HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-09/07/2004-RegularSeptember 7, 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, September 7,
2004, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was
answered bythe following Councilmembers: Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and
Weitkunat.
Staff Members Present: Attebetry, Krajicek, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Vicky Loran, 2207 Wakefield Drive, spoke regarding the Code requirements relating to her licensed
building addition and home -based business. She asked why her business was required to be licensed
and held to high standards of operation when other commercial enterprises such as rental properties
were not. She spoke regarding the nuisances created by such rental properties and the impact on
neighborhoods and quality of life. She asked that Council consider the licensing of rental properties.
Greg Snyder, 619 Bear Creek Drive, spoke in opposition to rental licensing and stated the issue was
a lack of Code enforcement. He supported the appointment of Darin Atteberry as City Manager
rather than continuation of an expensive and time consuming search process. He asked that the City
reevaluate the policy on wages and benefits for City employees to compare with the local workforce.
Brian Schumm, 5948 Colby Street, stated on July 20, 2004 he had presented process issues that he
had with the property at 209 East Skyway. He stated there had been no staff response to his issues,
that he had not been given an opportunity to talk with the Councilmembers about his side of the
issues and that he would like such a dialogue to take place at this meeting or at any other time. He
stated he would like answers from Council to three remaining questions.
Kelly Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, spoke regarding the lack of progress on the wage and benefit
issues. He stated it was not enough for employees to pay 5% of health care premiums. He stated
he would like to hear that the City recognized this as a major issue and planned to address it. He
stated the City must make it clear that it would deal with the largest financial issue facing the City
or that there would not be support from the citizens on the grocery tax, a replacement tax or a capital
tax. He asked the Council to look into the rumor that some employees were receiving payment for
unused vacation to give them a raise.
51
Gail Zirtzlaff, 2048 Manchester, spoke regarding the impact of rentals on her neighborhood and
described the continuing problems with some neighbors and their dogs. She asked for help in
dealing with these problems.
Amber Harvey, 2040 Manchester Drive, opposed rental licensing and stated the issue was
enforcement. She stated many of the problems between homeowners and renters could be resolved
through communication and mediation. She stated as a renter she had felt "attacked" by the
"constantly complaining" neighboring homeowner and that she wanted to know at what point this
would be considered to be "harassment."
Theresa Ramos -Garcia, read a letter on behalf of a member of the Board of Realtors stating that
some renters took care of their homes and that some owner -occupied homes were not cared for very
well.
Pete Seel, 1837 Scarborough Drive, spoke in support of rental licensing and described his personal
experiences with rental properties in his neighborhood. He stated it was difficult to contact the
property owners about problems and that licensing would clearly identify on the public record the
owners and contact information.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Tharp asked staff for a memo regarding "creative bookkeeping" mentioned by Mr.
Ohlson and also requested information about prescription drugs issues and payments for unused
vacation.
Councilmember Bertschy stated all candidates would be given fair and equal treatment during the
City Manager search process. He noted that there were a number of internal candidates. He stated
the Council was going through an appropriate deliberative process regarding the criteria for selection
of a new City Manager.
Councilmember Hamrick stated he had talked with Mr. Schumm on previous occasions and that he
would be interested in sitting down with staff and Mr. Schumm to discuss his remaining questions.
He also commented that he had read in the New York Times that medical care premiums were going
up 17% next year. He stated the cost of health insurance would impact the City budget significantly
and that Council recognized that something would need to be done to address the problem. He stated
there was some division on Council about how rapidly the City should move on the issue. He stated
the Gallagher report presented several options on how this could be addressed. He stated
Resolutions would be brought forward for the Council on September 21 and that Council would be
giving direction to staff on this issue.
Mayor Martinez stated Council recognized that compensation and benefits issues were big issues.
He stated the Council was working carefully on fair and equitable solutions. He asked if the City
Manager had not answered Mr. Schumm's e-mail because staff had a one-on-one meeting with him
52
September 9, 2004
instead. Interim City Manager Atteberry stated he had numerous conversations with Mr. Schumm
and that staff had followed up with him numerous times in written format and in one-on-one
meetings. He stated he could provide details regarding those contacts in a separate cover memo.
Mayor Martinez stated the City had been very responsive and that he had also had one-on-one
meetings with Mr. Schumm. He stated this could be perceived to be a "debate."
Councilmember Kastein stated there appeared to be some confusion regarding what was going on
with salary and benefits for City employees. He stated a consultant had been hired and that a
Council committee of two (he and Councilmember Hamrick) had been addressing the issue. He
stated he believed that there was clear direction from Council regarding long term financial policy
and short term actions regarding step increases and the Gallagher report. He stated he believed that
the City was "right on track" in dealing with the issue. He also commented that most people seemed
to agree that there was an issue regarding enforcement associated with the rental licensing issue. He
stated the City had stepped up enforcement regarding rental property nuisances. He stated it was
important to understand underlying problems before "jumping to solutions." He stated it was
necessary to understand why adequate enforcement was not occurring and that part of the problem
was the lack of funding by the Council to fund enforcement.
Councilmember Roy stated the Council had given direction that it wanted the employees to pay 10%
of employee benefits in 2003 and that the effective rate was 5%. He stated there would soon be an
opportunity to deal with the issue "more forthrightly." He also commented on the issue of
homeowner/tenant relations. He stated the nuisance ordinances had been tightened up recently. He
stated there would be an opportunity for discussions on rental licensing.
Agenda Review
Interim City Manager Atteberry stated the agenda would stand as printed.
Councilmember Roy withdrew item # 18 Resolution 2004-103 Reestablishing a Telephone Exchange
Access Facility Charge and a Wireless Communications Access Chargefor the Larimer Emergency
Telephone Authority Effective January 1, 2005 from the Consent Calendar.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Consideration and approval of the Council meeting minutes of July 20, 2004.
53
September 7, 2004
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and
Prior Year Reserves in the Light and Power Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Existing
Appropriations in the Equipment Fund for the Purpose of Purchasing Hydrogen Fueling
Equipment and Infrastructure at the Transfort Alternative Fueling Station.
This Ordinance, which was adopted 6-0 (Councilmember Kastein was absent) on First
Reading on August 17, 2004, authorizes a $35,000 appropriation of prior year reserves in the
Light and Power Fund for purchase of hydrogen fueling equipment and infrastructure for the
Transfort Alternative Fueling Station.
9. Items Relating to the Mason Transportation Corridor Bicycle/Pedestrian Trail Project.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2004, Appropriating Funds to the Building
Community Choices (BCC) Capital Projects Fund, Mason Transportation Corridor
(MTC) Bicycle/Pedestrian Trail Project, from The State Board of the Great Outdoors
Colorado Trust Fund.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2004, Appropriating Funds to the Building
Community Choices (BCC) Capital Projects Fund, Mason Street Transportation
Corridor (MTC) Bicycle/Pedestrian Trail Project, from the General Fund Reserves
on a Temporary Basis to Allow the City to Contract for all of the Construction
Improvements to the Mason Transportation Corridor Trail Project in 2004.
This action appropriates I million into the MTC trail project's budget on a temporary basis
until it can be repaid by the sales tax cash flow in 2005. The MTC project's budget will repay
the $1 million back to the City's General Fund reserve account in 2005. These funds will be
used in 2004 to construct the bicycle/pedestrian trail in a more timely cost effective manner.
Ordinance No. 129, 2004 and Ordinance No. 130, 2004, were both adopted 6-0
(Councilmember Kastein was absent) on First Reading on August 17, 2004.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and
Prior Year Reserves in the Transportation Services Fund to be used to Construct On -Street
Bike Lanes on South College Avenue Between Harmony Road and Carpenter Road.
The City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning Department received a grant from CDOT
Enhancement Funds for FY 2003-05 to construct on -street bicycle lanes on South College
Avenue/US 287 from Harmony Road/SH68 southward to Carpenter Road/CR32. This
Ordinance, which was adopted 6-0 (Councilmember Kastein was absent) on First Reading
on August 17, 2004, appropriates unanticipated revenue and prior year reserves to Construct
on -street bike lanes on South College Avenue.
54
September 7, 2004
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 132 2004 Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations
from the Street Oversizing Fund to the Capital Project Fund - Timberline Road
Improvements Project for the Engineering Design of Timberline Road from Drake Road to
Prospect Road.
Traffic congestion at the Timberline/Prospect intersection is well below the City's Level of
Service requirements, with almost all legs and turn movements failing during the morning
and afternoon peak rush hours. In accordance with the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance,
any new development which impacts this intersection cannot proceed until these existing
deficiencies are corrected.
In the absence of any City Capital Improvement funding for this intersection, two impacted
developers are electing to privately fund these improvements in order to proceed with their
development projects. These developers are the majority property owners and have proposed
the initiation of an involuntary Special Improvement District to spread a portion of the costs
through assessments to other undeveloped property in the area benefitted by the
improvements.
Ordinance No. 132, 2004, which was adopted 6-0 (Councilmember Kastein was absent) on
First Reading on August 17, 2004, appropriates $162,050 from the Street Oversizing Fund
into the Capital Project account for this project.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 2004, Designatin the he Alpert Building as a Fort
Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
The owner of the property, the Walter J. Frick Trust, is initiating this request for Fort Collins
Landmark designation for the Alpert Building. The Alpert Building retains excellent
physical integrity and is judged to be both architecturally and historically significant under
Fort Collins Landmark Standards (1), (2), and (3). This Ordinance was adopted 6-0
(Councilmember Kastein was absent) on First Reading on August 17, 2004.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 2004, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Parcel of
City Property in Exchange for a Property Located at 1833 East Mulberry Street, and
Appropriating the Related Donation as Unanticipated Revenue in the Natural Areas Fund.
and Rescinding Ordinance No. 007, 2004.
This Ordinance, which was adopted 6-0 (Councilmember Kastein was absent) on First
Reading on August 17, 2004, allows a proposed conveyance of 2.468 acres of land on the
Poudre River Corridor and adjacent to the Kingfisher Natural Area from William C. And
Maureen D. Stockover to the City in exchange for property 0.621 acres in size owned by the
E3.
September 7, 2004
City at 1833 East Mulberry Street, which land is adjacent to and west of land owned by the
Stockovers.
The Ordinance has also been amended on Second Reading to account for errors in the
mathematical calculations of the price allocations. The price allocation of the net donation
to the City was shown as $11,532 on the first reading; the correct net donation shown on the
second reading is $10,498.
14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 2004, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent
Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary for the Construction of Public
Improvements in Connection with the Mason Transportation Corridor Trail Project.
This Ordinance, which was adopted 6-0 (Councilmember Kastein was absent) on First
Reading on August 17, 2004, does not begin the eminent domain process; it simply allows
staff to use the process if absolutely necessary and extensive good faith negotiations are not
successful.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 138.2004, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General
Fund for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund - Timberline Road Improvements Project to
be Used for the En inp eering Design of Timberline Road from Prospect Road to Drake Road.
This Ordinance appropriates funding for the final design for the full and complete 4-lane
widening project ofTimberline Road between Prospect and Drake in anticipation ofpotential
project construction funding through the Building on Basics ballot measure. The design
would be conducted concurrently with the Interim 4-lane project design now underway
assisted by developer funding.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2004, Amending the Fort Collins Traffic Code Related
to Parking.
Staff is proposing four amendments to the Traffic Code that relate to parking enforcement.
These amendments are needed to continue implementation of the "enhanced enforcement"
recommendation in the Downtown Strategic Plan.
17. Resolution 2004-102 Findiruz Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceeding
for the College and Trilby Annexation.
The applicant, Hunt Douglas Real Estate Services, on behalf of the property owners, COL
College and Trilby, LLC, has submitted a written petition requesting annexation of 5.76 acres
located at the northwest corner of State Highway 287 (South College Avenue) and Trilby
Road. The property is partially developed, containing one vacant building and parking. There
56
September 7, 2004
is an undeveloped building pad site on the property. The requested zoning for this annexation
is NC — Neighborhood Commercial. The surrounding properties are currently zoned C -
Commercial in Larimer County to the south and east and NC — Neighborhood Commercial
in the city to the west and the north.
The proposed Resolution makes a finding that the petition substantially complies with the
Municipal Annexation Act, determines that a hearing should be established regarding the
annexation, and directs that notice be given of the hearing. The hearing will be held at the
time of first reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances. Not less than thirty days of
prior notice is required by State law.
18. Resolution 2004-103 Reestablishing a Telephone Exchange Access Facility Charge and a
Wireless Communications Access Charge for the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority
Effective January 1, 2005.
The Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) was created in 1990 pursuant to
C.R.S. Section 29-11-101, et. seq., by an intergovernmental agreement between the City of
Fort Collins and nineteen other governmental entities in Larimer County.
At the July 7, 2004 LETA Board meeting, the Board approved a telephone exchange access
facility charge and a wireless communications access charge effective January 1, 2005, each
at the rate of forty-five cents ($.45) per month.
19. Resolution 2004-104 Identifying_Projects to Be Funded by Passenger Facility Charges
Collected at the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport.
The Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 provided a new source of funding
(Passenger Facility Charges-PFC), for authorized airports to fund needed airport expansion
projects that might otherwise go unfunded. A new PFC Application is being submitted to
the FAA for recovery of eligible project costs in accordance with this Act. The Cities are
required to approve the projects being submitted in the application.
20. Resolution 2004-105 Authorizing the Lease of a Portion of the City -Owned Property at 250
North Mason Street, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Since the Transit Centerbecame operational, the City has leased an office space at the Center
to a company that has provided over -the -road bus service from the Center. The previous
tenant's lease has expired and the company has vacated the premises. This service has been
beneficial to the community and City staff has decided to negotiate with a new tenant to
provide the same services.
57
September 7, 2004
The lease agreement will be for the rental of a 190 square foot office space, an outdoor
bicycle/storage unit, and use of an outdoor bus stop area. The lease term will be for one year,
with the City having the option to renew for an additional one-year term. The annual rental
for these spaces will be $3,550. The tenant will be required to carry commercial general
liability insurance, commercial automobile liability insurance and worker's compensation
insurance.
21. Resolution 2004-106 Approving the Position Profile for the City Manager Executive Search
Process.
The final draft of the Position Profile for the City Manager's position is being presented for
Council approval. The final profile includes information gathered from Council members,
Citizen's Advisory Committee members and staff by Bob Slavin of Slavin Management
Consultants. This document will be used throughout the City Manager recruitment process.
22. Resolution 2004-107 Making_ Appointments to the Youth Advisory Board.
Vacancies currently exist on the Youth Advisory Board due to the resignations of Abby Zier,
Adrienne Pickett and Amy Flug. Mayor Martinez and Councilmember Kastein interviewed
the applicants on file. The Council interview team is recommending Cara Getches, David
Saperstone and Kristi Thomas with terms to begin immediately and set forth to expire on
December 31, 2005, December 31, 2006 and December 31, 2007 respectively.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and
Prior Year Reserves in the Light and Power Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Existing
Appropriations in the Equipment Fund for the Purpose of Purchasing Hagen Fueling
Equipment and Infrastructure at the Transfort Alternative Fueling Station.
9. Items Relating to the Mason Transportation Corridor Bicycle/Pedestrian Trail Project.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2004, Appropriating Funds to the Building
Community Choices (BCC) Capital Projects Fund, Mason Transportation Corridor
(MTC) Bicycle/Pedestrian Trail Project, from The State Board of the Great Outdoors
Colorado Trust Fund.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2004, Appropriating Funds to the Building
Community Choices (BCC) Capital Projects Fund, Mason Street Transportation
91
September 7, 2004
Corridor (MTC) Bicycle/Pedestrian Trail Project, from the General Fund Reserves
on a Temporary Basis to Allow the City to Contract for all of the Construction
Improvements to the Mason Transportation Corridor Trail Project in 2004.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and
Prior Year Reserves in the Transportation Services Fund to be used to Construct On -Street
Bike Lanes on South College Avenue Between Harmony Road and Carpenter Road.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 2004, Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations
from the Street Oversizing Fund to the Capital Project Fund - Timberline Road
Improvements Project for the Engineering Design of Timberline Road from Drake Road to
Prospect Road.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 2004, Designating the Alpert Building as a Fort
Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 2004, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Parcel of
City Property in Exchange for a Property Located at 1833 East Mulberry Street, and
Appropriating the Related Donation as Unanticipated Revenue in the Natural Areas Fund.
and Rescinding Ordinance No. 007, 2004.
14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 2004, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent
Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary for the Construction of Public
Improvements in Connection with the Mason Transportation Corridor Trail Project.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 13 8,2004, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General
Fund for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund - Timberline Road Improvements Project to
be Used for the Engineering Design of Timberline Road from Prospect Road to Drake Road.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2004, Amending the Fort Collins Traffic Code Related
to Parking.
26. First Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2004, Authorizing the Conveyance of Nonexclusive
Easement Interests for the Relocation of a Waterline by the North Weld County Water
District to a New Location on the Northside Aztlan Community Center Property.
59
September 7, 2004
27. Items Relating to the Feather Ridge Annexation and Zoning
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2004, Annexing Property Known as the Feather
Ridge Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2004, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of
Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Feather
Ridge Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. General Fund for Transfer
to the Capital Projects Fund - Timberline Road Improvements Project to be Used for
the Engineering Design of Timberline Road from Prospect Road to Drake Road.
29. Items Relating to the Reduction of Sales Tax on Grocery Food.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 2004, Calling a Special Municipal Election to
Be Held in Conjunction with the November 2, 2004 Larimer County General
Election.
***END CONSENT***
Councilmember Tharp made a motion, 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
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Tharp stated she had been appointed to be the Council's representative on the Joint
Fort Collins -Loveland Airport Twenty Year Plan Committee. She stated the Plan was long overdue
because of Loveland's development in the area ofthe Airport. She stated the Airport generated more
than 600 jobs worth more than $32 million to the area. She stated she would be giving the Council
updates during the work on the Plan. She reported that she was also on the I-25 Environmental
Impact Study committee and that she would like to commend Fort Collins residents for participating
in open houses.
Councilmember Bertschy reported that the Poudre Fire Authority Board had appointed Interim City
Manager Atteberry as the fifth member of the Board until the appointment of a new City Manager
and that this appointment would now be reviewed annually. He stated the Board had also reviewed
the Executive Summary for the Strategic Plan and had elected new officers for the year.
September 7, 2004
Councilmember Hamrick asked when the Council would be discussing the Poudre Fire Authority
funding formula.
Councilmember Bertschy stated would be done as part of the exceptions process. Interim City
Manager Atteberry stated was scheduled for the first study session (September 28) on the budget
exceptions process for 2005.
Councilmember Kastein reported on North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning
Council discussions on how the RTA would work west of I-25 and how other entities could join the
RTA in the future. He stated the option that passed unanimously was for the MPO to act as a
resource for groups that wanted to discuss crafting a RTA. He stated the Council was briefed on the
2030 Regional Transportation Plan. He noted also that the MPO staff would be issuing electronic
agenda packets and that those would be available on-line to the general public.
Ordinance No. 140, 2004
Authorizing the Conveyance of Nonexclusive Easement
Interests for the Relocation of a Waterline by the North Weld County Water District to a
New Location on the Northside Aztlan Community Center
Property, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
Staff is recommending that the City not charge compensation for the easements, in order to facilitate
the environmental cleanup work in and along the Poudre River. The valuefindingfor the easements,
if the City were to charge compensation for them, is an estimated total of $150,000 ($120, 000 for
the permanent easement and $30, 000 for the temporary easement).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The relocation of an existing North Weld County Water District water line currently in the south
bank of the River to the south away from the River and work area has been proposed to facilitate
environmental cleanup efforts currently being planned for along the Poudre River adjacent to the
Northside Aztlan Community Center property. In order to allow the water line relocation to occur,
the City has been asked to grant a permanent easement for the new water line location across the
Aztlan Center property, and to grant a temporary construction easement for the relocation work.
61
September 7, 2004
BACKGROUND
City staff has worked with North Weld County Water District to propose a new location on the
Aztlan Center property for the Water District's water line, and it is not anticipated that the water
line, in the proposed new location, will interfere with or impair the City's planned use or planned
development of the property. The new location for the waterline will bean improvement over the
current water line location, because the potential for erosion and instability will be reduced, and
because the Water District will be able to replace the existing pipe with bigger, newer water pipe.
The relocation of the water line is part of the critical path for cleanup activities that are in the
process of being planned and designed by Xcel Energy's Colorado subsidiary, Public Service
Company of Colorado (PSCo) and will need to proceed in October in order to avoid potential delay
of work that is anticipated to occur late in 2004.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, has been negotiating with Xcel Energy's
Colorado subsidiary, Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo), to plan and design
environmental cleanup activities to remove contaminated sediment and bedrock and to operate on
the site into the future to intercept subsurface contamination approaching the River. EPA has
proposed that PSCo, Schrader Oil Company and the City of Fort Collins negotiate an
Administrative Order on Consent with EPA and the State of Colorado that would allocate
responsibility for cleanup costs and outline the parties' future responsibilities and commitments
related to the environmental condition ofthe River, the Aztlan Centerproperty and thegeneral area.
While no formal agreement has yet been reached, at this time it does not appear that the City will
be required to share in the direct costs of the cleanup, although continued City cooperation in
facilitating the work has been requested.
Public Service Company is currently at 60%completion ofthe design phase for the ongoing removal
and monitoring remedial action. The selected remedial action involves sediment/upper bedrock
removal over a stretch ofriver, a vertical physical containment, vertical hydraulic containment, and
a water treatment and discharge system. The estimated cost for the clean-up and operation and
maintenance is $8 million. EPA will provide daily on -site coordination and oversight during the
September 2004 — April 2005 timeframe.
City staffplans to provide the City Council at its September 21 meeting with additional information
about the negotiations with EPA, PSCo and the other involved parties, and to request authorization
to proceed with easements that will be needed by PSCo to proceed with the remedial activities that
are in the process of being planned and designed at this time.
62
September 7, 2004
Public Outreach
An EPA Communications Strategy has been developed and includes a public open house, individual
stakeholder interviews, media coverage, and public closure notification. "
Interim City Manager Atteberry stated there would be a brief staff presentation.
Greg Byrne, CPES Director, stated this was the first of several items that would be presented to
Council with regard to the environmental clean-up of the Poudre River. He stated this item was an
easement for a water line relocation. He introduced the representatives from the Environmental
Protection Agency, the staff members involved in the project, and the Xcel representative. He stated
the issue was the clean-up of contamination from the coal gasification plant that was located on
Willow Street early in Fort Collins history. He stated it was known for a long time that some kind
of contamination existed under the Northside Aztlan Center property. He stated during the
completion of the Brownfield targeted assessment with grant funding from the EPA that a black oily
substance was discovered entering the river. He presented visual information regarding the
contamination site and its surroundings. He stated the current water line was within the
contamination area and that the water line needed to be relocated. He stated the contamination had
been identified and traced to a source and that the remediation plan was nearing completion. He
stated the work would be paid for by Public Service Company and Schrader Oil. He stated the costs
to the City would include conveyance of easements and property, bank restoration design and staff
work, and possibly future City capital projects. He outlined the following sequence of events:
approval of a series of easements, diversion of the river around the work area, water line relocation,
removal of contamination from the river, rebuilding of the river bed, installation of a barrier wall to
capture groundwater moving toward the river, pumping and cleaning of the water, river bank
restoration, and ongoing pumping and cleaning of the groundwater for many years. He stated timing
was critical due to the need to divert the river during low flow periods in the fall and winter months.
He stated staff was requesting Council approval of the First Reading of this Ordinance. He stated
any Council questions could be answered by the time of Second Reading on September 21. He
stated additional agenda items would be brought to Council at that meeting and at subsequent
meetings.
Councilmember Bertschy stated he had the opportunity to hear the presentation given to the Parks
and Recreation Board. He stated he had a "rhetorical question" about whether Xcel had "stepped
up to the plate" to work with the Environmental Protection Agency on the clean-up. Byme stated
was correct and that the procedure being followed was a four -party negotiation among EPA, Xcel,
Schrader Oil and the City to facilitate a consent agreement that would get the clean-up done.
Councilmember Bertschy asked if the amount of contamination was serious. Byrne stated it was a
serious issue and that the coal gasification plant operated in Fort Collins in the 1920's. He stated
63
September 7, 2004
contamination that resulted from the industrial process continued to move through the groundwater
underneath the site into the river.
Councilmember Bertschy asked if the actual clean-up would take about 30 years. Byrne stated it was
anticipated that it would take 20 to 30 years or even longer. He stated a lot was known about the
property and that a lot was still unknown. He stated staff was satisfied that this would be a cost
effective remedy and that the alternatives would be much worse.
Councilmember Bertschy asked if this would give an opportunity to remove residual concrete and
other debris along the river and to complete some natural restoration. Byrne replied in the
affirmative and stated the bank would be at a gentler angle, that the bike path would be relocated due
to the barrier wall, and that the wall would sunk underground. He stated there would be a small
building where the water would be treated and discharged.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked for clarification of the site and location of the lines. She asked if
the contaminated area was the site where the seepage had been noted and where the pipeline was
currently located on the south bank. Byrne presented visual information regarding the pipeline
within the area on the bank that it was subject to erosion.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked where the relocated line would be. Byrne presented visual
information regarding the route of the relocated line south away from the river bank.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the discussion went beyond the river seepage site to cover the
whole Northside location. Byrne stated EPA's involvement was primarily to stop the discharge of
the contaminants into the river. He stated a number of alternatives were examined by the City, EPA
and consultants. He stated this alternative appeared to be the most cost effective to achieve the goal
while leaving a manageable set of design constraints for development of properties in the area.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if, because the entire location had contaminants, whether the
location of the new pipeline should be off the property. Byrne stated staff would have an answer to
that question by September 21.
Councilmember Weitkunat expressed a concern that the new location would be just as polluted as
the current location.
Councilmember Tharp stated there had been discussions about the location of the new Northside
Center and asked how long term mitigation would affect what would be done with the Center. Marty
Heffernan, CLRS Director, stated the best information available at this time was that the
contamination was present and very deep in the area of the intended location near Willow Street.
He stated the recommended construction technique was to build the new recreation center on a slab
with caissons down to bedrock for stability. He stated the center could be constructed without a
K
September 7, 2004
great deal of extra cost and that it would be necessary to include a passive and possibly an active
ventilation system in the foundation. He stated there was no credible evidence to indicate that the
City should not move forward with the center.
Councilmember Tharp asked when the new center would be built. Heffernan stated the intention
was to proceed once this clean-up project moved forward and the liability issues were resolved. He
stated there was money to move forward with the design process for this site.
Councilmember Kastein asked about the cost of the easement to the City since the City was not
charging for it. He asked if the North Weld County Water District was "on the hook for this clean-
up." Byrne stated the Water District would have no involvement whatsoever in the clean-up other
than to cooperate with the other four parties in relocating this water line. He stated without this
remediation the Water District would not come in and relocate the line this year. He stated the EPA
has the ability to coordinate among many parties to facilitate this in a timely way.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the EPA would have required the relocation of the water line at the
responsibility of the North Weld County Water District. Byrne stated would probably not have been
the case. He stated one of the options would have been to build the barrier wall that would have
been in the way of the Water District at a future time. He stated the EPA had instead taken a
cooperative approach and that the Water District had responded favorably.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the same approach would have been taken if this was a private
entity rather than a public entity. Byrne stated a response to that question would be prepared by
September 21. He stated his understanding was that the City (or any other public or private entity)
had certain responsibilities as an affected property owner to facilitate this process and to assure that
any public health issues were minimized.
Councilmember Kastein stated the City should certainly cooperate and that it should be the goal that
no entity "gets off too easy." Byrne stated North Weld County Water District was not responsible
for any of the contamination and that the Water District was participating by installing the new
pipeline out of sequence with what would have otherwise been done.
Councilmember Roy stated the agenda item summary indicated that the estimated cost for the clean-
up, operation and maintenance was $8 million and that continued City cooperation in facilitating the
work had been requested. He stated this problem bad been building for 80 years and that the solution
would take 25 to 30 years. He asked how much of the $8 million would be paid by the City. Byrne
stated the City's cost would be zero. He stated the City would have costs associated with other
projects and that the $8 million was for the implementation of the remediation plan (the barrier wall,
water treatment facility, operation of the facility, and continued monitoring of the behavior of the
groundwater, contamination and water quality). He stated the City was not being asked to participate
in any of those costs. He stated the City was being asked to facilitate this process at some cost to the
65
September 7, 2004
City. He stated the federal statute required affected property owners to follow good and prudent
rules and behavior in their own activities on their property in the future. He stated could entail some
additional incremental costs to the City.
Councilmember Hamrick asked about the involvement of the Natural Resources Advisory Board.
He asked for confirmation that presentations were made to the Board about this matter. Byrne stated
a formal presentation was made to the Parks and Recreation Board. Margit Hentschel, Natural
Resources, stated a presentation had not been made to the Natural Resources Advisory Board on the
pipeline relocation issue due to the fast pace. She stated the NRAB had heard presentations on the
contamination issue and the work that had been done and that the Board should receive an update.
Byrne stated the Board would be particularly interested in the bank restoration process and that the
Board would be included in discussion on that issue.
Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adopt Ordinance
No. 140, 2004 on First Reading. 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
Feather Ridge Annexation and Zoning, Adopted.
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 2004-108 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the
Feather Ridge Annexation.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2004, Annexing PropertyKnown as the Feather Ridge
Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2004, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort
Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Feather Ridge
Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
This is a 100% voluntary annexation and zoning of a property approximately 15.46 acres in size.
The site is located approximately 1,200feet east ofZiegler Road, north ofHewlett-Packard/Agilent
Technologies, and approximately 2,144 feet north ofEast Harmony Road. The recommended zoning
is U-E, Urban Estate. This zoning complies with the recently amended Structure Plan Map.
September 7, 2004
BACKGROUND
The property is located within the Growth Management Area. According to the policies and
agreements between the City ofFort Collins andLarimer County contained in the Intergovernmental
Agreement for the City of Fort Collins Growth Management Area (IGA), the City will agree to
consider annexation ofproperty in the GMA when the property is eligible for annexation according
to State law. The property gains contiguity by the following parcels:
Contiguity with the existing municipal boundary is gained along the southern boundary which is
shared with the north property line of the Preston — Kelley Second Subdivision (Hewlett-Packard
and Agilent Technologies). Contiguity is also gained along the western boundary which is shared
with the east property line of Woodland Park Estates P. U.D., and along a portion of the north
boundary which is shared with the Robert Shields Subdivision.
This is a 100% voluntary annexation for a property located within the Growth Management Area.
The property satisfies the requirement that no less than one -sixth of the perimeter boundary be
contiguous to the existing City boundary. The recommended zoning of U-E, Urban Estate, is in
compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Structure Plan Map. Staff recommends the
parcel be placed within the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. The Initiating Resolution was
considered by City Council on July 20, 2004 and approved. The Planning and Zoning Board voted
5-0 to recommend approval/denial to the City Council.
According to the policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County,
contained in the amended (November 21, 2000) IGA, the City will agree to consider for annexation
property in the GMA when such property is eligible for annexation according to State law.
According to Section 8A of the IGA, as amended:
"It is the City's intent to annex properties within the GMA as expeditiously as
possible consistent with the terms of this Agreement. Except as provided in Section
8(B), the City agrees to consider the annexation of any parcel or parcels of land
located within the GMA which are eligible for voluntary annexation pursuant to the
provisions of Title 31, Article 12 Colorado Revised Statutes. "
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: U-E; Existing Residential (Robert Shields Subdivision)
S: H-C; Existing Light Industrial and Office (Agilent Technologies & Hewlett-Packard)
E: FA -I (County), Existing Rural Residential
W: R-L; Existing Single Family (Woodland Park Estates)
67
September 7, 2004
The parcel gains the necessary one -sixth contiguity along the entire south and west property lines.
In addition, contiguity is gained along a portion of the north property line. Of the total perimeter
boundary, theparcel has 61 % contiguity with the City limits. This substantially exceeds the required
minimum of 16.66% (one -sixth). The parcel, therefore, complies with the requirements of the IGA
and is eligible for annexation.
One of the stated intents of the IGA is to have urban development occur within the City in order that
the provision of urban level services by the County would be minimized. This is a 100% voluntary
annexation. The parcel is not an enclave. On July 20, 2004, City Council approved a Resolution
which accepted the annexation petition and established that the petition is in compliance with State
statutes.
Zoning:
The proposed zoning for the Feather Ridge Annexation is U-E, Urban Estate. The U-E district is
intended to be a settingfor a predominance oflow-density and large -lot housing. The main purposes
of this District are to acknowledge the presence of the many existing subdivisions which have
developed in these uses that function as parts of the community and to provide additional locations
for similar development, typically in transitional locations between more intense urban development
and rural or open lands.
The requested zoning of U-E complies with the City's Structure Plan Map.
In addition, staff recommends the parcel be placed within the Residential Neighborhood Sign
District which was created for the purpose of regulating signs for non-residential uses in certain
geographic locations of the City.
Compliance with State Law:
As mentioned, the annexation has 61 % of its perimeter boundary contiguous with existing City limits
which exceeds the required one -sixth as mandated by State law. Further, the parcel is found to have
a community of interest with the City and the parcel is expected to urbanize shortly.
Findings of Fact/Conclusion:
In evaluating the request for the Feather Ridge Annexation and Zoning, Staff makes the following
findings offact:
The annexation of this parcel is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer
County and the City of Fort Collins, as contained in the amended IGA.
.:
September 7, 2004
2. The parcel meets all criteria included in State law to qualify for annexation by the City of
Fort Collins.
3. The requested zone district, U-E, Urban Estate, is in conformance with the City's
Comprehensive Plan (City Plan) and the recently amended City Structure Plan Map.
4. Staff recommends the parcel be placed within the Residential Neighborhood Sign District.
5. On July 20, 2004, City Council approved the Resolution which accepted the annexation
petition and determines that the petition is in compliance with State law.
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation:
On August 19, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Board took the following action:
Voted 5-0 to recommend annexation into the municipal boundary and
inclusion into the Residential Sign District.
Voted 5-0 to recommend placement into the U-E, Urban Estate zone
district. "
Deputy City Manager Jones stated staff would have a brief presentation.
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, presented background information regarding the agenda item. He stated
the 15.46 acre parcel was located on the east side of Zeigler Road north of Hewlett-Packard. He
stated this was a 100% voluntary annexation and that the property was located within the Growth
Management Area. He stated the parcel had 61 % contiguity along its southwest property line as well
a portion of the north property line and that this exceeded the requirement of 1/6 contiguity. He
stated the annexation and zoning were in compliance with the intergovernmental agreement with
Larimer County. He stated staff was recommending Urban Estates zoning, which would be in
compliance with the Structure Plan, and inclusion in the Neighborhood Sign District. He stated the
annexation complied with State statute because there was a community of interest existing between
the parcel and the City and because it could be served with an urban level of services. He stated
Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended approval of the annexation and zoning.
Jim Hurlihy, 3138 Grand Teton Street, Woodland Park Homeowners Association, asked that Council
give this matter additional consideration and a more thorough review. He stated there would be
traffic impact on this area and that the City had not conducted a traffic study. He stated the
developer's traffic data had not been confirmed. He stated there would be impacts on the residential
area due to the nature of the proposed development. He expressed a concern about the impact of the
development on property values. He asked that the "hazards" of this type of development be looked
w
September 7, 2004
at more carefully. He stated he would like to see more study of traffic, noise, safety and other
impacts on the residential neighborhood.
Koichi Matsumura, 4021 Mesa Verde Street, expressed concerns and objections to the annexation
of Feather Ridge. He stated he had attended all neighborhood meetings and reviewed materials
posted on the City's website and had concluded that it was incompatible to the surrounding
neighborhood. He stated his major concerns were increased traffic, safety ofneighborhood children,
neighborhood security, noise, operating hours, and asset devaluation. He asked that Council take
into consideration the families living in the neighborhood.
Tom Welch, 4033 Mesa Verde Street, stated a private drive off of Zeigler Road was the main point
of access onto the site. He stated Woodland Park Estates area was zoned R-L and presented visual
information regarding the area. He stated this annexation and the roadway would abut the Woodland
Park community. He expressed concerns relating to compatibility. He stated there was commercial
property on only one side of the site, that the drive to the property would pass and impact many
homes, that the perimeter of the annexation site was 3,575 feet and that the entire west side (641
feet) directly abutted Woodland Park, and that an additional 1,215 feet of the roadway directly
abutted Woodland Park. He asked the Council to consider the large impact of the annexation (more
than 52%) on the abutting R-L property. He stated this property should be zoned to match the
predominant neighboring parcels (R-L). He stated U-E zoning would enable incompatible uses that
would be significantly detrimental to the abutting R-L properties.
Julie Baker, co-owner of the Feather Ridge property, addressed the "inaccuracies" in the statements
that had been made. She stated there had been 96 responses to a -mails asking people about potential
events and that the average number of users for an event would be 150. She stated the property
would have to be annexed to the City and that all of the qualifications had been met for annexation.
She stated this was a voluntary annexation and that Code requirements had to be met. She stated
there would be 200 people maximum on the property and that events would be seasonal with more
taking place in the summer. She stated many comparisons had been made to the hotels and that
those comparisons were not accurate. She stated the maximum occupancy would be 450 and that
such occupancy would be an exception. She stated the square footage would be 7,500. She stated
there was a large hedge between the roadway and the homes along the road. She stated "huge
concessions" had been made at two neighborhood meetings to move the road over. She stated there
was a 30 foot public right-of-way that went into effect when the road was annexed. She stated it was
important to separate the annexation issues from the PDP issues.
Jennifer McKee, 3209 Yellowstone Circle, stated even 150 cars would have impacts even with the
hedge. She stated the neighborhood was fighting to keep its children safe and to retain its "peace
of mind." She stated there would be a paved road serving a reception center at which alcohol would
be served. She stated this driveway would pass within feet of her home and 14 other homes. She
stated many events would occur on days when children would be at home playing in backyards. She
70
September 7, 2004
stated the neighborhood had requested that if this is to be done that a solid masonry wall be built
between the "speedway and the hedge"to keep traffic separate from backyards. She asked for
Council's help in fighting this "injustice."
Councilmember Tharp asked for confirmation that the issue at this time was the annexation of the
property and whether this met all of the requirements for annexation. City Attorney Roy replied in
the affirmative and stated First Reading of the zoning Ordinance was also being considered.
Councilmember Tharp stated it appeared that part of the concern was that the Code had been
changed to allow this kind of events center use in the U-E zone. She stated the issue at this time was
the annexation and the zoning and not the development of that particular piece of property as an
events center.
Mayor Martinez asked if the neighborhood issues that had been presented would be addressed during
the development review. Shepard replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Tharp asked if the Council could choose to zone the property something other than
Urban Estates. Shepard replied in the affirmative and stated would require an amendment to the
Structure Plan Map.
Councilmember Tharp asked about the consequences of changing the zoning and the Structure Plan
Map. Shepard stated the R-L zone district was not a City Plan zone and was a zone that was retained
in 1997 at the time of adoption of City Plan and implementation of the new zone districts. He stated
the R-L zone was designed for existing neighborhoods in the built-up part of the City and that it was
his opinion that the R-L zone was not appropriate because it would not implement City Plan policies.
Councilmember Tharp asked if there would be another category that could be considered besides
Urban Estates. Shepard stated the Planning and Zoning Board discussed that issue with relation to
L-M-N zoning. He stated it was staff s opinion that the L-M-N zone would allow too much density
and would permit a diverse range of land uses. He stated there was no zone between U-E and L-M-
N that would be a City Plan zone district.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if the Council could change the zoning if it felt that U-E was not
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Shepard replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if it would be permitted to zone the property R-L. Shepard stated
the Council could zone the property R-L. He stated zone districts did not always reflect the zoning
of the abutting property.
Councilmember Hamrick asked what would be permitted in the R-L zone. Shepard stated it was
designed to have few land uses rather than mixed uses and was a "holdover" from the 1965 zoning
71
September 7, 2004
ordinance to preserve older neighborhoods. He stated it was not intended to apply to vacant ground.
He stated R-L could contain single-family, schools, churches, child care centers, etc. and that the
minimum lot size would be 6,000 square feet. He stated there were no minimum lot sizes in the new
urbanism zones. He stated R-L was "basically a holding zone."
Councilmember Hamrick stated the Planning and Zoning Board had discussed L-M-N zoning and
the potential for a neighborhood center or other uses. He asked if there would be a possibility for
practical applications for such uses in that location. Shepard stated the private market would
determine the feasibility of practical applications.
Councilmember Hamrick asked what the T-Transition zoning would be used for. Shepard stated it
was holding zone used when the property owner desired to annex to the City and did not know what
zone to request at the time of annexation. He stated the City was required to remove a parcel from
the Transition zone upon request of an applicant within 60 days. He stated there were no permitted
uses in the Transition zone.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if the property could be zoned T until further data and information
was obtained. Shepard stated he believed that this could be done.
Councilmember Hamrick asked about the maximum occupancy that would be allowed under the U-E
zone with a variance. Shepard stated there would be no maximum people capacity and that the
maximum would be regulated by the size of the structure.
Councilmember Hamrick asked what the size of the structure would be. Shepard stated would be
a development question. He stated there would be a cap on the building size and a minimum lot size.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if there could be a variance in which staff could allow additional
capacity. Shepard stated staff could not waive anything and that the Planning and Zoning Board
would do that through the modification process.
City Attorney Roy stated he did not believe that the T zone would be appropriate because it was
intended for properties for which there were no specific and immediate plans for development. He
stated the property owner in this case had plans for development. He suggested that the zone that
had been recommended was consistent with the Structure Plan and that there were criteria in the
Land Use Code that the Council should use in deciding whether to amend the Structure Plan so as
to allow for a different zone district (whether the plan was in need of amendment and whether the
proposed amendment was more consistent with the vision of the intended use for the area). He
stated under the annexation laws that there was a sixty-day period of time after the passage of the
annexation ordinance for placement of the property in a zone district. He suggested that rather than
placing the property in the T zone that the Council could postpone the zoning ordinance in order to
gather whatever information Council believed was needed.
72
September 7, 2004
Councilmember Kastein asked if the proposed road was currently a gravel access road. Shepard
replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the road would be improved regardless of the type of development
that would occur. Shepard stated the developer was talking about paving the road.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the road would be paved regardless of whether the development
was under the R-L, L-M-N or other zone because this would be the access for the property. Shepard
stated it was the access to the property and that under different development scenarios it would be
required only to support a fire truck. He stated could be done through an all weather surface i.e.,
a road base/gravel mixture.
Councilmember Kastein asked ifthe road would be subject to City Code provisions relating to traffic
enforcement. Shepard replied in the negative.
Councilmember Kastein asked if that was the case currently or if it would be the same in the future.
Shepard stated it was not currently subject to the City Code.
Councilmember Kastein asked what would happen with the road when the property was developed
as part of a PDP. Shepard stated he was not entirely familiar with the proposed development at this
time and that it was his understanding that it was proposed that the road would remain private and
would be paved. He stated it would be shifted 30 feet to the south and that there were proposals to
provide some sound abatement through landscaping or fencing. He stated the roadway was
dedicated on the plats as right-of-way and that it would be the option of the City whether or not to
require that the roadway be public and maintained and enforced by the City.
Councilmember Kastein asked if that issue would be discussed at the time of the PDP. Shepard
stated was correct and that the City would have more information from the Engineering Department
at that time.
City Attorney Roy stated after further review he had determined that an annexation must be zoned
within 90 days after the annexation ordinance became effective.
Councilmember W eitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adopt Resolution
2004-108.
Councilmember Bertschy stated this was an annexation procedure. He stated while he did not
support the addition of the use to the U-E zone that he did support the annexation. He stated he
believed that this area should be annexed.
73
September 7, 2004
Councilmember Hamrick stated he supported the annexation and that there would be further
discussion regarding the zoning.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated this was the Resolution regarding the finding of facts.
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 made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt Ordinance
No. 141, 2004 on First Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt
Ordinance No. 142, 2004 on First Reading.
Councilmember Hamrick stated he would not support the motion for U-E zoning due to the changes
that had been made to allow small scale events centers in that zone. He stated he did not believe that
the zoning would be compatible with the existing neighborhood and would hurt neighborhood
character and property values.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she supported the motion. She stated there had been a great deal
of discussion on this issue. She stated this matter was considered by the Planning and Zoning Board.
She stated the development issues had nothing to do with the annexation at this time and should be
discussed during consideration of the PDP. She stated there were some misunderstandings about
compatibility and that it was necessary to look at the "big picture." She stated it was necessary to
recognize all of the work that had gone into consideration and that it was appropriate to move
forward. She stated it was "total speculation" at this time about what would happen with the
development.
Councilmember Kastein stated he did not understand Councilmember Hamrick's comments about
what the development's impacts would be. He asked what those impacts would be.
Councilmember Hamrick stated the neighborhood had addressed safety and health issues and that
those were his primary concerns. He stated a "small scale event center" would create a disturbance
when there were 400-600 people driving down a single lane road in close proximity to an existing
neighborhood with abutting backyards. He stated such a use could work in other areas and that he
did not believe that it would in this area. He expressed concern that this use would mean
74
September 7, 2004
consumption of alcohol followed by driving on this private road at the conclusion of the event. He
stated he believed that the U-E zone was not appropriate in this situation.
Councilmember Kastein stated Councilmember Hamrick was "speaking in specifics" when the
specifics were not yet known. He stated those specifics were still to be determined. He stated the
zoning district would follow the Structure Plan and that it would be consistent. He stated all of the
issues would be solved in a later process dealing with the PDP. He stated "all of the potential harms
were merely hypothetical." He stated many 120 units would be allowed on the 15 acres of property
under L-M-N zoning. He stated U-E was created to be a buffer between urban living and rural living
or natural areas. He stated this zoning "fits exactly."
Councilmember Hamrick asked if a liquor store or adult bookstore should be allowed on the site.
He stated the specifics were not known but that the general overall use and implications were known
regarding allowing a business like that next to a neighborhood.
Councilmember Tharp stated U-E "sounded good" for that area. She stated the addition of small
scale events centers as a use in the U-E zone had created the problem. She stated it was difficult to
anticipate how the event center was going to develop or to answer all the questions about size,
access, speeds, etc. at this point. She stated the Council had a choice to zone L-M-N, which would
mean higher density housing. She stated she did not believe that this would be more compatible with
the neighborhood and that in fact it could have a more detrimental effect on the neighborhood. She
stated when the development plan came forward that the issues could be addressed.
Councilmember Roy asked if the Council was under any obligation with regard to any future
development proposals on this property because of any actions that had been taken by the Council.
City Attorney Roy stated because the zoning code had been amended, placement in the U-E zone
meant an obligation to entertain development proposals that would be permitted uses and to review
them on a case -by -case basis under the standards contained in the Land Use Code.
Councilmember Roy asked if any prior action of Council had obligated the Council to pursuing any
particular use or development. City Attorney Roy stated the above was the best answer that he could
give at this point.
Councilmember Bertschy stated the dilemma was the difference in the permitted uses for L-M-N and
U-E. He stated he was concerned with changing from U-E zoning because there were several huge
tracts of land that had not yet been annexed and zoned. He stated he would not like to see a
"downzoning" that would allow additional uses on this parcel that may not be desired or contribute
in the future to greatly increased density on parcels that had not yet been annexed. He stated it was
not the intention of the City to increase the overall density in that area. He stated he believed that
U-E was appropriate and that this was the density "to work with."
75
September 7, 2004
Mayor Martinez stated he would support the motion. He stated this discussion took place "every
time something new comes in." He stated there was a process in place to deal with development
issues and work out problems. He encouraged people to take advantage of that process to work
through development issues.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Kastein, Martinez, Tharp
and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Hamrick and Roy.
THE MOTION CARRIED
("Secretary's Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point.)
Options for the City's Match to Fund a Tenant Based,
Pilot Rental Assistance Program, Option 3 Adopted.
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
The City will use $169, 651 of existing funds to provide a local cash match for a two-year Tenant
Based, Pilot Rental Assistance Program. There are no ongoing expenses.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On July 6, Council approved the use ofmonies in the Affordable Housing Trust fund - $169, 651 over
a two yearperiod. Subsequently, on July 20, 2004, Council directed that this item. be reconsidered.
The Colorado Division of Housing ("DOH') approached the City and the Fort Collins Housing
Authority ("FCHA)regardingaTenantBased,PilotRentalAssistanceProgram("Program')for
a two-year pilot period. DOH, with the lead of anew director, is focusing on responding quickly
to changing local market conditions for affordable housing. Consequently, DOH identified three
communities with unique needs: Colorado Springs, Denver Metro area, Fort Collins/Loveland. The
identified unique needs include double digit rental market vacancy rates, financially challenged low-
income affordable housing projects, demand exceeding capacity in homeless shelters, and large
waiting lists for deep subsidy programs like Section 8 vouchers.
The State Housing Board has committed $2.8 million ofDOH money to these three communities;
Fort Collins/Loveland is to receive $465,000. The funds are for a two-year, stop -gap, rental
assistance program that would target between 35 and 70 families earning 0-30% of Area Median
76
September 7, 2004
Income, working families in shelters, homeless individuals andfamilies, those on Section 8 waiting
lists, and other local preferences to be defined. The funding will provide rental assistance, security
deposit assistance, case management for self-sufficiency and project administration.
The economy has created a great burden on extremely low-income families. Staff research shows
that Housing and Urban Development ("HUD') economists do not foresee the market changing
until mid-2006. The Program's expected lifetime is two years and participants will be required to
sign contracts indicating their understanding that the assistance will not continue beyond that time.
Participants will also be required to participate in goal setting and intensive case management in
order to help them become more selfsufficient during that time. As a family becomes more self-
sufficient and its income increases, the amount ofsubsidy will decrease, thus freeing up subsidyfor
other families.
The FCHA negotiated the Fort Collins community local cash contribution with DOHto be $169, 651
which can be dispersed semi-annually beginning no later than September 2004. Each of the semi-
annual payments would be $42, 412.75, for a total of $169, 651 over the two yearperiod. The FCHA
will be the administrative agent for this Program and the funding will be dispersed to FCHA.
City Council approved Resolution 2004-045 in March 2004, and directed the City Manager to
identify a source for funding the cash portion of the local contribution that will be required by the
DOHfrom the City. There are three options to fund the required local cash contribution
OPTIONS.
1. Affordable Housing Trust
Attached (AttachmentA) is a cash flow schedule for affordable housing that includes the withdrawal
of monies to fund the DOH required local cash match over the two year period. Based on cash flow
estimates, there would not be a significant effect on the Affordable Housing Trust balance. No
appropriation is required as historically, any year-end balance is reappropriated for use in the
following year.
2. General Fund Undesignated Reserves
The estimated General Fund reserves available to fund the required contribution are currently
$3,564,834 this includes $2,392,279 which is the TABOR overage for 2003. A Council approved
appropriation would be required (First Reading of Ordinance No. 143, 2004, Appropriating Prior
Year Reserves in the General Fund for Matching Funds for a Tenant Based, Pilot Rental Assistance
Program) to use the reserves for this purpose. The total amount required for this two yearprogram
($169, 651) could be appropriated and encumbered. Monies required for each of the four payment
periods would be released per the disbursement schedule.
77
September 7, 2004
3. Community Opportunity Account
The current balance in the Community Opportunity Account is $279,980. This money is currently
appropriated for use. Each year, $190,200 of ongoing funds is added to the account. Any end of
year balance is reappropriated for use in the following year and is added to the $190,200. No
appropriation is required.
RECOMMENDATION:
Since the Program is an affordable housing program, it would be appropriate to use Affordable
Housing Trust moniesfor the two yearperiod. No appropriation is needed because balances in the
Trust are reappropriated for use in the coming year. The use of Affordable Housing Trust monies
for the Program will not have a significant effect on the Trust's cash flow.
If Council selects Option 2, the appropriation ordinance included with this Agenda Item Summary
should be adopted. If Council selects Option 1 or Option 3, no additional action by ordinance is
necessary.
The Council previously considered this item on July 6, 2004, and voted 3-2 (Nays: Councilmembers
Bertschy and Tharp; Councilmembers Hamrick and Roy were absent) in favor of Option #1.
However, at its meeting on July 20, 2004, the Council agreed to reconsider the item, which is why
it is being presented again for Council's consideration. "
Interim City Manager Atteberry introduced the agenda item.
Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager, presented background information regarding the agenda item.
She stated there was a request to reconsider the July 6 action of the City Council and that the item
was therefore back for Council consideration. She stated the issue was the source of funding for the
tenant based housing share for Fort Collins. She stated 12 families had executed leases and that 33
families had completed the initial assessment.
Councilmember Tharp asked if there was money in General Fund undesignated reserves that could
be used for this contribution. Jones replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Tharp asked if there was money in the Community Opportunity Account that could
be used. Jones replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Tharp asked how much the City's contribution to affordable housing had been
reduced in the last three years. Jones stated funding was reduced by about $268,000 in ongoing
monies for housing production last year (in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund).
W
September 7, 2004
Councilmember Tharp stated this was a new program instituted by the State in which they would
contribute $465,666 and the City's contribution would be roughly $170,000. She stated if the
affordable housing contribution had already been reduced, she was concerned that if money was
taken out of the housing trust reserves, the City would in effect be again reducing the contribution
to affordable housing. Jones stated at the end of the program there would always be a lag. She
stated for various reasons, only about 27% of the allocation was spent each year in spite of funding
commitments. She stated there was a consistent pattern over the last 10 years of spending about 27%
of the available dollars. She stated staff's recommendation that this was an affordable housing issue
and that the funds should come from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. She stated this would still
be a "healthy fund" in terms of available monies. She stated during the budget exceptions process
the Council would be looking at many needs and commitments for which Community Opportunity
monies and reserves may be needed. She stated dollars could not be used from the affordable
housing monies for those other needs. She stated the overall issue was the most reasonable place
for the use of available dollars. She stated the dollars could come from any of the suggested places
for this program and that staffbelieved that the most logical place was the Affordable Housing Trust
Fund because of past experience with the cash flow.
Councilmember Tharp stated the money in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund was committed for
housing projects. Jones stated there were commitments for the funds. She stated when there was
a commitment that it did not always come to fruition.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the discussion was about three choices for the source of funding
for affordable housing. She stated it was logical for the money to come from the Affordable Housing
Trust Fund. She stated based on cash flow that there would not be a significant effect on the Trust
Fund balance. She asked how General Fund undesignated reserves were usually used. Jones stated
those monies were typically used during the budget process for one-time expenses (unanticipated
expenses such as repair and renovation of the City Park pool). She stated the reserves were often
used for one-time uses such as upcoming Poudre Fire Authority funding issues. She stated reserves
could also be used for unanticipated emergency needs.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the third choice was using the Community Opportunity Account
and asked what was usually done with those funds. Jones stated the account was used for specific
projects that would benefit the community. She stated the most recent use was to respond to the
West Nile virus.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated this debate had taken place six weeks ago and that it was logical
to get money from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund because this was an appropriate place to keep
track of affordable housing projects. She stated using the Trust Fund would not impact affordable
housing and that should there be a need in the future that Council could use the Community
Opportunity Account or reserves. She questioned why this discussion was taking place again when
it was appropriate to fund the program from the account that was set up for affordable housing.
79
September 7, 2004
Councilmember Tharp stated the City had a commitment to affordable housing. She stated the
commitment involved projects funded by the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. She stated this was
a new opportunity for the City to add a small portion of funding to a State grant. She stated taking
the money from the Trust Fund would lessen the commitment to affordable housing.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the Trust Fund money was not being used and was "sitting there"
over the next two years.
Councilmember Tharp stated the money had been committed for projects and that using the money
would subtract from the money available for affordable housing. She stated the money in the Trust
Fund would be redesignated for additional housing projects and efforts in the future.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated it was appropriate to use the Trust Fund for affordable housing and
that it was not being used for something else.
Councilmember Tharp stated this was a new program and that additional money should be
committed to affordable housing.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated money should be committed to available projects regardless of
whether this is a new program.
Mayor Martinez asked if it was true that the money was just "sitting there." Jones stated the money
was committed to projects and that over the past 10 years only about 25% of the dollars were actually
used each year. She stated the dollars would roll over to the next year. She stated ultimately the
monies used for housing production would be $170,000 less if the money was used for this purpose.
She stated the $170,000 would be used for affordable housing rental assistance and that it was a
legitimate use. She stated the monies were in the Trust Fund and would potentially continue to roll
over for many years.
Councilmember Bertschy stated one goal for affordable housing was to build up a revolving fund
for a land bank program and that this was back to "ground zero due to budget shortfalls." He stated
another goal was to build up affordable housing reserves to be a revolving fund "to take the pressure
off the General Fund." He stated anytime money was spent out of the Trust Fund that the future
potential was being cut back. He stated he was more interested in funding from the Community
Opportunity Account because of the uniqueness of this program and because there would be a semi-
annual payment.
Councilmember Weitkunat commented that one question that should be asked is how to spend
dollars that were available in accounts. She stated there were goals and objectives in affordable
housing and that those also included affordable rental. She stated money should not come from
another account if there was money available in a designated account.
:1
September 7, 2004
Councilmember Bertschy asked if a payment had already been made. Jones stated the Housing
Authority had made a payment and that no money had been paid from City accounts.
Councilmember Weitkunat questioned whether a motion was needed if funds would be taken from
the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. City Attorney Roy stated a motion would be needed if the
Council wished to change the action that had been taken previously. He stated adoption of Option
2 would require the adoption of an Ordinance.
Councilmember Tharp made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to adopt Option 3
(funding from the Community Opportunity Account).
Councilmember Kastein stated he thought it was a bad idea to adopt that option. He stated there
would be an increase in affordable housing in the "big picture" regardless of the source of funding.
He stated rental assistance was a part of affordable housing. He stated taking $170,000 from the
Trust Fund would mean receiving another $450,000 in return. He stated taking the money from the
General Fund would say that affordable housing was now the "very highest priority right now." He
stated he did not agree with doing that. He stated there was a budget exceptions process that
examined new programs and new resources and that would be the appropriate time to make changes
to the budget. He stated there were funding needs for museum, traffic calming, Boys and Girls Club,
bilingual programs, other recreational facilities, a human rights coordinator, street oversizing and
police staffing. He stated affordable housing was not the highest priority at this time. He stated
taking the money from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund would say that this was the highest
priority within affordable housing right now. He stated rental rates were at an all time low and that
the need was not that great for rental assistance. He stated this was not the number one priority in
the City.
Councilmember Roy stated he would agree with Councilmember Kastein if this were a program
instituted by the City. He stated this was an opportunity that arose because of a State instituted
program. He stated rental costs were still out of reach for many families and the need for those
families was dire. He stated this would be a two-year pilot project partnering with the State to
leverage great awards. He stated if this became a continuing program that it would not be funded
from the General Fund. He stated this was an opportunity that should be funded from the
Community Opportunity Fund.
Mayor Martinez stated the rental assistance program would still exist regardless of the funding
source for this program.
Councilmember Roy stated this was an unusual opportunity rather than a program that the City was
choosing to create.
September 7, 2004
Mayor Martinez stated the State would still provide funding regardless of the source of the City
funding. He questioned why this issue was being debated and stated this should have been a
administrative decision rather than a Council decision. He stated the money should be spent from
the specific line item budget that had already been created.
Councilmember Tharp stated her primary concern was that the affordable housing budget had been
cut over the past three years. She stated she would prefer to take the relatively small amount of
money from the Community Opportunity Fund for the next two years rather than cut the Trust Fund
further.
Mayor Martinez stated the affordable housing budget was not the only area that had been cut and that
this would take away from those other areas of need.
Councilmember Tharp stated the affordable housing budget had been cut significantly over the last
three years and that this would be an additional cut in the amount committed to affordable housing.
Councilmember Kastein stated last year $520,000 was cut from Police Services.
Mayor Martinez stated there was still a fire station that could not be opened.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the question was how the City Council spent money and where
the money should come from. She stated this was a time of financial uncertainty and questioning
about the sales tax. She stated this discussion showed that there were differing philosophies on the
Council about where available dollars should be spent.
Mayor Martinez stated he viewed this as a "classic example of micromanaging."
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Roy and Tharp.
Nays: Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez and Weitkunat.
THE MOTION CARRIED
82
September 7, 2004
Items Relating to a Citizen -Initiated Ordinance Proposing
the Elimination of the City Sales Tax on Grocery Food Adopted
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Option l:
A. Resolution 2004-101 Submitting Proposed Citizen -Initiated Ordinance No. 002,2004, Relating
to the Elimination of Sales Tax on Grocery Food to a Vote of the Registered City Electors at
the Next Regular Municipal Election on April 5, 2005.
Option 2:
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 2004, Calling a Special Municipal Election to Be Held
in Conjunction with the November 2, 2004 Larimer County General Election.
B. Resolution 2004-109 Submitting Proposed City -Initiated Ordinance No. 145, 2004, Relating
to the Elimination of City Sales Tax on Grocery Food to a Vote of the Registered City Electors
at a Special Municipal Election to be Held on November 2, 2004.
C. Resolution 2004-110 Submitting a Proposed 0.27%Increase in the City's Sales and Use Tax
Rate to a Vote of the Registered City Electors at a Special Municipal Election to be Held on
November 2. 2004.
This item proposes two options for placing a citizen -initiated measure to eliminate the sales tax on
groceryfood on the ballot. Option 1 would place the item on the regular municipal election ballot
on April 5, 2005 as a citizen -initiated measure. Option 2 would place the item on the November 2,
2004 ballot as a Council -initiated measure.
In addition, pursuant to Council direction at the August 17, 2004 meeting, staff has prepared
another measure which could be placed on the November 2, 2004 ballot proposing a 0.27% increase
in the City's sales and use tax rate on all taxable items except food. The purpose of this measure
would be to offset the revenues that would be lost if the sales tax was removed from groceryfood.
This new tax would take effect only ifvoters approve the elimination of the sales tax on groceryfood.
91
September 7, 2004
BACKGROUND
The City Clerk's Office has certified a sufficient number of signatures on an initiative petition
received on July 19, 2004. Under Article X of the City Charter, 3,902 signatures of registered
electors (at least 15%of the total ballots cast in the last regular City election) are required to place
an initiative on a special election ballot. Upon presentation of an initiative petition certified as to
sufficiency by the City Clerk, the Council must either adopt the proposed ordinance without
alteration or submit the proposed measure in the form petitioned for, to the registered electors of
the city. At its meeting on August 17, 2004, the Council voted unanimously to not adopt the initiated
ordinance because of the severe, detrimental impacts that passage of the measure would have on
City revenues and services.
Therefore, the Council must refer this measure to the ballot. ArticleX, Section I ofthe City Charter
normally requires that, ifapetition requests a special election (which this petition does), the Council
must call a special election to be held on a Tuesday within 120 days of the presentation of the
certified petition to the Council. However, another section of the City Charter (Article X, Section
6(e)), states that not more than one special election on citizen -initiated measures may be held within
any 12 month period. Because a special City election has just been held on August 10, 2004, any
new citizen -initiated measure must be placed on the April, 2005 ballot.
At theAugust 17, 2004 Council meeting, thepetition representatives requested that Council consider
placing this measure on the November ballot as a Council -initiated measure because the Charter
provision which prohibits more than two special elections within a 12-month period does not apply
to measures initiated or referred by the City Council. In order to further consider this request, the
Council chose to postpone the Resolution placing the measure on the April ballot and directed the
City Attorney to prepare an alternative resolution, together with an ordinance calling a special
election to be held in conjunction with the November 2, 2004 General Election, which would enable
the Council to place this measure on the November ballot as a Council -initiated measure.
Additionally, the Council directed City staff to prepare a tax measure that could be considered by
the voters at the same time as the measure that would eliminate the sales tax on groceryfood. This
additional measure would increase the tax on taxable items other than groceryfood if the initiated
measure was adopted by the voters, and it would increase that tax rate incrementally to the extent
necessary to offset the loss in revenues that the City would otherwise experiencefrom the elimination
of the base tax on groceryfood. Option 2 would place this measure on the November ballot, along
with the proposed elimination of the sales tax on groceryfood.
In anticipation of the possibility that the initiated measure eliminating the tax on groceryfood will
be placed on the November ballot, the petition representatives agreed at the August 17, 2004,
Council meeting that the voters' consideration of the measure in November would alleviate the need
M
September 7, 2004
to place the matter before the voters again in April, 2005, regardless of the outcome of the vote in
November. Therefore, the Resolution placing the initiated measure on the November ballot is
contingent upon the petition representatives' execution ofa written form withdrawing their citizen
initiative if the measure they have proposed is submitted to the electors as a Council -initiated
measure on November 2. 2004.
Staff is recommending that the measure proposing the elimination of the sales tax on grocery food
be placed on the Aril 5. 2005 ballot as a citizen -initiated measure. Staff is making this
recommendation because, following the August 17, 2004, meeting, staff learned that there is a
covenant contained in a 2003 sales and use tax revenue bond ordinance which, in effect, prohibits
the repeal or amendment ofanyportion ofthe City Codeprovisions establishing the City's sales and
use tax ifsuch action would diminish the City's sales and use tax revenues, since those revenues are
pledged to the payment of the sales and use tax bonds. This prohibition remains in place until the
bonds are paid infull, which is presently scheduled to occur on December], 2009. Therefore, staff
believes that Council should notplace the proposed elimination ofthe sales tax on food on the ballot
as a Council -initiated measure since that measure, if approved by the voters, would violate the
covenant in the 2003 bond ordinance. "
Interim City Manager Atteberry stated staff would be making a presentation and would be available
to answer any questions.
City Attorney Roy stated this item dealt with how the Council should respond to a citizen -initiated
Ordinance that resulted from the circulation of a petition that had been deemed by the City Clerk to
be sufficient in the number of signatures needed to present the measure to the registered electors of
the City. He stated the substance of the initiated Ordinance was that it would, if approved by the
voters, amend the City Code so as to phase out over a period of three years the City's sales tax on
grocery food. He stated the Council, at its last meeting, decided not to adopt the Ordinance as
written, which was one of the options available to the Council when an initiated measure was
presented with sufficient numbers of signatures. He stated the only other alternative available to the
Council under the City Charter was to present the matter to the City voters. He stated a question had
arisen as to whether it should be presented to the voters in November of this year at a special election
to be held in conjunction with the General Election or whether it should be held in April 2005 at the
regular City election. He stated unless the Council chose to convert this measure to a City -initiated
measure that in his opinion, it must be placed on the April 2005 regular City election ballot because
of the provision in the City Charter that stated except for Council -initiated items no more than one
special election could be held in a 12 month period. He stated a special election was held on August
10, 2004. He stated at the last meeting Council directed the City Attorney's Office to work with the
Finance Department and the City Manager to prepare for Council consideration two alternatives: (1)
submission to the voters at the November election, or (2) submission at the April election. He stated
if the matter was presented at the November election, an Ordinance would need to be adopted calling
the election. He stated staff was also instructed to prepare ballot language for an additional measure
r-9
September 7, 2004
that would present to the voters a so-called "replacement tax" to offset the revenues that would be
lost to the City if the initiated measure was adopted. He noted that the replacement tax would be
phased in over a period of three years. He stated the City staff was recommending that the item be
placed on the April as a citizen -initiated measure. He stated the primary reason for that was that a
review of documents related to the measure, located a sales and use tax revenue refunding bond
Ordinance for bonds issued in 2003 that included a covenant stating that the City would not take any
action to amend or repeal certain other Ordinances in a way that would diminish the revenues
pledged to satisfy those bonds. He stated those pledged revenues consisted primarily ofthe sales and
use tax revenues. He stated one of the Ordinances that was not to be amended or repealed was the
Ordinance that restated in the City Code the section that the initiative proponents sought to amend.
He stated it was his opinion that approval of the tax reduction measure would violate the covenant
in that bond Ordinance and that it would be inappropriate for the City Council of its own initiative,
to propose such an action to the electors of the City. He stated there was a question regarding the
City's ability to implement this Ordinance at least until the bonds were paid in full even if it was
approved by the voters. He stated the case law indicated that an initiated measure must be submitted
to the voters even if there were questions about its constitutionality. He stated the question was then
who should place the measure on the ballot and when. He stated staff believed that it must go on
the ballot and that it should be placed on the ballot as a citizen -initiated measure in April 2005.
Mark Brophy, 1109 West Harmony Road, stated in July the Council adopted a Resolution to give
some "giveaways" to the Bayer Properties. He stated a provision was noted in the agreement with
the bond developer that stated every year the "giveaway" would need to be appropriated by the City
Council. He stated the City Attorney indicated at that time that the Council was "deliberately
averting the Taxpayer Bill of Rights" which did not allow a multi -year fiscal obligation. He stated
a Councilmember asked what would happen if the moneywas not appropriated and the CityAttomey
responded that there would be no obligation to pay the subsidies because TABOR required voter
approval for any multi -year financial obligation. He stated he believed that the City would be under
no obligation to pay the revenue bonds either. He stated the covenant was a multi -year financial
obligation if the Council "agreed that it would never cut taxes." He stated many Councilmembers
campaigned on making government smaller and then agreed not to cut taxes via the covenant after
getting into office. He stated the covenant was "null and void because it was against the Colorado
Constitution." He stated the Council should look at the intent of the Charter provisions and that the
intent of the provision prohibiting more than one special election in a 12 month period was to "avoid
having a well organized group of people who goes in here when there is hardly any turnout and gets
their initiative passed." He stated the November election would have the biggest turnout in 50 years
and that the measure should be submitted to that ballot because of the Charter provision that
provided for submission to the voters within 120 days of the petition being certified. He stated there
was no reason to "pretend" that the conflicting Charter provisions could not be reconciled.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, encouraged the Council to place this issue on the
November ballot. He stated was the intent of the petitioners and that part of the language on the
September 7, 2004
petition talked about repealing part of the food tax on January 1, 2005. He questioned whether the
measure would be made retroactive if it was voted on in April. He stated the only way for the
initiative to "make sense" would be for it to be placed on the November ballot. He stated the issue
of the bond covenant was a "red herring." He stated the issue was the "sovereignty" of the citizens
of the City. He stated the Charter provided that the citizens had "absolute legislative authority" over
the City. He stated the citizens would have the right to repeal all of the sales taxes. He stated the
pledge of revenues had "sold away the sovereignty of the citizens of Fort Collins." He stated the
citizens would react negatively when they found out what had been done with regard to the revenue
bonds. He stated there was no reason not to place this issue on the November ballot. He stated with
regard to the legality of the measure that it would make no difference whether it was placed on the
November or April ballot. He questioned the language of the covenant and stated it probably did not
prohibit the submission to the voters of a measure repealing the sales taxes. He stated the matter
should be placed on the November ballot.
MaryBrophy, 1109 West Harmony Road, urged placement of the initiative on the November ballot.
She stated she was "shocked" to learn that the City made a decision not to decrease taxes when the
voters did not vote on it. She stated the Council should be able to reverse that decision and that
bonds could be renegotiated if the taxpayers wanted the taxes decreased. She stated the State
Constitution provided for the right of citizens to petition and called for no more than 60 days to
elapse after the petition was certified. She stated the State statutes provided that no more than 150
days would elapse and that there was only one exception (when the same ballot issue came forward
again it could not be voted on for two years). She stated in the case of Margolis v. The District Court
in 1981 the Court stated initiative and referendum were fundamental rights of a republican form of
government which the people have reserved unto themselves. She stated the law must be liberally
construed in favor of the right of the people to exercise the initiative and referendum. She stated the
April ballot would be confusing if there were requests for decreases and increases and replacement
taxes. She stated this would also create "messier budgeting" for 2005. She stated delaying the
measure until April would take away the benefit of"taxpayer relief' and would give the City a little
bit more sales tax. She stated the intent of the City Charter was not to put this off since an election
was coming up. She stated she believed that the intent of the Charter was to avoid having special
interest groups put multiple measures on the ballot at times of low voter turnout.
John Knezovich, 1205 Green Street, stated the City Council was in a "no win situation." He asked
if the citizens passed the sales tax bonds in 1986 or if it was a Council -initiated measure. He stated
he would like to see a method to place the matter on the November ballot but that he did not think
that it would be possible. He stated the Charter clearly spelled out that there could only be one
special election in a 12 month period. He stated he would not think that the Council would be
comfortable placing a measure on the ballot that would contradict a bond Ordinance and violate the
bond rating. He stated the April ballot would be complicated and that this would likely be a ballot
issue "whether it was relevant or not." He stated another ballot item could be a replacement tax to
replace the lost revenues. He stated there would be two key Building Community Choices quarter
LIN
September 7, 2004
cent sales taxes expiring in 2006 that must be voted on in 2005. He stated the benefit of placement
on the April ballot was that there would six months of lead time for the Council and the citizens to
debate the issues. He stated losing $6 million of sales tax when there was a rebate program in place
was not a trade-off that this City could afford when coupled with the "new retailing" in Loveland.
He stated anyone supporting the sales tax cut must be able to say what should be cut or how the
revenue would be replaced.
Executive Session Authorized
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adjourn into
Executive Session to discuss legal issues pursuant to Section 2-31(a)(2) of the City Code.
Councilmember Roy stated he would not support going into Executive Session. He stated this was
about a citizen initiative and that regardless of the difficulties of a "frank discussion" he would
support having the discussion in open session.
Councilmember Tharp stated if there were real concerns requiring the advice of the City Attorney
that would be an appropriate use of the Executive Session.
Councilmember Hamrick stated he would not support the motion. He stated these issues had been
discussed for awhile via e-mail and that the discussion should take place in public. He stated
discussing the matter further after the Executive Session would mean fewer people listening to the
discussion.
Mayor Martinez asked what "legal issues" had already been discussed.
Councilmember Hamrick stated the issues related to whether or not Council could refer this measure
and whether or not it would violate the bonding Ordinance.
Mayor Martinez stated it was unknown what other legal questions the Council might have that
should be discussed in confidentiality with the City Attorney.
Councilmember Kastein stated he as a Councilmember acted with the highest regard to the law and
the disclosures that needed to be made to the citizens while acting in the interest of the City. He
stated he would vote to go into Executive Session.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Kastein, Martinez, Tharp
and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Hamrick and Roy.
THE MOTION CARRIED
September 7, 2004
("Secretary's Note: The Council adjourned into Executive Session at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened
following the Executive Session at 9:35 p.m.)
Items Relating to a Citizen -Initiated Ordinance Proposing
the Elimination of the City Sales Tax on Grocery Food, Continued.
Mayor Martinez stated this agenda item would continue with Council questions.
Councilmember Hamrick asked about the bonding covenant and the language relating to
"diminishing of revenues." He asked how that would be defined. City Attorney Roy stated
"diminishing" would be defined according to its common usage as "reducing" or "lessening."
Councilmember Hamrick asked if sales tax was reduced but overall revenue for the City remained
even or above the previous levels, whether that would be a "diminishing of revenues." City Attorney
Roy stated if there was a way to ensure that a reduction in the sales tax did not diminish the pledged
revenues that the covenant would not be violated.
Councilmember Hamrick stated the agenda item summary indicated that the Council decided on
August 17 not to adopt the initiated Ordinance because of "the severe, detrimental impacts that
passage of the measure would have on City revenues and services." He objected to the
"editorializing" of the agenda item summary and questioned that this was the reason the Council
decided not to adopt it. He questioned whether it would have a "detrimental impact" on City
revenues. He referred to the latest sales tax collection report that indicated that collections were
rebounding and that use tax collections were steady. He stated the report indicated that if the trend
continued that collections would be about $2.8 million higher than budget projections. He stated that
repeal of the food tax would not mean that the City would be faced with layoffs. He stated the taxes
for general use if the revenue trend continued would be $2.1 million above current projections. He
asked if revenue would remain steady and if the sales tax was reduced whether the revenue would
be diminished if the revenue would still remain even or above. City Attorney Roy stated he believed
that this would be "diminishing" revenues. He stated that the issue had been discussed with bond
counsel and that the interpretation was that if the Code was amended so as to reduce sales and use
tax revenues without putting some corresponding tax increase in place, the covenant would probably
be violated because the revenues would be diminished in comparison to what would otherwise be
received.
Councilmember Hamrick stated the issue of "diminishing of revenues" could be open to
interpretation. He stated another question was how Council could make an agreement that the
citizens could not overturn in a vote. City Attorney Roy stated he believed that the case law included
a general principle that a legislative body could undo what a previous legislative body had done. He
stated the courts had recognized an exception in the area of exercising the taxing power and putting
in place this kind of bond covenant. He stated the courts had held that this would establish a contract
WJ
September 7, 2004
which cannot be violated or abolished by subsequent legislative action because the Constitution
would prohibit it. He stated the principle that had been stated was true in some contexts such as the
exercise of the police power but that this was different than the exercise of the taxing power or
repealing or amending an Ordinance which established a contract. He stated under the case law that
the bond covenant established a contract between the City and certain third parties that could not be
impaired by subsequent legislation whether enacted by the Council or by the voters.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if it was illegal for the Council to approve the bonding with the
contract language included. City Attorney Roy replied in the negative and stated TABOR did not
require that kind of provision to be submitted to a vote of the people.
Councilmember Tharp asked for clarification regarding the charges by a speaker that the Council in
some way violated TABOR by the bonding. City Attorney Roy stated TABOR required tax
increases, new taxes and certain other tax related subjects to be submitted to a vote. He stated it also
required bonded indebtedness and multi -year financial obligations to be submitted to a vote. He
stated if the original bond issue had occurred after TABOR that it would have had to go to a vote but
that it occurred before TABOR. He stated TABOR excluded refinancing for the purpose of
obtaining a lower rate on outstanding bonds from the election requirement and that the refinancing
therefore did not have to go to a vote. He stated in his opinion the covenant against diminishing
pledged revenues was not a new tax or expenditure but was a covenant to preserve the revenues that
were needed to honor the bonds that had been issued.
Councilmember Tharp asked if there was any conceivable way that the measure could be put on the
November ballot. City Attorney Roy stated this could happen if the bonds were defeased. If there
was a substitute collateral to secure the payment of the bonds, legally the covenant would be
satisfied. He stated there could be financial implications of taking that action. He stated it would
be necessary to ensure that the amendment of the sales tax code did not reduce revenues as compared
to the revenues that would come in without the amendment. He stated this could be accomplished
through adoption of an offsetting measure that would produce offsetting revenues. He stated the risk
of the Council placing the reduction measure and offsetting measure on the ballot was that the first
could pass and the second might not pass. He stated this would mean that the City was then in the
position of having violated the covenant. He stated the only legally safe way to put the measure on
the ballot as a City measure was to defease the bonds.
Councilmember Tharp requested information on the financial implications. Alan Krcmarik, Finance
Director, stated the process to defease the bonds would require placing approximately $6.4 million
of reserves into an account that would only be used to make future payments on the bonds. He stated
$6.4 for debt service taken from reserves at this point would be a difficult accomplishment due to
two years of declining sales tax revenues, reductions in the General Fund, drawn down reserves in
the Sales and Use Tax Fund, and a need to pull reserves from various accounts. He stated this would
have a "dramatic effect' on available funds for the 2005 budget. He stated this would be a "strong
ME
September 7, 2004
warning signal about the financial position of the City" that could lead to a diminishment in the
City's credit rating.
Councilmember Tharp asked if about $2 million would have to be put in reserve each year because
the initiative would be phased over three years. Krcmarik stated the amount of revenue that would
be reduced from the revenue base due to the repeal of the sales tax on food would be over three
years. He stated that had nothing to do with the amount of money that would be set aside for debt
service. He stated the City would have to come up with $1,280,000 per year for the next five years
and place the money in an escrow immediately to accomplish the intent.
Councilmember Tharp asked if it would be wise to assume that the sales tax repeal could be defeated
and noted that there would be a risk in assuming that it could be defeated. Krcmarik stated if an
escrow was set up to defease the bonds that the money would not come back out of the account.
Councilmember Tharp suggested that it would not be necessary to set up an account unless the food
tax was repealed. She stated the fact that the measure was on the ballot would not affect the bonds
and that there would only be an impact if it passed. City Attorney Roy asked how the bond rating
agencies would respond to the Council's placement on the ballot a measure that would violate the
covenant. Krcmarik stated the covenants clearly specified that the City would take no action that
would diminish the flows of pledged revenues. He stated the reference in the documents was to "the
City" and that he believed that could apply to the voters as well. He stated if the measure was placed
on the ballot, the City would have to immediately inform the rating agencies, bond buyers, and
insurance companies that steps were being taken that could be construed to be a violation of the
covenant. He stated this could be action that the City would have to defend with the credit rating
agencies.
Councilmember Tharp asked if it would be the same if the City put the measure on the ballot or
whether the citizens put it on the ballot. Krcmarik stated there was a defense if the citizens put the
measure on the ballot that the initiative might not be able to be implemented until 2009 when the
bonds were completely retired. Interim City Manager Atteberry stated at a minimum taking the
action to defease the bonds was risky. He stated staff believed that it would not be fiscally
responsible to do this because of implications to the bond rating. He stated he was concerned about
the effect on the bond rating because of how that related to the cost of money in the future.
Councilmember Bertschy stated the City's bond rating had improved several times in recent years.
Krcmarik stated the bond rating had improved in steps over seven years of hard work.
Councilmember Bertschy asked what the improved bond rating saved the City. Krcmarik stated,
depending on markets, the savings could be as much as fifteen hundredths to one -quarter percent.
He stated millions of dollars would be saved over time and that the City's bonds would trade with
the most competitive bonds in the state.
91
September 7, 2004
Councilmember Bertschy asked if that meant that the City's bonds would "sell." Krcmarik replied
in the affirmative.
Councilmember Bertschy asked about the implications of having the bond rating drop. Krcmarik
stated it would be more expensive to market future bonds.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if the language in the bond contract was typical. Krcmarik stated
the covenant language had been in City bonds back to the early 1980s.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if there was different language that would allow revenues to be
diminished what the impact would be on bonding. Krcmarik stated different language would be
unusual in Colorado. He stated Colorado municipalities used sales tax as their primary revenue
source and as the primary source for most bonding. He stated the practice was that bond buyers and
insurers expected those kinds of strong bond covenants. He stated the more security given to bond
buyers meant better rates.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if property tax values could be changed without affecting the
revenue picture. Krcmarik stated property tax could not be used to pay these bonds. He stated these
were sales and use tax revenue bonds and that the language specified that property tax would not be
used to make any payments on the bonds.
Councilmember Hamrick asked how tax increment financing for projects such as the Lifestyle Center
affected the revenue picture. Krcmarik stated the rating agencies would look at the type of
agreement used for the Lifestyle Center as an effort by the City to protect future revenue flows. He
stated the agencies would be interested in seeing the size of the commitments. He stated the
Lifestyle agreement was based on net new revenue and that the amount was fairly small compared
to the total sales tax revenue.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if the bondholders were notified ofthe Lifestyle decision. Krcmarik
stated bond counsel indicated that this was not a required disclosure.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if a major use of the sales tax for a future project would be a concern
to bond holders. Krcmarik stated credit agencies did annual monitoring of what was going on in the
City and that the rating agencies would ask questions about such a project. He stated commitments
that were viewed as being beyond the prudent level would result in the City being placed on a credit
watch and could result in diminishment of the credit rating.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated it was time to vote on this matter.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Bertschy, to adopt Option
l (Resolution 2004-101).
'r!
September 7, 2004
Councilmember Kastein asked if anyone on Council would support the repeal of the sales tax on
grocery food at this point.
Councilmember Hamrick stated he supported the repeal of the food tax. He stated it was a regressive
tax that falls disproportionately on the lower income. He stated a rebate program would not be
needed if there was no tax on food and drugs. He stated the sales and use tax picture for this year
showed the possibility of $2.8 million more than projections.
Councilmember Kastein stated the City just went through a budget cycle in which $3.4 million was
cut from the City budget. He stated repealing the grocery tax would mean going through that
exercise again to make $6 million in cuts. He stated he would like to know what Councilmember
Hamrick would like to cut to make up the $6 million in lost revenue minus the $2.8 million that
would be in excess of projections.
Councilmember Hamrick stated he did not believe that cutting the food tax would result in a need
to make any cuts for 2005.
Councilmember Kastein stated there could possibly be up to $2.8 million more than projections. He
noted that the City was behind in police, fire, transportation, etc.
Councilmember Hamrick stated it was time for the City to take a hard look at the budget and
expenses.
Councilmember Kastein stated he agreed that there needed to be a deliberative Council process to
look at the budget. He stated Council would need to decide which services were "gravy." He
commented that such items might include natural areas such as the Soapstone Ranch which cost the
City $7 million. He stated the Council should have ideas on what could be cut before reducing
revenues. He questioned whether it was a good idea to say that $6 million could be cut when there
was no idea where that money would come from.
Councilmember Kastein stated $1.8 million would be cut next year if the food sales tax was reduced.
He stated $2.1 million in general use tax was projected, and that this would mean that there would
be extra money to allocate. He stated the City's "fiscal house should be put in order" and that
compensation and benefit changes could result in getting expenses under control.
Councilmember Kastein stated every year since 1999 the sales tax revenue per resident had
decreased. He stated revenue had increased every year due to population increases. He stated at the
same time the City was falling behind in City services. He stated increasing revenue did not mean
that the City was "awash in money." He stated thought should be given to where cuts could be made
before the sales tax was cut.
93
September 7, 2004
Mayor Martinez asked what Councilmember Hamrick would cut.
Councilmember Hamrick stated the Council should take a look at all of the options during the
exception process.
Mayor Martinez asked for an example of what Councilmember Hamrick would cut.
Councilmember Hamrick stated that increasing the cost to employees for health insurance benefits
would be one way to save money. He stated the City could also compare the number of employees
to other cities. He stated every department should be reviewed.
Councilmember Bertschy stated he had a vision for the City that did not revolve around reducing the
quality of life that the citizens expected and deserved. He stated he hoped that the exceptions
process would result in reinstituting some of the cuts that had to be made last year in enforcement.
He stated the Council needed to protect the City's resources. He stated this initiative was brought
forth to reduce government. He stated the proponents had brought this forth because "they have an
axe to grind" with the Council. He stated he did not get elected and would not go out of office
making the kinds of cuts that this type of "attack" would require. He stated it was a different matter
to discuss waste in government. He stated he would not take any action to reduce the City's bond
rating. He stated the City had worked long and hard for an ability to get the kind of financing that
the City had.
Mayor Martinez stated he agreed with Councilmember Bertschy. He stated Councilmember
Hamrick was always interested in making more demands on City employees for enforcement and
was at the same time wanting to raise the cost of benefits to employees. He stated this could create
a fundamental financial crisis for the City. He stated he agreed that the Council did need to look at
the services and number of employees. He stated the issue was funding of primary services rather
than "favorite services."
Councilmember Weitkunat stated there were two topics of discussion. She stated the financial
situation was a "huge discussion." She stated the topic for this discussion was the timing of events.
She stated she made the motion because she would not go against the City Charter. She stated she
could not support placement on the November ballot for that reason. She stated this measure would
jeopardize the City's financial position and that she would not support taking any action that would
jeopardize the City's bond rating. She stated she was sympathetic to the fact that the timing was not
going to work for placement on the November ballot. She stated there were serious issues that
needed to be discussed before the April election. She stated she believed that the Council did not
have a choice regarding when the measure could be placed on the ballot and that it was time to move
forward on the matter.
01
September 7, 2004
Councilmember Tharp stated the Council had tried to be responsive to placing the initiative on the
ballot quickly. She stated there had been legal issues raised and that the measure must be scheduled
for the April ballot. She stated there needed to be a discussion about how to convince people that
the services provided by the City were paid for by the taxes paid and that the taxes were appropriate.
She stated many issues came to the surface that were not evident at first. She stated there were
implications that must be examined and that Council did not have a choice except to schedule the
measure for April.
Councilmember Roy thanked staff for its work on the issue. He stated he had tried his best to figure
out how the measure could be scheduled on the November ballot to "honor the wishes of the
citizenry." He stated he believed that "strategically" April was the best time to have this issue on
the ballot because the pool of voters would be smaller. He stated he believed that the intent of the
petitioners was to cut government and that this was counter to the City's efforts to deliver services
to the citizens. He stated the "irony" was that when services would have to be cut, it would impact
services to citizens who were economically disadvantaged. He stated he was opposed to the effort.
He stated sales tax revenues could leave the community for Loveland and that the cost of health care
benefits would increase. He stated the initiative which would be placed on the ballot was
"irresponsible for the community." He stated he supported scheduling in April.
Councilmember Hamrick thanked staff for its expert advice. He stated he would like to "honor" the
citizen petition process. He stated he would like to see this on the November ballot but that it would
be "fiscally irresponsible" to do that and jeopardize the bond rating. He stated he would therefore
support the motion. He stated the City saved a lot of money due to its bond rating. He stated he
supported the repeal of the sales tax on food and drugs. He stated few people took advantage of the
rebate program and, if the tax was not repealed, the rebate program needed to be reviewed. He stated
the Council needed to take a hard look at expenses and the growth of the City organization.
Councilmember Kastein stated good government followed the right process. He stated a citizen
initiative with a purpose of reducing government was "not the right way to go." He stated the right
way to proceed would be to replace the revenue unless there were services that should be cut. He
stated the bond rating issue was "huge" and that the initiative did not take into consideration the
complexities of that issue. He stated the current bond rating had saved the City millions of dollars.
He stated work would be needed to cover the "damage that had already been done." He stated
postponement of the item until April would allow time for such work. He stated the item must be
scheduled for April due to the bond covenants.
Mayor Martinez stated the food tax was one tax that everyone paid for their share of the
infrastructure.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein,
Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
95
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2004-103
September 7, 2004
Reestablishing a Telephone Exchange Access Facility
Charge and a Wireless Communications Access Charge
for the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority Effective January 1, 2005, Adopted.
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) was created in 1990 pursuant to C.R.S.
Section 29-11-101, et. seq., by an intergovernmental agreement between the City ofFort Collins and
nineteen other governmental entities in Larimer County.
The telephone exchange access facility charge of fifty cents ($.50) per month became effective
January 1, 1991, by approval of the Fort Collins City Council. This fee remained the same each
year by annual approval of the LETA Board, until 1998 when the LETA Board decreased the fee by
10% to the current forty f ve cents ($.45). The wireless communications access charge was first
established at forty-five cents ($.45) commencing on April 1, 1998.
At the July 7, 2004 LETA Board meeting, the Board approved a telephone exchange access facility
charge and a wireless communications access charge effective January 1, 2005, each at the rate of
forty-five cents ($.45) per month.
These surcharges to telephone subscribers are necessary to continue to adequately fund the
Emergency 911 telephone service in the City of Fort Collins through 2005. By approving this
Resolution, the Council will be authorizing telephone and wireless telephone service providers to
collect the telephone exchange access facility charge and wireless communications access charge. "
Interim City Manager Atteberry introduced the agenda item.
Councilmember Roy asked how much money the $.45 would generate per year and requested
information about the composition of the LETA Board. He asked for clarification regarding Section
1 of the Resolution and language of the Agenda Item Summary. Joanne Sizemore, Police Services,
stated the surcharge assessed to telephone bills in Larimer County and the revenue generated in 2004
would generate $1,560,000. She stated the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) Board
included representatives from all of the public safety answering points in the County. She stated she
was the Board member representing Fort Collins Police Services.
0
September 7, 2004
Councilmember Roy asked how much of the revenue generated would be required to run the E-911
telephone service. Sizemore stated in 2003 total expenditures were $2,352,582 and that expenditures
were predominantly for capital. She stated the surcharge was the second lowest in the State. She
stated the passage of SB 1 I significantly expanded the uses for the surcharge monies and that the
Board elected not to ask for an increase in the surcharge until needs could be further assessed.
Councilmember Roy stated it was always helpful to know the revenue that would be generated
through this kind of fee.
Councilmember Tharp asked for confirmation that the rate was not being raised. Sizemore stated
the rate was not being raised this year.
Councilmember Tharp stated there was a phrase in the Agenda Item Summary that seemed to
indicate that there would be two $.45 surcharges. Sizemore stated the surcharge would be a total of
$.45 serving two purposes and that this was not an increase.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if this had to be reviewed and approved every year. Sizemore
replied in the affirmative. Interim City Manager Atteberry stated this was the continuation of a
current fee.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adopt Resolution 2004-
103. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein,
Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Other Business
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the Commission on the Status on Women was working on a new
direction and changes. She stated the Commission was interested in changing the name of the
Commission to a more contemporary name: the Commission on Women. She stated to begin the
process that she would like to know if there were other Councilmembers in support of the having
the Commission move forward with the change.
Mayor Martinez and Councilmember Roy stated they were in support of the change.
97
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at t 0:35 p.m.
Mayor
ATTEST:
M
September 7, 2004