not be resolved in such a manner.
Councilmember Tharp stated she would like to see Intergovernmental Agreements that would
provide an option other than going to court. She stated in this case a provision relating to layers of
arbitration could allay the fears of those who believed that CDOT might not follow through with a
study. City Attorney Roy stated a mediation provision could be included and that sometimes
mediation could be helpful but would not be binding. He stated an agreement required the consent
of both parties and that it might be difficult to develop and agreed upon dispute resolution process.
Phillips stated there would still be an option for mediation even if it was not included in the
agreement and that going to court would be the ultimate solution. He stated mediation or arbitration
could be done if agreeable to both parties. He stated agreements were usually enforced through
writing a strong letter or in other ways. He stated he was very comfortable with this agreement and
that staff had good experience in working through issues with CDOT.
!f i
June 15, 2004
Councilmember Tharp noted that the City had not always been successful in working through IGA
issues with the County. She stated if mediation or arbitration could be done if needed that should
take care of any of the problems.
Councilmember Hamrick asked for a comparison of the NEPA study versus the corridor study
relating to how an environmental impact analysis was done. Jackson stated the difference was in
scope and scale. He stated the corridor study was a preliminary study done before embarking on a
costly NEPA analysis.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if any environmental studies would be required by NEPA. Jackson
replied in the affirmative and stated the NEPA process was largely environmentally based.
Councilmember Hamrick asked what would happen at the end of the process. Rick Gable, Colorado
Department of Transportation, stated the NEPA process was federally mandated by FHWA for any
roadway widening process. He outlined the stages of the NEPA process: a preliminary study,
looking at all alternatives (including a no -build alternative), and identification of a preferred
alternative. He stated the preferred alternative would be reviewed by FHWA. He stated CDOT
could not condemn and take property on its own and that this would have to be done through the
NEPA process approved by FHWA. He stated the process could be a 1-2 year study and cost as
much as several hundred thousand dollars.
Councilmember Hamrick asked who would pay for the NEPA study. Mr. Gable stated CDOT would
pay and that the NEPA process would have to be done before the purchase ofright-of-way or design.
Councilmember Hamrick asked about the difference between a NEPA study and a corridor study.
Mr. Gable stated a corridor study would be a cursory study of transportation volumes, traffic
projections, and environmental impacts.
Councilmember Hamrick stated the agreement provided for a preliminary corridor analysis. Mr.
Gable stated was included at the request of the Transportation Board.
Councilmember Hamrick asked for confirmation that both the Transportation Board and the Natural
Resources Advisory Board recommended doing a corridor analysis and that the NRAB
recommended doing it right away while the Transportation Board recommended that it be done at
some point. Jackson replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Hamrick stated he troubled by the wording that provided that the analysis would
be contingent upon sufficient funds being budgeted and made available. He asked who the funding
agency would be. Mr. Gable stated if CDOT took over the roadway that CDOT would be
responsible for doing the study.
nun
June 15, 2004
Councilmember Hamrick asked if the corridor study would be done before or after the NEPA study.
Phillips stated the corridor study would be a preliminary step in the NEPA analysis.
Councilmember Hamrick stated he had a concern about the language that indicated that the study
would be done contingent on funding. Phillips stated the City was not in a position to demand that
the study be done within a certain timeframe when the budget situation for another agency was not
known. He stated the study would be done before anything would be done to widen the roadway
and that the actual work would be years away.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if CDOT did not have the money within three years whether they
would no longer have the responsibility to do the study. City Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative
and stated if that language was not included that there would be a problem with TABOR relating
to a multi -year financial obligation. He stated the language needed to include a provision that the
project would be contingent upon appropriation so that this would not require a vote.
Councilmember Hamrick asked who would pay for mitigation if it was required by the NEPA study.
Mr. Gable stated mitigation would be part of any roadway improvements done by CDOT.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if there would be any potential cost for the City on Carpenter Road
at any time in the future. Phillips stated there was a potential for City costs for any work desired by
the City in addition to the work done by CDOT. He stated CDOT would be taking on the full
responsibility for funding and that the City could choose to participate in the funding of some
improvements at some level in the future.
Councilmember Hamrick asked Mr. Ohlson if his questions were answered by the staff and CDOT
responses regarding the difference between a corridor study and a NEPA study. Mr. Ohlson stated
he believed that the NEPA study was overstated in general but not by those who spoke about it at
this meeting.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt
Resolution 2004-077.
Councilmember Hamrick stated he was troubled about the language relating to the corridor analysis.
He stated he would like the language to be reworded because the proposed language would not
guarantee that a corridor study would be done. He stated he was also concerned about the funding.
He stated he would like to see this come back with some different wording on the corridor study.
Councilmember Kastein stated the Natural Resources Advisory Board has raised some questions
about the natural areas and that all of those questions had been answered. He stated there was
considerable protection built into the NEPA process. He stated this six -lane roadway might never
be built due to funding constraints. He stated it was nevertheless a good solution and that he would
support the Resolution.
417
June 15, 2004
Councilmember Roy stated since a study had not been done that it could not be predetermined that
this would be a six -lane road if the value of the natural lands was such that the State would
determine that four -lanes would be the maximum allowed. He stated a more thorough analysis
needed to be done regarding the agreement. He stated there were many questions relating to the
expansion of the Growth Management Area, the value of the natural areas and the impact of
expanding the roadway on the public investment. He stated he would prefer to wait for better
answers.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated this was ideal timing and that the Resolution should be adopted.
She stated Council continually discussed the increasing financial pressures associated with
transportation. She stated this was an opportunity to relieve the City of some of the costs associated
with Carpenter Road. She stated this would be logical and reasonable and that the Council had
heard from three of the advisory boards on the matter. She stated only 23% of the users of the road
were from Fort Collins and that this indicated that this was not a Fort Collins road. She stated she
was happy that the State was interested in taking over this road.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez, Tharp and
Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, and Roy.
THE MOTION CARRIED
City Manager Fischbach stated if the Council wanted to continue the meeting that there needed to
be a motion to suspend the rules.
Councilmember Tharp made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to suspend the rules
and continue the meeting. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy,
Hamrick, Kastein, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: Mayor Martinez.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance No. 091, 2004
Making Various Amendments to the
City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. Adopted on Second Reading.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff identified a variety of proposed changes, additions and clarifications in the Spring 2004
biannual update of the Land Use Code. This Ordinance, which was adopted 6-0 (Councilmember
June 15, 2004
Tharp was absent) on First Reading on June 1, 2004, makes various amendments to the Land Use
Code. "
City Manager Fischbach stated this item had been withdrawn from the Consent Calendar at
Councilmember Kastein's request.
Councilmember Kastein stated he would be asking for an amendment that would remove the
requirement to mitigate for raptors' nests. He stated this would involve the elimination of
subparagraph 0) on page 10 and the buffer requirements for hawks in the buffer zone table on pages
13-14. He stated if the amendment was successful that an amendment would subsequently need to
be made to the Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map to eliminate hawks' nests.
Mayor Martinez asked if there was a Council consensus regarding the time allowed for each
audience participant. After polling the Council, the Mayor announced that each speaker would have
three minutes.
Greg Snyder, 619 Bear Creek Drive, cited from the Constitution and spoke regarding the "God-
given rights" of citizens that were "inherent with human creation." He stated extreme regulatory
burdens would deprive people of the use of their property. He stated wildlife were adaptable and
resilient to a variety of conditions.
Randy Fischer, 3007 Moore Lane, stated he worked for nine months on a committee formed by staff
to work on these recommendations. He stated it was a major concession to cut the acreage of the
raptor buffers by half. He expressed a concern that Councilmember Kastein wanted to remove the
mitigation requirement and wanted additional work on all of the natural features buffer standards
but was not interested in looking at any other rights -of -way developers were required to dedicate.
He stated buffers were as much a part of the infrastructure as roads, sidewalks, parks, schools,
stormwater basins, etc. He stated it would be bad public policy to make major changes to Land Use
Codes without any public process at a late evening Council meeting. He stated Councilmember
Kastein wanted to open up all of City Plan and was trying to "piecemeal" changes in public policy.
He asked that Council defeat the amendment that would be proposed by Councilmember Kastein.
He stated elimination of mitigation would reduce the options available to project applicants.
Dave Dunn, 5148 Augusta Trail, asked that Council reconsider the Ordinance that had been
approved on First Reading. He stated it was his understanding that the purchases of open space by
the City and County were in part to provide riparian habitat for species including raptors. He stated
the federal and state governments also owned millions of acres and that there were thousands of
acres of open space east of Fort Collins. He asked if the City planned to halt human activity and
condemn property if a raptor would decide to nest in an existing neighborhood. He asked what
assurances there were that the $10,000 per acre paid by a developer to mitigate the existence of a
raptor's nest on his or her property would be refunded if the raptor decided to leave the area prior
to development. He stated the entire public and not just new growth should bear the cost of
419
June 15, 2004
protection of raptors. He asked why the City would not approach the developer about acquiring
property to protect raptor nests using open space money. He asked if mitigation for raptor nests
could lead to mitigation for the raptor's food chain. He asked who would own and insure the buffer
zone, if it would be taken off the tax rolls and who would pay to maintain and police it. He asked
what would happen to the buffer zone if the tree used for nesting was blown down by the wind or
was removed through other natural causes. He stated no property with even a single tree on it would
be brought forward for development purposes in the City after this Ordinance was passed.
George Hart, Progressive Living Structures, stated this Ordinance would be better than what was
currently in place. He stated there were a number of areas of discomfort with the proposed
Ordinance. He stated there was no guarantee that the raptor would come back to the nest after the
buffer was set aside for it or the bird could decide to stay there even after the developer paid the
mitigation fee. He stated the "science" behind the buffer was based on rural settings. He stated
there had not been a comprehensive study of birds in urban settings and that such a study should be
done before policy was set for urban raptors. He stated the cost to preserve this community resource
would be paid for by a few individuals who pay more for their lots rather than by the community
at large. He stated the developer might not be able to sell lots at a reasonable price because of the
requirement.
Leo Schuster, 2096 Vista Drive, Loveland, stated trees existed because farmers put in irrigation
ditches and waterways. He stated everyone was a "steward of our ground" and asked what would
happen if policy would be put into place that would ensure fatal destruction of 100-year-old
cottonwoods. He stated would happen when the fanners and developers found that they were less
valued because the policy was to protect a moveable resource (the hawk). He stated there were
nesting hawks in Fort Collins and Loveland because the tree had not been cut down. He asked that
Council consider the fact that hawks were nesting in the urban areas and were preying on ornamental
birds and animals that lived around other trees and shrubbery. He stated trees needed to be
preserved to preserve the raptors.
Michelle Jacobs, Homebuilder's Association, spoke in support of the amendment that had been
proposed by Councilmember Kastein. She stated the current policy was so restrictive that people
were destroying the wildlife habitats prior to annexation. She stated the proposed Ordinance would
exacerbate the situation. She stated there needed to be a study of wildlife raptors before policy was
set.
Kelly Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, stated he participated in the nine -month process to develop
these recommendations. He stated the 80/20 rule was changed so that this would not have to go to
Planning and Zoning; that design standards would now work with buffer zones better; that
developers would not have to get a sign -off from 20 other governmental entities and would only
have to make the attempt; that there would be appeals procedures, amendments, waivers; and that
there were many ways in which the buffer zone could be made smaller (such as with In -Situ). He
urged the Council not to support the amendment that would be proposed, and he asked that Council
1
June 15. 2004
reaffirm that it would not be opening up for scrutiny the other buffer zones just reaffirmed in City
Plan. He stated the open lands program was not a substitute for Land Use Codes and that the two
worked together.
Doug Hutchinson, 1315 Whedbee Street, stated there had been no study regarding urban raptors to
show that the flushing distance should be 1,500 feet as it was for rural raptors. He stated the Natural
Resources Advisory Board and the Planning and Zoning Board had both indicated in written memos
that there was no useful science for buffer zones for raptors in urban areas. He asked the Council
to support Councilmember Kastein's proposed amendment.
Glen Colton, 625 Hinsdale Drive, stated the raptor experts on the committee took into account the
lack of data about flushing distances for raptors in urban areas. He stated the buffer was
considerably reduced to a minimal area from what would be expected in a rural area. He asked that
Council not support the proposed amendment. He stated buffers and the wildlife that they supported
were a valuable economic asset to the City and that people paid premium prices for lots near wildlife
areas. He stated there should be an open space impact fee for development. He stated buffers were
one thing that made Fort Collins valuable to the people who live here.
Councilmember Roy asked how the Ordinance as currently written would impact buffer areas. City
Attorney Roy stated a provision was added to allow for the reduction of the 900 foot buffer zone
to 450 feet if certain mitigation requirements were met. He stated if the amendment proposed by
Councilmember Kastein was adopted that the proposed language would be taken out because the
buffer zones for raptors would be eliminated in their entirety.
Councilmember Roy asked what the existing standards were. John Stokes, Natural Resources, stated
the current standard was 1,320 feet. He stated the area within a circle described by a radius of 1,320
feet was 126 acres and that would be decreased to an area of 48 acres. He stated with mitigation the
buffer could be reduced to 450 feet (about 14.5 acres). He stated the recommended change dealt
with the distance requirement. He stated there would be a mitigation option that would apply to any
activities in the 450-900 buffer zone.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to adopt Ordinance No.
091, 2004 on Second Reading and to affirm the approval of the recently passed City Plan,
particularly as concerns the Land Use Code and specifically the manner and methods which use the
buffer zones as carried out and applied in the City of Fort Collins until the next review of City Plan.
Councilmember Bertschy stated he supported the intent but that he believed that the Ordinance
should be adopted before a reaffirmation of City Plan would be done. He noted that the Ordinance
would make many amendments to the Land Use Code. Shepard stated approximately 65 changes
would be made.
421
June 15, 2004
Councilmember Bertschy stated the point of contention was over one of the 65 changes and that he
would like to see the Council adopt the Ordinance and then discuss the reaffirmation of City Plan.
THE MOTION WAS WITHDRAWN
Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to adopt
Ordinance No. 091, 2004 on Second Reading.
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt
Ordinance No. 091, 2004 on Second Reading with the elimination of subparagraph 0) on page 10
and the elimination of buffer requirements for hawks in the buffer zone table on pages 13-14.
Councilmember Kastein stated he appreciated the work done by the City's boards and committees.
He stated he had clearly stated at a Study Session his opinion on the buffer issue and that opinion
was sent to the committee. He stated no changes were made for the final version of the Ordinance
and that was the reason for offering the amendment. He stated he disagreed with the statement that
had been made that buffers were part of the infrastructure. He stated there were legitimate reasons
to require developers to pay for infrastructure. He stated it was unreasonable that open space dollars
could not be spent to protect a raptor's nest. He stated the City should offer compensation to the
developer if a buffer was to be required. He stated it was reasonable for the compensation to come
from natural areas funds. He stated he did not support taking the land to protect natural areas
features without compensation. He stated he was interested in looking at any Code requirements
that unjustly required mitigation of development impacts. He stated he was not trying to re -write
City Plan and that this was a single issue. He stated it was wrong to require the raptor buffer. He
stated there was no set of criteria to help the Council decide what was worth protecting and how the
protection should be paid for.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the amendment proposed by Councilmember Kastein addressed
only the Red-tailed and Swainson's hawks.
Councilmember Kastein stated his proposed amendment would apply to raptors except for those
under federal protection. Stokes suggested that the motion specifically indicate Red-tailed and
Swainson's hawks.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated many birds were not listed in subparagraph 6) and asked for
clarification that the motion to amend applied only to the birds listed in that subparagraph.
Councilmember Kastein stated his motion applied only to the birds listed in subparagraph 0).
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the discussion had raised some issues that might need additional
thought. She suggested looking at the issue of standards for urban raptors and what was being paid
for. She stated she would support the motion to amend.
.F
June IS. 2004
Councilmember Bertschy stated the buffer zones were established with the adoption ofthe first Land
Use Code in 1997 and were included in the most recently adopted Land Use Code. He stated there
was a nine -month process to develop the recommendations that were being considered by the
Council. He stated there was agreement that the existing buffer zone was too large. He stated the
Ordinance would reduce the buffer and would provide for mitigation and appeal options. He stated
the buffer zone could be reduced to as little as zero in some cases. He stated it was important to
maintain the standard and urged defeat of the amendment.
Councilmember Tharp stated she did not support the amendment. She stated she had concerns about
the issue of whether open space or natural areas money should be spent to share the cost of
mitigation. She stated she would like to see that issue explored because it appeared that this would
pass on a community cost to a developer. She asked if there was a way to fund this rather than
having the developer pay the cost.
Mayor Martinez stated a lengthy process did not ensure the best outcome. He questioned asking
landowners to pay another fee for the use of their land.
The vote on the motion to amend was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez and
Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Roy and Tharp.
THE MOTION FAILED
Councilmember Kastein stated this issue was a "big deal" to him. He stated he saw this as entirely
wrong and unfair. He stated he would be raising this issue of "taking land away from people" in the
community. He stated he viewed taking land out of production without any kind of compensation
without reasonable cause as the City overstepping its bounds.
Mayor Martinez questioned the "wisdom" and "real intent' of the buffer i.e. the protection of birds
or stopping growth.
The vote on the motion to adopt the Ordinance was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy,
Hamrick, Roy and Tharp. Nays: Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez and Weitkunat.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Other Business
Councilmember Kastein asked that the meeting be adjourned.
Mayor Martinez stated the Council had voted to extend the meeting. City Attorney Roy stated the
motion was to suspend the rules and that it would be up to the Council when to adjourn the meeting.
423
June 15, 2004
Councilmember Roy stated the issue that had just been dealt with was of importance to the
community. He stated Councilmember Kastein had made it clear that he wanted to open up the
entire process of buffer zones and protections. He stated buffer zones were all about land use and
the public good. He stated it was important to affirm the importance of buffer zones.
Councilmember Roy made a motion to amend Ordinance No. 091, 2004 to affirm the approval of
the recently passed City Plan, particularly as concerns the Land Use Code, and specifically the
manner and methods through which the use of buffer zones were carried out and applied. City
Attorney Roy suggested that this be a motion in its own right and not an amendment to Ordinance
No. 091, 2004. Councilmember Roy agreed with the City Attorney's suggestion.
City Attorney Roy stated his understanding was that the motion was to reaffirm the principles of
City Plan.
Councilmember Kastein stated he was not interested in looking at other buffer zones in the Land Use
Code since the Council could not come to agreement. He stated he would not be proposing a review
of other buffer zones "as long as this Council was seated."
Councilmember Roy stated he would withdraw the motion in light of the statement made by
Councilmember Kastein.
THE MOTION WAS WITHDRAWN
City Attorney Roy asked for clarification that staff was not being asked to bring forward the
Resolution that had been requested by Councilmember Kastein.
Mayor Martinez stated it was not to be brought forward.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 12:06 a.m. r
Mayor
L..
ATTEST:
City Clerk
424