HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-12/04/2007-RegularDecember 4, 2007
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, December 4,
2007, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy,
and Troxell.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy.
Citizen Participation
David May, 225 South Meldrum, Chamber of Commerce President, stated the Library IGA approved
the transfer of millions of dollars of assets from an elected body, the City, to an appointed body, the
Library District. He agreed with Council representation in selecting Library District trustees and
asked that the annual report from the Library Board be made verbally to Council and not just as a
written report. He was concerned the process of creating the IGA was not as open as it should have
been.
Cheryl Distaso, 135 South Sunset, requested Council consider adoption of a resolution calling for
the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Allen Ginsborg, 5700 Hearthstone, thanked Council and staff for the decision made regarding the
Holiday Display Task Force recommendations. He requested Council reconsider placement of a
menorah on City property other than just at the Museum display.
Carrie Gills, 8020 Park Hill Drive, stated greater public input should have been allowed before
Council considered adoption of the IGA with the Library District. Most of the deliberations were
done in executive session and citizen input was minimized.
Bob Carnahan, 4325 Westbrooke Court, thanked the Library Board Trustees for its work and agreed
with the provision in the IGA regarding the selection of future trustees. He was concerned about the
amount of funds to be managed by an appointed board and asked Council to exercise due diligence
when voting to appoint members to the Board.
Joe Kissel, 913 West Oak, urged Council to consider adoption of a resolution calling for the
withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Eric Sutherland, 631 LaPorte Avenue, stated the practice of purchasing renewable electric energy
credits to supply renewable power in lieu of actual renewable energypurchases needs to be reviewed
H1;
December 4, 2007
as the credits do not meet the requirements in the Electric Supply Policy and there does not seem to
be any benefit provided by renewable energy credits.
Karen Rose, 5200 Parkway Circle East, stated questions submitted by a group of citizens living in
the Southwest Annexation area to City staff have not yet been answered and requested information
that would address the area's concerns.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Mayor Hutchinson stated the IGA negotiations with the Library District required Council to hold
executive sessions since those negotiations involved real estate transactions and those transactions
were the only negotiations discussed during the executive session.
Councilmember Troxell stated he had concerns about the Library IGA and requested Item #8 Second
Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2007, Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement Between the Fort
Collins Regional Library District, Lorimer County and the City offort Collins be pulled from the
Consent Calendar. He encouraged the City Manager to work to find ways to display the menorah
on City Property. He requested information on the different phases of the Southwest Annexation.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if direction could be given to staff regarding Item #8 during Consent
Calendar Follow-up instead of pulling the Item. He requested staff work with the Library Board to
provide yearly or semi-annual reports on the District's finances and reserves and reserves policy.
Councilmember Troxell requested a "State of the Library" presentation, and not just a written report.
City Attorney Roy stated the Ordinance approving the IGA does authorize the City Manager, in
consultation with the City Attorney, to make amendments or modifications to the final IGA as
Manager determines is necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City or advance the
objectives of the Agreement. It was possible to negotiate these items with the District.
Councilmember Ohlson stated Council did want a formal agreement with the Library District
regarding reports made to Council on the District's finances, the reserve policies and some form of
face-to-face meeting between the Board and the Council on a regular basis. City Attorney Roy
suggested the motion to adopt the Consent Calendar should contain the direction given to staff
regarding the IGA with the Library District.
Mayor Hutchinson asked about the status of City services in the Southwest Annexation area. City
Manager Atteberry stated the first priority of the City was to provide police services to the area and
the revenues collected from the first phase were being used to provide public safety and health for
the area. He asked anyone in the area already annexed and who had concerns about the service being
received to contact his office.
Aeenda Review
City Manager Atteberry requested Item #23 Resolution 2007-108 Expressing Council 's Opposition
to the Mining of Uranium in the Vicinity of Nunn, Colorado be moved ahead of Item #22 Items
Relating to the East Skyway Rezoning under Discussion Items.
41
December 4, 2007
Councilmember Troxell pulled Item #6 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2007, Appropriating
Unanticipated Revenue in the Natural Areas Fund and the Capital Projects Fund - Soapstone
Prairie Public Improvements Capital Project to Be Used for the Design and Construction of Public
Improvements at Soapstone Prairie Natural Area and Item #16 Resolution 2007-105 Approving the
Purchase of Digital Control Units for Residential Air Conditioning Electrical Load Control as an
Exemption to the Competitive Process.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2007, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Natural Areas Fund and the Capital Projects Fund - Soapstone Prairie Public Improvements
Capital Project to Be Used for the Design and Construction of Public Improvements at
Soapstone Prairie Natural Area.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 20, 2007, appropriates
revenue in the Natural Areas Fund and the Capital Projects Fund to be used for construction
of the access road at Soapstone Prairie Natural Area which was started in October and will
be completed by spring 2008. Funds being appropriated for this project will come from
designated Natural Areas Program sales tax revenues. The funds budgeted in 2007, 2008 and
2009 are revenues from the Open Space Yes (City) 1/4 cent sales tax and Help Preserve
Open Space (County) 1/4 cent sales tax. The unappropriated funds available in 2007 are
revenues from the original 1/4 cent Natural Areas sales tax (collected from 1993-1997) and
from the Building Community Choices 1/4 cent sales tax revenues designated for the Natural
Areas Program (collected from 1998 to 2005).
Funds Budgeted in 2007
$2,166,000
Unappropriated Funds Available in 2007
$ 800,000
Funds Budgeted in 2008
$2,000,000
Funds Budgeted in 2009
$ 134,000
Total Appropriation
$5,100,000
Second Reading of Ordinance No.138, 2007, Authorizingthe he Appropriation of 2008 Fiscal
Year Operating and Capital Improvement Funds of the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal
Airport.
This Ordinance unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 20, 2007, appropriates
the City's 50% share ($3,184,735) of the annual appropriation for the fiscal year 2008 Fort
Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport (the "Airport") budget. The City of Loveland manages
the Airport's budget and finances, but since the City of Fort Collins owns 50% of the
Airport, it is necessary for the City to appropriate its 50% portion of the Airport budget.
42
December 4, 2007
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No 139, 2007, Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement
Between the Fort Collins Regional Library District, Larimer County and the City of Fort
Collins.
The Fort Collins Regional Library District (the District) was approved by the voters in
November of 2006 and funded with three mills of property tax. The District Board of
Trustees was selected and ratified by the Council and County Commissioners. The District,
City and County entered into an Interim Intergovernmental Agreement in July of this year.
Under the IGA the City continued to operate the libraries on behalf of the District and at
District expense. The Interim IGA set a goal of transferring library operations to the District
by January 1, 2008. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on
November 20, 2007 and approves the final IGA between the District, Larimer County and
the City of Fort Collins.
Changes to the IGA between First and Second Readings include:
Provision for Larimer County to take formal action to establish the District.
As Council requested, language was added specifying that the selection of new
District Trustees would continue to be done by a committee of two Councilmembers
and two County Commissioners.
3. Clarifying City library impact fee revenues will be used to complete the Southeast
Branch Library project, the facility will be conveyed to the District upon completion
and will be used by the District as a library.
4. Clarifyingthe Branch Librarywill be constructed according to current plans, with any
reduction in value or quality requiring agreement of the City and the District.
5. Ensuring the District has input into the operational agreement between the City and
Bayer Properties regarding the Branch Library.
Please note the Library District is in the process of reviewing the proposed changes to the
IGA. The District or City staff will confirm the District's agreement with the changes, or
highlight any unresolved issues prior to Council action on this item.
There are also two changes to the Ordinance on Second Reading, shown in redline and
strikeout. The first change clarifies that the conveyance of Library Park to the District would
be with the restriction that it be used for library purposes, including possible expansion of
the Main Library. The second change adds a new Council finding that the conveyance of
Library Park to the District is in the best interests of the City, even if the District ultimately
does not use the Park property for expansion of the Main Library.
9. First Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2007, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General
Fund and Authorizing Transfer Between Funds for Asset Replacement.
This Ordinance provides appropriations from General Fund reserves to the Fleet Fund and
Communications Fund to implement the new asset replacement programs for vehicles,
43
December 4, 2007
facilities, and Information Technology needs. The funds are recommended to be
appropriated from General Fund reserves. These funds were created through prior year
budget savings and are intended to be used for Asset Replacement needs. It is recommended
that $2,350,000 be appropriated to the Fleet Fund and $1,500,000 be appropriated to the
Communications Fund.
10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 141 2007, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Citv
Sales and Use Tax Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts Between
Funds.
This Ordinance increases total City 2007 appropriations by $2,667,000. Of that amount, this
Ordinance increases General Fund 2007 estimated revenues by $2,000,000. This Ordinance
also increases the estimated revenues for the Capital Projects Fund ($222,333), the Natural
Areas Fund ($222,333), and the Transportation Fund ($222,334) due to greater than
projected collections of the following dedicated sales and use taxes: 0.25 Building on Basics,
0.25 Open Space Yes, and 0.25 City Street Maintenance sales and use tax, respectively. This
Ordinance only appropriates the transfer of the additional sales and use taxes from the Sales
Tax Fund to the above funds. It does not increase appropriations within those related funds.
These additional revenues will increase the reserves in the related funds as of year-end 2007.
Appropriations for expenditure from the various fund balance reserves will be presented to
City Council during the first quarter of 2008.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No 142, 2007, Authorizing Leases of City Property at 200 West
Mountain Avenue, Suite C, For Un To Five Years As Part of the Fort Collins Technology
Incubator Program.
The Fort Collins Technology Incubator (FCTI) nurtures high potential innovation -based
companies in their formative stages to increase the probability they will survive and make
a sustainable contribution to the economic health of the community. One of the services they
offer to accomplish this goal is residence in an incubator facility which gives participants
access to shared services, synergy with other startup businesses and below market lease rates.
The City currently offers two facilities for this purpose at 200 West Mountain Avenue and
321 Maple Street. The currently defined FCTI residence program is a three-year lease with
increasing lease rates each year. Due to the fact that not all companies reach the desired self-
sustaining status within this three year window, FCTI would like to add the option of offering
up to two additional 12-month extensions at the end of the initial three year period. The
program would increase each year by $1 /SF for any companies staying after the initial three
year period, making the fourth year $10/SF and the fifth year $11 /SF.
Staff recommends leasing 200 West Mountain Avenue, Suite C, to the FCTI and its client
companies. Benefits to the City include: replacement of primary jobs lost over the past
several years, increased economic robustness, especially in the downtown area, retention of
the City's highly talented professional workforce, and an enhanced sales tax base.
m
December 4, 2007
12. First Readine of Ordinance No. 143, 2007, Approving the Terms of the City's Lease of 612
South College Avenue, Suite 22, Fort Collins. Colorado.
In order for this portion of the property to become tax exempt, state law requires that the
Council approve the terms of the lease by Ordinance.
Since December 1992, the City has been leasing approximately 388 square feet of office
space located at 612 South College Avenue, Suite 22, for the office of Dr. Dan Dworkin,
Police Services psychologist. Both Dr. Dworkin and Police Services desire to continue
leasing this office space.
This lease extension shall be effective as of December 1, 2007 and expire November 30,
2008, with two 12-month lease extension options. Lease payments will include base rent and
insurance. Base rent shall be $457 per month. Utilities charges are not included in the base
rent and shall be 14.22% of the utilities statements for the property. Rent for the option
period will be calculated by the Consumer Price Index.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 2007, Authorizing the Lease of City -Owned Property
at 212 LaPorte Avenue, Along with Related Parking Riehts at 222 LaPorte Avenue, for up
to Five Years.
In July 2005, the Citypurchased the former Abraxis property at 212 LaPorte Avenue to allow
for future City development. The property was leased back to Abraxis until March of this
year while the new Abraxis facility was built. The City has no immediate use for the
property.
Staff recommends that the former Abraxis property, as well as the adjoining parking to the
west at 222 LaPorte Avenue, be leased at current market rates, no less than $5.00 per sq ft
annually, for a period of up to five years to offset maintenance expenses and generate
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 2007, Amending Section 2-575 of the City Code
Relating to Councilmember Compensation.
Article II, Section 3 of the City Charter provides that the compensation of Councilmembers
shall be adjusted annually for inflation in accordance with the Denver/Boulder Consumer
Price Index. In 2007, Councilmembers were compensated $630 per month, and the Mayor
received $945 per month.
This Ordinance amends Section 2-575 of the City Code to set the 2008 compensation of
Councilmembers at $650 per month and the compensation of the Mayor at $970 per month,
as required by the City Charter.
45
December 4, 2007
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 150, 2007, Adopting the 2008 Classified Employees Pay
Plan.
The 2008 Pay Plan incorporates the new pay philosophy of establishing pay ranges by using
the average actual salary data for benchmark positions to set the pay range mid -point. Data
from the public and private sectors was used to determine the prevailing market rates for
approximately 100 benchmark jobs. This Ordinance sets pay ranges, not specific salaries of
individual employees.
16. Resolution 2007-105 Approving the Purchase of Digital Control Units for Residential Air
Conditioning Electrical Load Control as an Exemption to the Competitive Process.
In 1982, Utilities Light and Power began offering customers with electric water heaters away
to reduce their contribution to the distribution system electric demand during system peak
usage times. Light and Power selected a system from Scientific Atlanta, Inc as the best
option for needs at that time and dubbed the program Hot Shot. Today, Fort Collins Utilities
has about 2,000 customers who have a Hot Shot Digital Control Unit (DCU) on their electric
water heaters. The original Hot Shot load control devices operate on a proprietary
communications protocol that assured accurate communications and avoided false operations
from other radio frequency signals that could reach the customer premises. The technology
developed and sold by Scientific Atlanta has since become the property of Comverge, Inc,
and it continues to support the City's existing installed base of water heater DCUs.
As residential air conditioning (AC) market saturation in Northern Colorado grew from less
than 10% in the early 1980's to today's number of nearly 70%, according to Platte River
Power Authority, summer peak electric demand has steadily increased with residential AC
purchases. While population has increased about 60% in the last 10 years, electric peak
demand has increased over 100%, largely as a result of air conditioning. In response to this
trend, it is evident that controlling summer -season electric loads is necessary to move toward
the City's Electric Energy Supply Policy goals.
In 2007, a Utilities team recommended expansion of the water heater program to include air
conditioning control. An air conditioning pilot study of 100 DCUs during the summer of
2007 proved the effectiveness of the air conditioning controllers as a method of reducing
summer -season peak demands. Staff plans to add 500 units per year for the next two years.
To implement an air conditioning load control program that also incorporates existing
installed base of water heater DCUs, it will be necessary to use the Comverge system. The
air conditioning control system will operate on the same Comverge control system as the Hot
Shot water heater control program. The backbone of the control system is the recently -
upgraded LMS (Load Management Software) program, which is a proprietary software
program used to control the DCUs. Comverge hardware also controls the transmitters in the
electric substations, which send the signal to the DCUs.
***END CONSENT***
December 4, 2007
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2007, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Natural Areas Fund and the Capital Projects Fund - Soapstone Prairie Public Improvements
Capital Project to Be Used for the Design and Construction of Public Improvements at
Soapstone Prairie Natural Area.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 2007, Authorizing the Appropriation of 2008 Fiscal
Year Operating and Capital Improvement Funds of the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal
Airport.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2007, Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement
Between the Fort Collins Regional Library District, Larimer County and the City of Fort
Collins.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
First Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2007, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General
Fund and Authorizing Transfer Between Funds for Asset Replacement.
10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2007, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the City
Sales and Use Tax Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts Between
Funds.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2007, Authorizing Leases of City Property at 200 West
Mountain Avenue, Suite C, For Up To Five Years As Part of the Fort Collins Technology
Incubator Program.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 143, 2007, Approving the Terms of the City's Lease of 612
South College Avenue, Suite 22, Fort Collins, Colorado.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 2007, Authorizing the Lease of City -Owned Property
at 212 LaPorte Avenue, Along with Related Parking Rights at 222 LaPorte Avenue, for up
to Five Years.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 2007, Amending Section 2-575 of the City Code
Relating to Councilmember Compensation.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 150, 2007, Adopting the 2008 Classified Employees Pay
Plan.
24. First Reading of Ordinance No. 147, 2007, Amending Section 2-606 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the Municipal Judge.
47
December 4, 2007
25. First Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2007, Amending Section 2-581 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the City Attorney.
26. First Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 2007, Amending Section 2-596 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the City Manager.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt and approve
all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar and for staff to work with the Library District
to include reporting to Council on the District's finances, the reserve policies and some form of
face-to-face meeting between the Board and the Council on a regular basis in the final IGA. Yeas:
Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
City Manager Atteberry requested Council consider Item #16 at this time.
Resolution 2007-105
Approving the Purchase of Digital Control Units for
Residential Air Conditioning Electrical Load Control as an
Exemption to the Competitive Process, Adopted
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
Utilities would like to purchase 1, 000 digital control units used in an electric load control program
for a total purchase price of $106,250. Comverge, Inc. is offering a $9.00/unit discount for
committing to a purchase of 1,000 units. By agreeing to purchase 1,000 units from Comverge,
Utilities is receiving a discount that will save $9, 000 over the cost ifstaff continued with the normal
purchase quantities.
To meet the financial and technical needs of the demand side management program, we must sole -
source Comverge as the manufacturer of the DCUs (Digital Control Units) for the "Hot Shot" air
conditioning program. There are other load control companies, each with their own proprietary
systems, but none of them are compatible with the City's existing system. To implement another
system would be exceedingly expensive as it would necessitate the removal of the transmitting and
control infrastructure as well as the removal and replacement of the installed base of 2000 DCUs
that currently control electric water heaters.
Because the Hot Shot program offers a means to reducing electric demand during times of peak
energy use, the program helps reduce coincident peak purchase power costs, the savings of which
are passed on to ratepayers.
I.:
December 4, 2007
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 1982, Utilities Light and Power began offering customers with electric water heaters a way to
reduce their contribution to the distribution system electric demand during system peak usage times.
Light and Power selected a system from Scientific Atlanta, Inc as the best option for needs at that
time and dubbed the program Hot Shot. Today, Fort Collins Utilities has about 2, 000 customers
who have a Hot Shot Digital Control Unit (DCU) on their electric water heaters. The original Hot
Shot load control devices operate on a proprietary communications protocol that assured accurate
communications and avoided false operations from other radio frequency signals that could reach
the customer premises. The technology developed and sold by Scientific Atlanta has since become
the property of Comverge, Inc, and it continues to support the City's existing installed base of water
heater DCUs.
As residential air conditioning (AC) market saturation in Northern Colorado grew from less than
10% in the early 1980's to today's number of nearly 70%, according to Platte River Power
Authority, summer peak electric demand has steadily increased with residential AC purchases.
While population has increased about 60% in the last 10 years, electric peak demand has increased
over 100%, largely as a result of air conditioning. In response to this trend, it is evident that
controlling summer -season electric loads is necessary to move toward the City's Electric Energy
Supply Policy goals.
In 2007, a Utilities team recommended expansion of the water heater program to include air
conditioning control. An air conditioning pilot study of 100 DCUs during the summer of 2007
proved the effectiveness of the air conditioning controllers as a method of reducing summer -season
peak demands. Staff plans to add 500 units per year for the next two years.
To implement an air conditioning load control program that also incorporates existing installed
base of water heater DCUs, it will be necessary to use the Comverge system. The air conditioning
control system will operate on the same Comverge control system as the Hot Shot water heater
control program. The backbone of the control system is the recently -upgraded LMS (Load
Management Software) program, which is a proprietary software program used to control the
DCUs. Comverge hardware also controls the transmitters in the electric substations, which send
the signal to the DCUs. "
Councilmember Troxell recused himself from this item as he had a PhD student in his program who
is an executive officer for the company under consideration in this item and he believed it could be
interpreted as a conflict of interest for him.
Councilmember Ohlson stated the process to exempt a purchase from the competitive process was
very strict and was used as an exception, not as a common practice. Kraig Bader, Standards
Engineering Manager, stated digital control units had been in use by the City since 1982. The
company who makes the units is now owned by Comverge and is the only company that has the
technology that is functional for the City's use.
M
December 4, 2007
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Resolution
2007-105. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Staff Reports
Mark Jackson, Interim Transportation Director introduced Helen Migchelbrink, new City Engineer.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Ohlson thanked staff for work done to create the new Northside Aztlan Community
Center. It is a high -quality, functional center and the City can be proud of the structure. He
requested further information from the Humane Society regarding reports from citizens about vicious
dog attacks and the Humane Society's handling of the situations. He asked for a report on the
possibility of adding more kinds of plastic recycling to the recycling stream as Loveland has recently
expanded its list of recyclable products and Fort Collins should do the same.
Resolution 2007-104
Approving the Programs and Projects That Will Receive Funds from
the Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program
and Home Investment Partnership (HOME) Program Grants,
and the City's Affordable Housing Fund, Adopted Alternative version
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and Home Investment Partnership
(HOME) Program provide Federal funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) to the City of Fort Collins which can be allocated to housing and community development
related programs and projects, thereby, reducing the demand on the City's General Fund Budget
to address such needs. City funds for this item have been appropriated as part of the Affordable
Housing Fund in December 2006
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Resolution will complete the fall cycle of the competitive process for allocating Cityfinancial
resources to affordable housing programs/projects and community development activities.
BACKGROUND
This Resolution establishes which programs and projects will receive funding with CDBG and
HOME funds for the FY 2007 Program year, which started on October 1, 2007, including the use
50
December 4, 2007
of Carry-over CDBG Entitlement Grant funds, Carry-over HOME funds, funds from the FY 2007
HOME Grant, funds from the HOME Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) Set
Aside, HOME Program Income, and funds from the City's Affordable Housing Fund. The CDBG
Commission presents a list of recommendations as to which programs and projects should receive
funding.
The following table summarizes the amount and sources of available funds:
AMOUNT
SOURCE
$361, 920
FY 2006 CDBG Reprogrammed Funds
312937
FY 2007 CDBG Unprogrammed Funds
120187
FY 2006 HOME Reprogrammed Funds
$172, 499
FY 05IFY 06 HOME CHDO Reprogrammed Funds
480792
FY 2007 HOME Grant
96139
FY 2007 HOME CHDO Funds
50000
FY 2007 HOME Program Income
83000
FY 2006 Affordable Housing Fund
133000
FY 2007 Affordable Housing Fund
$1,810,474
Total Funding Available
Reprogrammed funds are funds returned to the Cityfrom projects that were previously allocated
funding but the project failed to materialize. Unprogrammed funds are from previous grants that
haveyettobeallocated tospecificprojects. HOME Community Housing Development Organization
(C11DO) set aside funds represent a portion of the HOME grant that must be earmarked for CHDO
agencies.
The CDBG Commission presents recommendations as to which programs and projects should
receive funding from the available funding sources presented above. The following tables present
the allocations recommended by the Commission to the City Council within each major category:
Affordable Housing
Applicant
Project/Program
Funding
Request
Commission's
Recommendation
Unfunded
Balance
HO-1 City of Fort Collins—
$250,000
$250,000
$0
Home Buyer Assistance
HO-2 Fort Collins Housing
$14,613
$0
$14,613
Corporation — First Step
Expansion -Administration
51
December 4, 2007
HO-3 Fort Collins Housing
$192,144
$0
$192,144
Corporation — First Step
Expansion
HO-4 Neighbor -to -Neighbor
$244,866
$244,866
$0
— Coachlight Driveway
Parking Lot Repairs &
Improvements
Total
$701,623
$494,866
$206,757
All funding recommendations in the Affordable Housing category are in the form of
a "Due on Sale Loan + 5% Simple Interest Loan. "
Public Facility
Applicant
Funding
Commission's
Unfunded
Project/Program
Request
Recommendation
Balance
PF-1 City of Fort Collins—
$55,671
$55,671
$0
Crossroads Safehouse:
Facilitv Safety Rehabilitation
The funding recommendation in the Public Facilities category is in the form of a
"Due on Sale Loan + 5% Simple Interest Loan. "
A summary of the Commission's funding recommendation by category is presented in the following
table:
Recommended Funding
%of Total
I Cate ory
$494,866
89.9%
1 Affordable usin
$55,671
10.1 %
1 Public Facilities
$550,537
100.0%
I Total Allocated to Programs and Projects
The CDBG Commission has recommended that $550, 537 (30.4°yo) of the available funding amount
of $1,810,474 be allocated leaving a balance of $1,259,937 (69.601o) from all of the fundingsources
to be carried over and made available for allocation in the 2008 spring cycle of the competitive
process. The following table summarizes the utilization of funds from all sources.
Recommended Funding
% of Total
Category
$550,537
30.4%
Allocated to Programs and Projects
$1,259,937
69.6%
Carry-over to 2008 Spring Cycle
$1 810.474
100.0%
1 Total Funds Available
Ken Waido, Chief Planner, stated the Resolution under consideration is the culmination of the fall
cycle of the competitive process that allocates the City's financial resources to affordable housing
programs and community development activities. Several sources of money are available through
the Community Development Block Grant program and the HOME program, both federal programs,
and the City's affordable housing fund. The total amount available this cycle is $1.8 million.
52
December 4, 2007
Applications were solicited in July and five applications were received. Four applications were for
affordable housing programs and one was for a public facility. The applications totaled less than
$800,000. The review process for screening the applications included the Affordable Housing Board
who reviews the written proposals and then submits a list of priorities to the CDBG Commission.
The CDBG Commission also reviews the written proposals and conducts personal interviews with
each applicant. The Commission then formulates recommendations for the Council who conducts
a public hearing and adopts a resolution making the final decision on the allocation of funds. The
CDBG Commission is recommending allocating $550,000 with 90% of that funding going towards
affordable housing and 10% to a public facility request. The Commission recommends only 30%
of the available funding be allocated at this time and $1.2 million or 70% of the funds be carried over
to the 2008 Spring funding cycle. Applications for the Spring cycle will contain proposals for
funding requests that are much greater than the amount of funds available and the carry-over funds
will be applied at that time.
Bob Browning, CDBG Commission Chairperson, stated the Commission recommended three of the
applications received and did not recommend two of the applications received. The Home Buyer's
Assistance Program is a very successful affordable housing program and the Commission
recommends full funding for the program. The Neighbor -to -Neighbor Project to help renovate the
Coachlight Apartments is Phase Two of a project funded in the last cycle and is a needed project.
The Commission recommends full funding of the Project. The public facilities project is a security
upgrade to the Crossroads Safehouse and the Commission also recommends full funding for that
project. The Commission does not recommend full funding for the two projects proposed by the
partnership of the Fort Collins Housing Authority and Larimer County Mental Health. The
Commission believes the Project is premature at the current time and recommended Council defer
funding on the Project until the Spring cycle. The partnership between the Housing Authority and
Larimer County Mental Health is a program that uses housing as an incentive to get people with
mental health and substance abuse problems into counseling. The issue is not housing but providing
counseling and the Commission is unsure of how effective or what contributions the counseling is
making to the City. The Commission feels it needs more information before it can recommend
funding the Project to the Council.
Eric Berglund, CDBG Commission Vice -chairperson, stated the Commission views its process as
being similar to the BFO process where offers provided by applicants are reviewed for tangible
outcomes that can benefit the City and are good uses of taxpayer dollars. The CDBG provided initial
funding a few years ago for the pilot program to create the First Step Expansion Program. The
Program is entering its second year of funding for the full Program. When the Commission
discussed the outcome of the Program with the Housing Authority, the Commission did not receive
assurances that the Program provided a tangible result for the City. When the Commission looked
at reducing the funding requested, the Housing Authority asked in its application that the funding
be "all or nothing." The Program does not have a proven track record and the Commission did not
believe expanding the Program was a good use of funds.
Mr Browning stated the Commission questioned the administrative costs requested in the application
for the First Step Expansion Program and asked how many staff were needed to administer the
Program. The Housing Authority told the Commission no extra staff was needed. The Commission
53
December 4, 2007
believed the funds requested for administrative costs, which are affordable housing funds, would be
used to fund salaries of staff already employed by the Housing Authority. Funding administrative
costs is not one of the stated reasons for use of affordable housing funds.
Kay Rios, 1501 Patton, CDBG Commission member, supported the decisions of the Commission.
If Council disagrees with the Commission's recommendation, a work session should have been held
to discuss the differences. The Commission had general consensus that it was not fiscally
responsible to spend the funds just because the funds were available.
Cheryl Olson, Chairperson of the Steering Committee for the Mental Health and Substance Abuse
Planning Project, stated the Partnership is composed of 30 organizations and 5 consumers who are
actively involved in the goal of restructuring how mental health and substance abuse services are
administered in Fort Collins and Larimer County and to improve their effectiveness. She asked
Council to reconsider the application from the Housing Authority. The application would provide
12 additional housing vouchers for people suffering from co-occurring conditions of mental illness
and substance abuse. The Partnership supports the Housing Authority's application as it provides
appropriate intervention for those who suffer from severe mental illness that often leads to severe
substance abuse. The consequences of failing to provide intervention for the person include that
person being unable to live independently and often they become homeless and die at an early age.
The community pays a heavy price for failing to provide intervention as these people cycle through
services many times with no good outcome. The Program, Integrated Dual Disorders Treatment
(IDDT), has strong evidence that it is effective in interrupting the cycle. The Partnership has made
the commitment to bring IDDT to the community. Housing assistance is one of the elements of the
Program and the application from the Housing Authority is to provide housing vouchers. She
requested Council adopt the alternate version of the Resolution and provide funding for Housing
Authority application.
Councilmember Poppaw asked for clarification on the allocation of funding for the administrative
dollars in the application. Julie Brewen, Executive Director of the Housing Authority, stated the
Housing Authority was asked to separate the application into two pieces, the HOME money for
rental assistance and the administrative portion to be provided by other funds. When the
Commission asked if the Housing Authority would be hiring new staff to administer this Program,
the answer was that no new staff would be hired but existing staff would administer the program.
A portion of one full-time employee would be dedicated to this Program and that person would be
paid with the funds applied for in the application. The duties of that staff person would be handled
by a new person to be hired.
Councilmember Poppaw asked how many years had the Program been in place. Brewen stated the
Program was at the end of its third year. It started as a two-year pilot program with money from the
Colorado Division of Housing. Each family involved received two years of transitional housing
assistance and 76% of those people secured permanent housing by the end of the two years. Another
allocation was received for two more years for each family enrolled in the Program and is now at the
end of the first half. Success is defined as finding permanent housing solutions and the goal was to
move people from homelessness into secure housing. 76% of the people enrolled did achieve that
goal, two were terminated for noncompliance and some dropped out of the program.
54
December 4, 2007
Councilmember Poppaw noted the letter received from the Housing Authority states the Program
meets the priority needs identified by Council in the City's Consolidated Plan. Brewen stated the
City's Consolidated Housing Plan does include tenant -based rental assistance as a priority need and
uses the HOME fund for this assistance. Tenant -based rental assistance differs from other rental
subsidies programs because it is given to individual households rather than to a particular unit. It
offers a way to meet fluctuating demands for housing and can be tailored to meet the distinctive
housing needs of the community. The 12 vouchers that would be provided by the requested funding
would be targeted more narrowly to those who have co-occurring conditions of mental illness and
substance abuse with more intensive case management. The Housing Authority is providing the
housing portion of the treatment for the Partnership.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if the request from the Housing Authority for the funds not approved
by the CDBG Commission was for both the Program and the administrative costs for the Program.
He also asked if the funds were for actual physical structures or would these funds be ongoing
monies that would commit the CDBG funds on an ongoing basis. Waido stated the request was for
both parts to be approved. Providing the funds does not commit the CDBG to ongoing funds and
if the Program was to be extended, another application must be submitted and would compete with
other applications in the another funding cycle.
Councilmember Ohlson asked for an explanation of the $192,144 requested. Waido stated the funds
would be used for 12 vouchers to provide tenant -based rental assistance to help the families of
individuals in the Program.
Councilmember Manvel asked for information about the City's past involvement with rental
assistance. Waido stated the City has been involved in rental assistance programs and this Program
was funded in the past. Another form of tenant -based rental assistance is in the Public Service
category where an agency such as Neighbor -to -Neighbor has been granted money in the past to help
families on an emergency basis when financial hardship has arisen for a month or two so the family
does not lose its home. This Program is an ongoing, year -long program for individuals and is
considered a housing program, not a public service.
Councilmember Manvel noted the CDBG materials stated the Program is not a housing program,
but it is a welfare program and that was not an accurate statement. Mr. Browning stated the crux of
the Program is not a housing program but it is a counseling program.
Councilmember Manvel stated the Program was a broad -based program that involves many
elements, including housing. The funding requested is for housing. Mr. Browning stated housing
is used as an incentive to get people into the counseling program. The Commission wanted to see
tangible results from the Program before more funds were provided. Mr. Berglund stated the CDBG
Commission did not recommend funding for the fall cycle because the Commission felt the
application was premature. The Housing Authority had an unsuccessful application in at the same
time to the federal government for a grant. The Commission felt that extra time was needed for a
more comprehensive funding request that could be submitted in the spring cycle and the Commission
could then be provided with more information and make a more informed decision.
55
December 4, 2007
Councilmember Roy asked if any information or the success rates from other similar programs
around the country had been considered. Mr. Browning stated the Commission was not aware of any
other programs of a similar nature. The Commission was not suggesting this Program should not
be supported, but it wanted more information before more funds were given.
Mayor Hutchinson asked what the cost would be of funding this program before more information
is available. Mr. Browning stated the Commission felt the application was premature and the
Commission wanted more information before it committed to a program that would require funding
over a long period of time. Mr. Berglund stated the Commission was concerned the Program was
only in its first year of a two-year funding cycle for the existing program and expanding the Program
now when the Partnership was in the process of restructuring and seeking federal grants that were
not yet in place was not a prudent use of funds. The Commission weighs applications heavily with
regard to leveraged funds. The Program was not up and fully running yet and did not have all the
information concerning desired outcomes and what other grants or funds would be available to the
Program. The Commission did not feel it would be detrimental to the Program to have the
application resubmitted for the spring cycle.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if funds were available for this Program. City Manager Atteberry
stated funding could be provided either through use of reserves or to wait until year-end figures are
known and it can be determined if funding can be provided from the General Fund.
Councilmember Manvel stated the funds requested are not for physical buildings or for loans which
are repaid and the funds can be used again, but the funds are for rent which does not offer any return
to the City. The funds would be used for a very needy population. It could cost the City more if this
population is homeless than ifhelp is provided for them. Mr. Berglund stated the Commission asked
the applicant how many people in the program were not being served. The response was that over
80% were already in existing Housing Authority properties and the voucher program would be used
with private landlords to take in this population who has a high turnover rate. A larger population
has been identified but are not yet in the Program.
Councilmember Manvel asked why vouchers were needed if most people in the Program were
already in Housing Authority properties. Brewen stated the 12 new vouchers would be used for
people that are now homeless and not in any type of subsidized housing. The Program as a whole,
with the dozens of community partners, does have huge amounts of leveraging dollars and that
information was not part of the application because the application was concerned only with the
housing piece. Each participant pays a minimum rent or 30% of their income, so the voucher is not
for the total amount of rent.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if the specifics of funding for the Program could be resolved at a later
date with direction given at this time. City Manager Atteberry stated research was needed to find
a funding source for this Program as any extra General Fund dollars available at year-end would be
needed to cover the gap created by Larimer County's decision to reduce the City's share of the Road
and Bridge Levy revenue.
56
December 4, 2007
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt the
alternative version of Resolution 2007-104 that fully funds all the applications presented to the
CDBG Commissions.
Councilmember Manvel stated the City does provide rental assistance and the Program does serve
the most needy population. He believed the Program provided a vital service to the community and
deserved the funding.
Councilmember Ohlson stated many families were touched by mental health issues or substance
abuse and the Program deserved the support of the Council.
Councilmember Poppaw thanked the CDBG Commission for its hard work and careful examination
of all applications. The Program is greatly needed in the community and she supported the
Resolution.
Councilmember Troxell stated the 2008-2009 budget left basic city services unfunded and funding
this Program was not a good use of reserves or City funds.
Councilmember Roy stated the Program provided a way to make a significant difference in the lives
of the most needy in the community and he supported the Resolution.
Councilmember Ohlson noted the CDBG funds cannot be used for police, fire or other city services
and must be used for very specific categories. Waido clarified the administrative funds for the
Program would come from the City's Affordable Housing Fund and the Program's tenant -based
rental assistance funds will be provided by the HOME program.
Mayor Hutchinson stated while there are many areas to use funds to help improve people's lives,
great care must be given in committing those resources. The CDBG Commission has requested a
delay of support for the Program until more information can be provided and that is good
management of funds. He supported the recommendation of the CDBG Commission.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Roy. Nays: Brown,
Hutchinson and Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2007-106
Accepting the I-25/SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan; Approving an
Agreement Among the Town of Windsor, the City of Fort Collins, and
Metro Acquisitions, LLC; and Approving an Intergovernmental
Agreement Among the Colorado Department of Transportation,
Town of Windsor, and City of Fort Collins, Postponed Indefinitely
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
57
December 4, 2007
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
Acceptance of Resolution 2007-106 would result in a cost sharing agreement between the City
(25%), the Town of Windsor (25916) and Metro Acquisitions, LLC (50%) for contracting, consultant
work, including requestfor separate action with Colorado Department of Transportation ("CDOT')
and Federal Highway Works Administration and if adopted, proceeding with the 1601 Interchange
approval process and review by CDOT, with a total estimated cost for services of $153,561.
The estimated share for the City of Fort Collins for this work is $38,391 (25%), unless the
development does not proceed, in which event the City and Windsor must reimburse the developer
for its costs thereby increasing the City's share to $76, 782.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The I-251SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan (Plan) represents a joint plan between the City of
Fort Collins and the Town of Windsor as directed by the Intergovernmental Agreement established
in 2006. Rather than pursue a more traditional planning process including establishing a vision,
goals and policy directives, this Plan provides a clearframework and direction to follow quickly by
implementation. As a result, the Plan reflects a unique process with a focus on strategic
implementation actions and identification of critical next steps to achieve the primary goal to fund
and reconstruct the interchange. The key elements of the Plan include interchange design, west
frontage road alignment, natural area buffers and funding scenarios. All will require additional
discussions, refinement and coordination prior to finalization, as part of on -going implementation
efforts.
BACKGROUND
The interchange at the junction of Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 serves as a
gateway to both Fort Collins and Windsor. The interchange has failed to function at an acceptance
level ofservice "C ", particularly during the morning and eveningpeak hours. This being the case,
numerous meetings and discussions involving the elected officials and staffs of Fort Collins,
Windsor, Larimer County, the Stakeholder Group, North Front Range Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO), and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), have occurred over
the past several years in an attempt to address traffic congestion at this interchange.
The importance of this interchange as a gateway into both jurisdictions is significant, as well as
from a functional standpoint in providing mobility and access to existing and future development
in the area. Although the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has identified this area
as a high priority project, there is no Federal or State funding available now or in the foreseeable
future. The existing interchange problem cannot be fixed by implementing smaller interim
improvements such as frontage road realignment and ramp widening. The bridge overpass along
with the supporting interchange infrastructure needs to be replaced to meet the transportation needs
for the next 20 years. The estimated cost to replace the interchange is approximately $21 to $25
million.
W.
December 4, 2007
In March 2006, Fort Collins and Windsor entered into an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) for
the purpose of addressing urban services, infrastructure, and land uses at this interchange (see
Attachment #3). One of the key components and directives of the IGA was for the two municipalities
to work cooperatively to develop a comprehensive plan to fund the reconstruction of this
interchange.
As such, Fort Collins and Windsor appropriated $50,000 each for a total budgeted amount of
$100, 000 to begin the process of developing the comprehensive interchange plan. This amount was
later supplemented by an appropriation from the MPO of $26, 000, for a grand total of $126, 000 to
be used towards the development of the plan.
In August 2006, Fort Collins and Windsor entered into a contract with the EDAW Consulting Firm
to develop the comprehensive development plan. Additionally, EDAWpartnered with the DMJM-
Harris Engineering, BBC Consulting, and PBS & J Engineering firms to assist them with the
development of the plan. A technical advisory committee (TAC) comprised of staff representatives
from Fort Collins, Windsor, Larimer County, CDOT, and the MPO was formed to work with the
consultants and oversee the development of the plan.
The purpose of the Plan is to develop action strategies to implement improvements to the
interchange, with particular emphasis on developing alternative funding mechanisms to allow the
project to go directly into final design.
Key Elements of Plan:
Land Use
The Corridor Activity Center (CAC) [See Figure 3, Page 4 of the Plan] is the focus of this study
identifying existing and future commercial, employment and residential land uses on both sides of
the interchange. The quality of development, views and open lands within the CAC is importantfor
establishing this area as a primary gateway into Windsor and Fort Collins. Three fundamental
drivers of the land use plan for the area are the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) station in the immediate
area of the interchange, the open space amenities at Fossil Creek Reservoir, and a series of
transportation improvements (including relocation of the frontage road). Development would
complement these three elements, creating new employment areas, neighborhoods, commercial
areas, and a system ofconnected open space areas. The CAC contains 402 acres ofcommercial (252
on east and 150 on west), 114 acres of employment, and 369 acres of mixed -use residential on the
east side [See Figure 5, Page 15 of the Plan].
Transportation
The preferred transportation layout follows the tight diamond interchange configuration from the
North I-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). [See Figure 24, page 44 of the Plan].
This design will improve both local and regional mobility by alleviating traffic congestion and
decreasing overall travel times. Based on the North Front Range MPO's Regional Traffic Model
and CDOT's Environmental Overview Study (EOS) for the State Highway 392 corridor, the
59
December 4, 2007
recommended cross section for the highway and interchange bridge is 4-travel lanes, in addition to
the necessary turn lanes at intersections, pedestrian and bicycle lanes and sidewalks. The current
City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan (MSP) shows a 6-lane facility between US-287 and I-25
which was based on earlier analysis. Later in 2008 and once the 1601 Study process is complete,
staff will consider supporting a recommendation to amend the MSP to make it consistent with this
most recent determination, after first reviewing additional analysis from the 1601 Study process.
The frontage road alignment located on the east side is consistent with the DEIS. On the west side
of the interchange, three alternatives are identified in the Plan. The City of Fort Collins Master
Street Plan currently shows a general alignment, which closely matches the DEIS location. The
Plan identifies two alternatives to the DEIS to initially assess increasing the separation between the
interchange ramp and frontage road intersections, and not bisect vacant land designated for future
commercial development. A final west frontage road alignment will be determined in conjunction
with the proposed future development in the area.
Local bus service from the planned new transit hub at College Ave. and Harmony Rd would act as
a feeder system to the proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) station or Park -and -Ride facility within
the CAC. The DEIS proposes that the BRT parking area be located on either the east or west side
of I-25. Ideally, a station located in the center of I-25 could be accessed from Park -and -Ride
facilities on both sides ofI-25 via a pedestrian bridge. If a BRTstation is not constructed, the DEIS
assumes that Park -and -Ride facilities would still be constructed along with the new pedestrian
bridge over I-25. Additional transportation options for the local streets adjacent to the interchange
could include a dedicated on -street bike lane for cyclists, a detached sidewalkfor pedestrians and
a trail for other users.
The City of Fort Collins Transportation Board at its October 17th meeting recommended to City
Council that ten percent (10%) of the overall interchange improvement project cost be earmarked
for transit. A majority (5-4) felt it important to ensure that funding was in place in this project to
increase transit amenities and service to and from the activity center and possibly between Windsor
and Fort Collins.
Natural Resources
As part of the partnership between the City and Town of Windsor to reconstruct the interchange, the
City has a unique challenge on the west side in balancing the need to support future development
that will help contribute to funding interchange improvements, and preserving important natural
resources including migratory roosting habitat, shoreline and wetland habitat. The Plan includes
an inventory ofexisting natural resources and assesses corresponding setback buffers based on type
of habitat.
The Plan seeks to maintain the integrity of the environment around Fossil Creek Reservoir through
adherence to specific buffers that protect sensitive species and habitat. If needed, wetland
mitigation measures, both on site and offsite, will take place to enhance key resources. The Plan's
protection measures are set by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Colorado Division
of Wildlife, the City of Fort Collins, and Larimer County. The buffer zones identified in the Plan
a
December 4, 2007
include a '/a mile buffer from critical roosting habitat, between a 100 — 300 foot buffer from
shoreline habitat, and for wetlands a 50 - 100 foot buffer. [See Figure 29 and 30 on Page 49 and
50 of the Plan].
The widening ofSH392 west of the interchange will result in wetland loss as the street cross section
is expandedfrom a 2-lane to a 4-lanefacility. The timing of this improvement will be separatefrom
the interchange reconstruction project and either addressed as part of future development or part
of CDOT's future SH 392 highway improvement schedule.
The identified buffer areas form the basis for future development activities adjacent to the natural
areas. As the area develops, the City will review development proposals according to Section 3.4.1
of the Land Use Code. As part of the review process, an ecological characterization study (ECS) will
be prepared. Final buffers will be established based upon the findings in the ECS. The resulting
buffers will then be delineated prior to commencement of any construction activities and enforced
by City inspectors during construction. Any disturbance within a buffer zone will be restored
according to Section 3.4.1(E) (2) — Development Activities within the Buffer Zone.
Funding
Funding emerged early on in the Plan's process as its primary challenge. The funding scenarios
match benefits with costs and ensure a reliable funding stream to repay anticipated bonds over a
twenty year timeframe. The estimated total cost of reconstruction of the interchange bridge, ramps,
frontage roads and landscaping is approximately $21 million to $25 million. To identify the most
feasible strategy, three funding scenarios were identified.
Funding Scenario 1 focuses on the private sector and includes a special assessment and property
tax for CAC landowners implemented over 20 years; an impact fee imposed on the "travel shed ",-
and, a Public Improvement Fee (PIF). No municipal or other governmental support is assumed for
this scenario.
Funding Scenario 2 is based on partnerships and includes financial support from CDOT ($2.0
million), the NFRMPO ($1.2 million —future allocation) and, the municipalities of Windsor ($1
million) and Fort Collins ($1 million); a lower special assessment than Scenario 1 on CAC
landowners (undeveloped land only) that sunsets in 10 years; a PIF; and a property tax on CAC
landowners.
Funding Scenario 3 focuses on spreading the burden to a larger area and includes all municipal
funding (Windsor and Fort Collins) from Scenario 2 and an expanded property tax district with a
mill levy. There is also a small special assessment on all undeveloped CAC land that sunsets in 10
years and a PIF.
In the future, additional public funding (beyond existing assumptions) may become available
through sources such as CDOT, NFRMPO and a future Regional Transportation Authority. While
the Plan does not have a specific funding recommendation, it is assumed that one or a combination
61
December 4, 2007
of these funding scenarios will be used to further negotiate a final funding package to support the
cost of the interchange improvements as implementation continues.
Implementation
Staff has identified several implementation actions after Plan acceptance. One of the first steps is
to develop new agreements to continue the partnership among the jurisdictions that have a direct
interest in the interchange. This would include other governmental entities such as CDOT, as well
as local developers.
The options to receive approval for interchange improvements are: (1) wait for the current North
I-25 EIS process being conducted by CDOT to be completed, which may happen by the end of 2009
at the earliest or be pushed back farther; or (2) approach and pursue a parallel process by
submitting toCDOTaJustifcationforSeparate Action. Given thepotential development timelines,
staff believes that the second of these options may be more advantageous; if approved, this would
allow the submittal of a CDOT 1601 Policy Directive.
The second option listed above is supported by Town and City staff, based on a request by Metro
Acquisitions, LLC "Lauth " (developer with options on properties on both the east and west sides
oftheInterchange). The Town, City, and developer are requesting ajustificationfor separate action
from CDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in December. Under the first
agreement that is being presented for Council's consideration, the cost for this request would be
shared among the Town (25%), City (25%) and the developer (50%a) . If Windsor and Fort Collins
agree to move forward with this approach, the three parties could then proceed with an accelerated
1601 process and share a similar cost sharing arrangement.
The request a justification for separate action from CDOT and the Federal Highway Administration
represents the first step in initiating an accelerated 1601 process. The 1601 process is the Colorado
Department of Transportation's policy to evaluate new interchanges or major improvements to
existing interchanges along interstates and major highways. The 1601 process would initiate a
.feasibility study for the I-251SH392Interchange and could include the following analysis:
• Identify operation and capacity analysis for existing conditions and year 2030
• Identify all reasonable and feasible interchange access alternatives
• Screen all of the alternatives (identify pros and cons)
• Review environmental conditions in area
• Work toward a single best alternative
• Develop a funding plan
A preferred alternative will be identified based on this analysis. Additional environmental analysis
maybe necessary which will most likely include an Environmental Assessment (EA). Both the 1601
and the EA will utilize the data currently being collected as part of the EIS and SH 392 EOS, and
contained in the Improvement Plan. The 1601 process would be completed and approved prior to
final design of the interchange improvements. It is anticipated that the Justification for Separate
Action and CDOT 1601 process will take approximately one year. Again, if the Justif cation for a
62
December 4, 2007
Separate Action is denied, the alternative would be to wait for the North I-25 EIS to be completed
in 2009.
An EOS is a planning study which evaluates potential transportation solutions by employing a
context -sensitive solutions approach, and then considers potential environmental effects in the
development and selection of alternatives. Although it is not a National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) study, the SH 392 EOS does address many of the same elements, and is intended to
recommend a solution which is anticipated to be the starting point for future NEPA studies. The
study does not clear a project for construction. If, at a later date, a federally funded construction
project is pursued, a NEPA-compliant study would be required.
The Federal Highway Administration, Federal TransitAdministration and the Colorado Department
of Transportation have commissioned an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to determine the
effect that adding various transportation improvements along I-25 will have on the lives ofresidents
and commuters in the area.
This study will build on the findings of the previously completed North Front Range Transportation
Alternatives Feasibility Study, which was a Major Investment Study completed in 2000. This EIS is
the next step in planning for transportation improvements along the I-25 corridor.
The North I-25 EIS, currently underway in the region, is a federal requirement set forth in the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The EIS is a more in-depth study to determine the
purpose and need offuture transportation improvements in the same area; identify alternatives to
be developed; and document the anticipated impacts of those alternatives. The North I-25 EIS is the
next step in identifying alternatives for transportation issues.
The Environmental Assessment (EA) is a federally mandated study that identifies the environmental,
economic, historical and social impacts of a proposed project. It results in one of two documents:
an Environmental Impact Statement, which describes the project's probable impacts, or a Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
Additional actions needed over the next two years include development of interchange preliminary
design, completion ofthe North I-25 ElS and other environmental compliance actions by CDOT, and
establishment of a special district within the Corridor Activity Center.
The Town of Windsor is currently in discussions with Lauth (Metro Acquisitions, LLC), a national
developerfor a large commercial project on the northeast quadrant of the Interchange, and with the
City for property on the west side. Because discussions are very preliminary, details of these future
projects are not available at this time.
Public Process
Throughout each facet of the development of the Plan, the process has included public involvement
and inputfrom the key stakeholders including residents, property owners and businesses in the area.
The Plan has also been guided by a Technical Advisory Committee ('TAC), comprised of 29
63
December 4, 2007
members, including representatives fom the CityofFort Collins, Town of Windsor, Larimer County,
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), Northern Front Range Metropolitan Planning
Organization (NFRMPO), and consultants. Throughout the planning process, in addressing
environmental issues, the TAC included City environmental planners and representatives from the
consultant team. In addition to the stakeholders meetings, the consulting team and representatives
of the TAC also facilitated two public open houses to receive additional information, comments and
feedbackfrom the public on the proposed Plan. Two municipal websites provided the community
with up-to-date information.
By adoption of this Resolution, the Citywill be accepting the I-251SH 392Interchange Improvement
Plan and approving two agreements. The first is an agreement among the Town of Windsor, the City
ofFort Collins and Metro Acquisitions, LLC, to jointly file a Justification for Separate Action with
CDOT and FHWA. Upon its approval of that agreement, the City and Town will jointly apply to
CDOT, NFR-MPO, and FHWA for approval of the Interchange Improvements in accordance with
the 1601 Process. The agreement would also provide that the Town, the City, and Metro
Acquisitions, LLC would share the project's initial consulting costs as well as the subsequent costs
generated by the 1601 Process. The second agreement is an intergovernmental agreement among
CDOT, the Town of Windsor, and the City ofFort Collins under which the Town and the City would
reimburse CDOTfor the costs CDOT incurs in reviewing the conceptual designs, studies, and other
documents filed by the Town and the City as part of the Justification for Separate Action and 1601
Process. "
Pete Wray, Senior City Planner, stated the proposed Plan was a partnership between the Town of
Windsor and the City and is a plan for the SH392/I-25 interchange. The proposed Resolution
contains three parts. Acceptance of the Plan is the first part of the Resolution and is a step to
acknowledge the planning process and the elements of the Plan. Two other agreements are also
associated with the Resolution. The first agreements is between the Town of Windsor and the City
and the developer to initiate and fund the next step in implementation in working with CDOT and
the Federal Highway Administration to proceed with the 1601 Study. Another agreement is between
Windsor and the City and CDOT to support and fund CDOT's oversight and review of the 1601
process. An IGA formalized early in 2006 set the stage for the planning process and established a
focused study area in and around the interchange. It jointly created a comprehensive development
plan for the interchange. The Plan has a focus of implementation and examining strategic actions
that could be followed to the ultimate goal of funding and reconstructing the interchange. The
planning process identified key stakeholders in the area, property owners and business owners and
representatives of potential development in the area. Two public open houses have been held and
the Plan has been reviewed by various boards and commissions and other agencies and other public
outreach. The process was divided into three areas. One looked at existing conditions, another
examined developing the actual interchange improvement plan and phase three looked at specific
implementation actions. Plan participation included a technical advisory committee of City,
Windsor and County staff and representatives from CDOT. Funding strategies were examined to
develop fair and equitable ways to fund the necessary changes. The existing land uses and natural
resources in the area, the condition of the interchange and the supporting highway and street
infrastructure were examined by Plan participants. CDOT has been preparing an environmental
impact statement (EIS) for the northern Colorado I-25 corridor for several years and staff has
M
December 4, 2007
participated in that process. This Plan process has been coordinated with CDOT's EIS process. The
Plan includes CDOT's alternative of a tight diamond design for the interchange, similar to the
Harmony/I-25 interchange, with potential for future bus rapid transit and the potential for a bus
station. CDOT's final EIS should be completed in 2009.
Land uses for the Windsor side of the interchange include a combination of future residential and
general commercial uses. The northeast quadrant of the interchange is zoned for future Employment
uses, and the southeast quadrant has both commercial and residential uses currently. The west side
of the interchange has a mixed -use commercial land use designation with some existing commercial
development on the northwest quadrant. There is also residential use and the Fossil Creek Reservoir
and Swede Lake extension.
Dana Leavitt, Environmental Planner, stated Swede Lake is the southeast arm of the Fossil Creek
Reservoir and contains bald eagle nesting sites, prairie dog colonies and wetlands. Buffer zones are
proposed in the Plan to protect this area. Staff has worked with the Colorado Division of Wildlife,
County environmental planners and private consultants to identify the buffer areas. The proposed
buffer zones would be minimum standards and future development plans could include larger buffer
zones.
Wray stated the transportation improvements associated with the Plan include replacing the bridge,
ramps and a portion of the frontage roads. The layout would follow a tight -diamond configuration.
The overall estimated cost for improving the interchange ranges from $21 million to $25 million.
Another proposed improvement is realignment of the frontage road on the west side. The frontage
road on the east side is already established with existing development. CDOT has proposed an
alternative frontage road on the west as part of its EIS that matches closely with the City's Master
Street Plan. Realignment of the frontage road could help alleviate traffic stacking problems at the
interchange and increase the potential for development in the northwest and southwest quadrants.
Future transit projects have also been identified as part of the Plan, including a bus rapid transit
station and a Park-N-Ride facility. Regional trails around the Fossil Creek Reservoir and pedestrian
and bike facilities are proposed, including a pedestrian bridge over I-25 to connect with the bus rapid
transit station.
Chuck Seest, Finance Director, stated the costs for the Project are estimated at $22 million. Different
scenarios have been developed to pay the costs. One scenario places the entire cost on the existing
property owners within the area and would utilize a public improvement fee (PIF), along with a
special assessment on commercial and residential properties and does not use direct municipal or
governmental entity contributions. The cost is bome by the PIF and landowners. Another scenario
examined other areas of funding that might be available from MPO, CDOT, the Town of Windsor
and Fort Collins. It was estimated that $5 million could come from those sources with the remainder
of funds coming from a PIF. The third scenario identified other stakeholders that would benefit from
improving the interchange and would impose a property tax on commercial and residential within
a given corridor that utilizes the interchange.
65
December 4, 2007
Wray stated the proposed Resolution includes anew intergovernmental agreement between the Town
of Windsor, the City and the developer to initiate and fund the 1601 process, an agreement with
CDOT to fund and support the overview and administration of the 1601 process. An improvement
district will be formed and examination of preliminary and final engineering reports will occur in
the next two years with the goal to reconstruct the interchange late 2009. In order to proceed with
this schedule, a separate action must be requested from CDOT to complete a 1601 Study as it will
not have completed its EIS process before 2009. The 1601 Study includes an environmental
assessment and would be completed in 2008. He noted Section C of the agreement between the City,
Windsor and the developer contains a cost -sharing agreement for the 1601 Study and reimbursement
in the event the developer did not move forward with his project. Staff is continuing to discuss that
reimbursement with the affected parties and agreement has not yet been reached.
("Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Carolyn White, attorney representing Lauth Property Group, affiliated with Metro Acquisition, LLC,
the third party in the cost -sharing agreement, stated Lauth Property Group supported the Resolution
as a way to move forward with improvements to the area.
Tim Johnson, 1337 Stonehenge Drive, stated Fossil Creek Natural Area is recognized as an
important birding area nationally by the Audubon Society so the realignment of the frontage road
should locate the road as close to I-25 as possible and as far from this Natural Area as possible to
protect the Area. He urged Council to reject the financing strategies proposed in the Resolution as
the financing is too dependent on the PIF for the funding stream.
Gary Wockner, 516 North Grant, stated the proposed Plan was not the best way to improve the
interchange. Dealing with the issues of improving intersections and development along I-25 needs
to handled in a comprehensive manner, not just one intersection at a time. The 1-25 Corridor Plan
and City Plan are being written over with little thought or public discussion with the Plan. The
financing strategies are not fiscally responsible public policy. He requested Council put the Plan on
hold and review the entire I-25 Corridor Plan before proceeding with this Project.
David May, 225 South Meldrum, Chamber of Commerce President, stated the worst two
interchanges in Northern Colorado were the Crossroads/I-25 interchange and the SH392/I-25
interchange. The interchange is a primary point of access to Fort Collins and 1-25. Action is needed
now to help regional transportation issues.
Councilmember Manvel asked what Council was endorsing by accepting the Plan. Wray stated
accepting the Plan would lay the foundation for future discussions on zoning recommendations,
amendments to the Master Street Plan, and changes to the City Structure Plan. The key elements
identified in the Plan that are important to provide the framework for ongoing implementation are
identified as alternatives. Accepting the Plan acknowledges the elements of the Plan, the process
and agrees to move forward with the partnership. City Manager Atteberry stated accepting the Plan
does not bind the City to anything in the Plan but acknowledges the work already done and moves
the work forward. He noted there had been public input during the process of developing the Plan
with numerous community meetings held as well as the stakeholders involved in each step. Wray
December 4, 2007
stated work on the Plan has been ongoing for over a year. Key stakeholders such as property owners
and business owners in the immediate vicinity of the interchange were identified and encouraged to
be actively involved in the process. Two public open house meetings were held and all information
was available on the City's website, three newsletters were distributed and advertising was done.
A joint work session was held between the Council and the Windsor Town Board. He stated the
issue was before Council now as the timing was important to the Town of Windsor who is one of
the partners in the agreement.
Councilmember Manvel stated the Plan had many unanswered questions and contained contradictory
statements and he preferred using different terminology from "acceptance" of the Plan. City
Attorney Roy noted the Resolution states "acceptance of the Plan will set the stage for the Plan's
implementation" but that statement could be reworded, if Council chose. Acceptance of the Plan
does not commit the City to implement any or all of the Plan. The Plan establishes the backdrop for
the action of authorizing the two agreements and initiating the 1601 process. Proceeding with the
Resolution indicates Council approval of separating out the environmental review and other kinds
of review of this proposed project from others that are currently being studied by CDOT so as to
accelerate the planning and possible design and possible future construction. It does not go beyond
the cost -sharing and cooperative effort with CDOT to separate this project from other parts of the
I-25 corridor that CDOT is now studying.
Councilmember Manvel asked what additional input steps are needed before moving ahead with the
1601 process. Wray stated the Resolution before Council acknowledges the partnership and funding
for the 1601 Study. Further Council review would be needed for finalization of funding, frontage
road placement, response to future development that would go through the City's annexation and
zoning process.
Councilmember Manvel asked what the 1601 Study would be based on, since the Plan was not in
its final stages and Council was only acknowledging the Plan and not approving all details in the
Plan. Wray stated the 1601 Study focuses on the improvements to the interchange, including the
bridge, ramps, and the frontage roads that CDOT has shown in its EIS. Mark Jackson,
Transportation Director, stated the 1601 Study will identify the funding strategy the parties that are
petitioning for the 1601 Study want to use to fund the interchange improvements. The 1601 Study
is considered a "mini" environmental clearance and is a way for communities, developers or agencies
to have a review of all existing conditions, forecast conditions, design issues, environmental issues,
mitigation required for those issues, and alignments done for a concentrated area rather than on a
large scale study area as is done for an EIS, which can take 3-5 years to complete. It is a focused,
intense, small-scale area analysis that shows what must be done to move forward and make
improvements to a particular area.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the Study was also a development study. Joe Frank, Advance
Planning Director, stated the 1601 Study is based on the Comprehensive Plans of the two cities and
is not a vision plan. The Study is not for land -use planning. Jackson stated it is a way to petition
CDOT to request an analysis of a particular interchange and prove how the improvements will be
done and what mitigation will occur to lessen impacts. It is not creating a vision or a land -use plan.
67
December 4, 2007
Mayor Hutchinson asked when land -use decisions will occur such as the size of buffers or decision
regarding funding occur. Jackson stated staff would create a clear line of communication with
Council and Boards and Commissions as the Project moves forward. Accepting the Plan is moving
the Plan forward but it is not letting control go of key decisions. One decision point would occur
when with analysis of environmental issues, and staff would bring the analysis to Council. City
Manager Atteberry stated staff would bring decisions regarding frontage roads, funding mechanisms
and other issues to Council. He assured Council that it would be involved in decisions made through
the 1601 Study process.
Councilmember Ohlson asked how many of the public meetings were held in Fort Collins. Wray
stated two public open houses were held on location at the interchange in July and August.
Councilmember Ohlson noted Windsor's area in the Corridor Activity Center surrounding the
interchange was four to five times the size of Fort Collins' area and he asked why the cost would be
split equally. Wray stated equal amounts were agreed upon to support the planning process over the
past year. It was also agreed in the potential funding strategy that included funding from the Town
of Windsor and Fort Collins that the costs would be shared equally. The final funding strategy will
take many discussions through the next two years and the equal sharing of costs could change.
Councilmember Ohlson asked who would be responsible for payments on bonds if the public
improvement fees (PIF), an additional tax on the retail sales in the area, are not collected in the
amounts needed. Mike Freeman, Interim Finance Director, stated that is one of many details to be
answered at a later date. The Plan lists different scenarios for financing and it is unknown how the
financing will be handled until more details about specific projects are finalized. Beginning the 1601
Study will give the partners the ability to begin exploring additional and higher levels of financial
participation at the federal and state level. The financing plan will be very complicated and will
unfold over several years. Generally speaking, in Colorado, most bond counsel does not believe
public improvement fees are adequate to support third party debt so deciding who issues the debt and
how it would be repaid is a matter to be resolved in the future.
Councilmember Ohlson asked Windsor and Fort Collins would completely reimburse the developer
if the Project does not move forward. He believed the developer should assume the risk. Frank
stated staff was asking for direction regarding that condition of the agreement.
Carolyn White, attorney representing Lauth Property Group, stated the costs contained in the
agreement are a very small portion of the overall costs associated with the Project. This agreement
is concerns only the engineering costs associated with creating and submitting a separate action to
CDOT and conducting the 1601 Study. It does not include other engineering the developer has
already done, the earnest money already paid for land and legal and consulting fees the developer
has already invested to get to this point. The developer is asking for the reimbursement clause in the
event the developer could not complete the project. The developer believes the market is available
to complete this project and is willing to go forward. The interchange is needed by the Town of
Windsor and Fort Collins already and planning documents show it is at a failing level of service.
If there is no project, the developer does not need the interchange, but Windsor and Fort Collins do.
If the developer were not able to complete the project, it would lose all the other investment but Fort
December 4, 2007
Collins and Windsor could proceed with the improvement of the interchange. The Town Board of
Windsor has already approved the agreement with this condition in it.
Councilmember Ohlson questioned why Fort Collins would fund improvement of an interchange that
would enable another community to have a massive retail outlet that would draw sales tax dollars
from Fort Collins. He did not believe a different funding scenario from the ones presented would
be brought forward. Freeman stated it is not accurate to say the three scenarios listed in the Plan
would be the only scenarios available to fund the Project. Financing a Project of this magnitude is
very complex. Staff made a conscious decision to list likely scenarios, but a different scenario could
be adopted. When the intersection is at full development, it is estimated that one-third of the sales
tax revenue generated will come from the Fort Collins side of the interchange. Frank stated it was
never part of the Project for staff to comment on Windsor's Comprehensive Plan or its long-term
vision. Windsor staff did not comment on Fort Collins' Comprehensive Plan or long-term vision.
This Project was started because the two cities have a common interest in a major transportation
infrastructure entryway into Fort Collins. 25% of the traffic at the interchange has destinations in
FortCollins. Both communities have a land -use plan and vision for the area and the Project is about
building infrastructure to support that vision.
City Attomey Roy stated to alleviate concerns that the Citymight be committed to one of the funding
scenarios currently listed in the Plan, Section 1 in the Resolution could be amended to indicate the
identification and obtaining of funding commitments may or may not be limited to the alternatives
identified in the Plan and Council will be revisiting those options in the process of formulating a
final recommendation.
Councilmember Roy asked for clarification of a comment made by Ms. White that stated "time is
of the essence. If this is going to be a long, lengthy study process, why bother taking it away from
CDOT." Ms. White stated if nothing is done and the resolution is not approved, as a practical
matter, this intersection will continue to be studied as part of the CDOT EIS process. The Study is
projected to be completed in 2009 or 2010. When the EIS is completed, funding sources will not
yet be identified and there is no plan in the foreseeable future to fund the improvements for this
interchange. Time frames for development move much faster than that and, based on the market,
there is a real opportunity to bring retail to this intersection now but that opportunity will disappear
if the developer must wait until the conclusion of the CDOT process to even begin the discussion
of funding.
Councilmember Poppaw asked when a broader conversation would occur about prioritization and
funding mechanisms for all five major gateways into Fort Collins. City Manager Atteberry stated
it is possible to discuss the I-25 Corridor Plan while concurrently participating in a 1601 Study for
this interchange. He suggested having a work session in January to discuss the I-25 gateways.
Councilmember Roy asked for clarification of the words "implement" and pledge" in the
Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding Highway 392 Interchange, Section 3 that stated "the IGA
serves to implement the cooperation pledged by the City and Town in the existing IGA." City
Attorney Roy stated the language states an existing IGA is in place whereby the Town and City
agreed to cooperate to develop a way to fund improvements to the interchange and this agreement
Z
December 4, 2007
furthers the cooperation. Implement does not mean any specific action. The paragraph does not
contain anybinding commitment. It is continuing the cooperative effort set forth in the original IGA
and the City agrees to do the things that are cited in more detail.
Councilmember Roy asked if the phrase "in the shortest possible time" listed in paragraph A of
Section 3 which states "parties agree to undertake in good faith all reasonable means to obtain the
necessary authorization and funding for, and construction of, the interchange improvements in the
shortest possible time" was binding. City Attorney Roy stated the phrase had to be read in
conjunction with "necessary authorization" and the backdrop for this is the City Charter which
regulates what can and cannot be done. In any time frame, money cannot be spent that has not been
appropriated or it cannot be spent if funds are not available to satisfy the request. The point is to
recognize this is a time -sensitive undertaking. If Council does not believe it is a time -sensitive
matter, then it needs to change the agreement or reject it. This agreement does not force Council to
do anything it does not want to do in the future if it decides to cease participation in the Project.
Councilmember Roy noted the 1601 Study rules state only a governmental or quasi -governmental
entity may apply for this process and he asked why the IGA lists the developer as "coordinating with
the Town, City, CDOT and federal highway and will engage additional consultants, as necessary to
prepare the justification for separate action." Jackson stated the justification for separate action was
not the 1601 process but is the entry into the process. Permission must be requested to enter into the
1601 process. A governmental or quasi -governmental entity must submit the petition for a 1601
Study.
Councilmember Roy asked for information on the analysis done to determine the buffer zones.
Leavitt stated a private property owner whose property adjoins Swede Lake requested an analysis
of his property as to what habitat value and what buffers would be needed to preserve the habitat in
2005. During the process to develop the proposed IGA, the report was made available to staff. Staff
did not retain a consultant to do a new study of the natural area, but used existing information to
develop the proposed IGA.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if revenue sharing had been discussed with the Town of Windsor.
Frank stated the partnership that is proposed is a revenue sharing arrangement as sales tax, PIF and
property tax and other financing mechanisms will be shared to build the interchange. The partner
that has the greater amount of commercial property will pay a greater portion of the costs.
Councilmember Ohlson asked for information on buffer zones and what protection will be provided
for the riparian habitat in the Windsor area of the Project. Leavitt stated Windsor does have buffer
zones but they are not as extensive as what Fort Collins requires. Habitat on both sides of I-25 was
identified but they have not yet been mapped or evaluated as to whether they are critical areas of
habitat.
Councilmember Roy asked who now owns the interchange and who would own it after the
improvements were completed. Jackson stated CDOT owns the interchange now and would retain
ownership after the improvements were completed.
70
December 4, 2007
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adopt Resolution
2007-106.
Councilmember Manvel requested a change to the language in Section 1 of the Resolution as he felt
the language was too strongly worded.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he did not approve of the agreement in its current state as it was not
put in context of the rest of the I-25 Corridor Plan. Developing the land along the interstate just to
pay for improvements to the interchanges did not match his view of entryways to Fort Collins. Land
use planning, habitat protection, view sheds, open space, community separators and revenue sharing
are issues that need to be resolved regionally with agreement reached in all areas before retail is
allowed to move in. He wanted an open view along the interstate, not continual retail along the
highway. He did not support use of a PIF to fund interchange improvement.
Councilmember Roy stated the interchange improvements should be funded by federal and state
dollars. He did not believe allowing or encouraging retail development at the five interstate
interchanges that lead into Fort Collins was in line with land use strategies that have been developed
through the years. He did not support the resolution.
Councilmember Poppaw stated she did not believe this Plan fit into the goals and visions the City
has set . She would not support the Resolution and wanted a discussion about the entire I-25
Corridor.
Councilmember Manvel offered a friendly amendment to the motion, to amend the IGA, page 3,
paragraph A and replace the phrase "shortest possible time" with "a reasonable period of time."
Councilmember Troxell, maker of the motion, did not accept the friendly amendment.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to amend the IGA,
page 3, paragraph A and replace the phrase "shortest possible time" with "a reasonable period of
time."
Councilmember Manvel stated he would not support the Resolution unless the wording in the IGA
was changed. The change in wording would reflect the idea that Council is not committed to any
specific detail in the Plan, but does want to move the process forward. City Manager Atteber y
stated the change in wording would allow staff to work on the expedited 1601 process and does not
impede the process.
The vote on the motion to amend was as follows: Yea: Manvel, Hutchinson, Brown. Nays: Ohlson,
Poppaw, Roy and Troxell.
THE MOTION TO AMEND FAILED.
Councilmember Troxell stated this agreement is a critical next step and there are many points in the
future to resolve the issues some Councilmembers have. Acceptance of the Plan would provide a
71
December 4, 2007
better functioning road system that is in dire need of improvement and it would demonstrate that Fort
Collins is a regional partner in resolving transportation issues.
Councilmember Brown stated funding interchange improvements will be a tremendous hurdle to
overcome as CDOT has been very clear in stating it has no funds to provide for improvements.
Federal dollars are also difficult to find. This Plan is a way to improve an intersection that is failing
and is a good first step.
Councilmember Ohlson stated the entryways to Fort Collins need careful planning to ensure view
sheds are preserved, architectural standards are upheld and to retain an open feel yet generates
economic health. He believed postponing this Resolution to a later date would enable Council to
review the plans for all entryways into Fort Collins and make comprehensive decisions.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to postpone
Resolution 2007-106 indefinitely.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he wanted to consider this issue at another time after staff has had
more time to do further work and Council has had opportunity to do a comprehensive review of all
I-25 gateways into Fort Collins. City Manager Atteberry stated the issue would return to Council
as soon as was reasonably possible after the January 22 work session.
Mayor Hutchinson stated approval of the IGA would only state that Fort Collins wanted to continue
to cooperate with the Town of Windsor but postponing the item would allow it to be reconsidered
at another time with the potential to be passed at that time.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and
Roy. Nays: Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
("Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Resolution 2007-108
Expressing Council's Opposition to the Mining of Uranium
in the Vicinity of Nunn, Colorado, Adopted as Amended.
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Members ofthe City Council asked that a resolution be prepared to express the Council 's opposition
to uranium mining in Northern Colorado.
72
December 4, 1007
BACKGROUND
A Canadian company, PowerTech Uranium Corporation, is considering a uranium mining
operation across nearly 6000 acres of land in the vicinity of Nunn, Colorado, about 11 miles
northeast of Fort Collins, known as the Centennial Project. PowerTech proposes to extract the
uranium in situ, meaning that uranium will be dissolved out of porous sands located deep
underground and brought to the surface for processing. In addition, PowerTech has not ruled out
extracting some uranium using open pit mining techniques. PowerTech has indicated that it will
start applying for necessary permits beginning in mid-2008.
The Centennial Project would be the first in -situ uranium mining operation in Colorado. In -situ
uranium mining is a newer method of mining uranium and environmental impacts and threats to
public health are unknown.
In -situ leaching mining technology holds inherent risks, including possible contamination of
groundwater and degradation of natural groundwater conditions through the groundwater
restoration process utilized after completion of the leaching operations. Because the mining
operations, and the potential damage, occur below the surface, we may not know until too late what
problems are caused by in -situ uranium mining.
The North Front Range is growing rapidly in population and employment. The Centennial Project
would be located near Fort Collins and in an area with a growing population. The North Front
Range generally, and the proposed Centennial Project site in particular, are not suitable for
uranium mining, because the level of risk to the health and safety of area residents cannot be
determined with any degree of certainty. In addition, uranium mining at the proposed Centennial
Project site would have a detrimental effect on the image and economic well-being of the City. The
project should not be allowed because it cannot be proven it will not have adverse effects on the
health, environmental, or economic interests of the people of Fort Collins and Northern Colorado.
In -situ uranium mining in Colorado would be subject to the regulatory requirements listed below.
All county, state, and federal agencies that may review the project should be made aware of the
City's opposition, and should act to deny all permit applications for the project.
RegulatorV requirement
A enc
Notice of Intent to Conduct Prospecting
Colorado Department of Natural
Activities
Resources, Division of Reclamation and
Mining Sae DRMS
Reclamation permit.for mining activity
DRMS
Underground injection control permit
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Radioactive Materials License
Colorado Department of Health and
Environment, Radiation Management Unit
Use by Special Review Permit
Weld County Planning Commission and
Weld County Board of County
Commissioners
73
December 4, 2007
The regulatory process takes roughly one to two years. Assuming that PowerTech begins the
regulatory process in mid 2008 as expected, then the process may be complete between mid-2009
and mid-2010. It is not possible to provide a more precise time line because the agencies involved
determine the permit schedule based on a variety of factors, some of which we currently do not
know.
With the exception of the Notice of Intent to Conduct Prospecting Activities, each permit process
provides an opportunity for the public to make comments to the regulatory agency prior to its
decision whether or not to grant a permit. These public comment opportunities are summarized in
the attached figure. "
Mayor Hutchinson noted this item was before Council at Council's request. It is not a staff -initiated
item. City Manager Atteberry stated Council could direct staff to do more in-depth scientific
research and appropriate funds to do the research.
Brian Woodruff, Environmental Planner, stated staff has done limited research on the issue of
uranium mining in the vicinity of Nunn, Colorado. The process to receive a permit for in -situ mining
includes four different regulatory permits, each of which allow public comment. There are risks to
public health from uranium mining, primarily through contamination of drinking water, risks to the
environment from the spread of radionucleides and heavy metals and threats to the economic well-
being of the City and region.
The following citizens spoke in opposition to the proposed uranium mining in Nunn, Colorado and
supported the Resolution before Council:
Elizabeth Hudetz, 1407 Ticonderoga Drive
Jackie Adolph, 155 West Harvard
Previn Hudetz, 1407 Ticonderoga Drive
Loretta Bailey, 3808 Jackson Court, Wellington
Reed Woodford, 416 North Meldrum
Louis Sharpe, 816 West Myrtle Street
Jim Woodward, Wellington resident
Dian Sparling, 324 Jackson Avenue
Cheryl Distaso, 135 South Sunset
Carol Hossan, 504 Edwards
Bette Cantor, 2112 Whitewood Drive
John Brubaker, 3407 Rolling Green Drive
Paul Smith, Fort Collins resident
Daniela Butrick, 2401 Blevins
Howard M. Williams, 52337 Weld County Road, Carr
John Dickson, 1704 West Brookhaven Circle
Tim Johnson,1337 Stonehenge
Nora Dickson, 1704 West Brookhaven Circle
Gary Wockner, 516 North Grant
Marge Dugan, 4225 Westshore Way
74
December 4, 2007
Victoria Gardner, 3342 Liverpool Street
Karen Miller, Fort Collins resident
Jay Davis, Nunn, Colorado
Chester McQueary, 613 Princeton Road
Mary McCauley, Larimer County resident
Shane Miller, 4325 Mill Creek
The following citizens spoke in opposition to the Resolution before Council:
Carmia Fiechtner, 919 West Mountain Avenue
James Bonner, Vice -President of Exploration, Powertech (USA), Inc.
Mike Beshore, Senior Environmental Coordinator, Powertech (USA), Inc.
Councilmember Troxell asked for a description of Powertech's proposed project, how much acreage
was involved and if Powertech owned the land or had options on it. Woodruff stated Powertech is
proposing to mine uranium on two separate sections where the northern section would use in -situ
leaching and the southern section where uranium deposits are closer to the surface, could use open -
pit mining or a modified leaching process. He did not have information as to the land area the
mining would cover or ownership of land. The permit process for the mining has not yet begun so
many details are not yet available.
Councilmember Troxell asked why this issue was before Council at this time instead of at a later date
when more information would be available.
Mayor Hutchinson noted three or more Councilmembers had requested this issue be put on the
Agenda. He asked at what points in the permit process would cities in the region would be asked
to give input on environmental studies. Woodruff stated once the regulatory process begins, there
are four different permit processes that have public comment periods as part of their processes.
Cities could make comments during any of those periods.
Councilmember Poppaw stated she had requested this item be placed before Council because it is
important for all concerned to speak against this proposal and its potential implications of harming
the health, environment and economic health of the region.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution
2007-108 as revised.
Councilmember Troxell asked if confidence could be placed in the four permit processes to produce
a result that is acceptable and why there was no staff recommendation for this item. Woodruff stated
staff has not studied the permit processes in depth and could not offer any recommendation. City
Manager Atteberry stated it will take resources and staff time to provide more scientific -based
information and give a recommendation and Council needs to give staff direction if it wants more
information. This Resolution was drafted at Councilmember Poppaw's request and based on
information available.
75
December 4, 2007
Councilmember Manvel made an amendment to the earlier motion, seconded by Councilmember
Roy, to strike the fifth Whereas clause in the Resolution.
Councilmember Manvel stated materials from Powertech indicate there have been in -situ mining
operations in Colorado previously. The fifth Whereas clause incorrectly states this would be the first
in -situ mining operation in Colorado.
The vote on the amendment to the motion was as follows: Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel,
Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None.
THE AMENDMENT CARRIED.
Councilmember Manvel stated this was an atypical situation as staff has not spent much time
gathering data and research to develop a recommendation. He did not want to expend City resources
for further research on this issue. He did not want a uranium mine located close to a major
population. The benefit from a uranium mine would be short-term, but the cost to the region would
be long-term.
Councilmember Troxell stated this was a complex issue and making this decision with little data or
information was difficult.
Councilmember Ohlson asked what the next step would be if the Resolution is adopted. City
Manager Atteberry stated the Resolution would be sent to the regulatory agencies to notify them of
Council's opposition to the mining operation.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and
Roy. Nays: none. Abstain: Troxell.
City Attorney Roy noted an abstention vote counts as an affirmative vote.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relatin¢ to the East Skyway Rezoning, Postponed to December 18 2007
City Manager Atteberry requested postponement of consideration of Item #22, Items Relating to the
East Skyway Rezoning to the meeting of December 18.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to postpone
consideration if Item #22, Items Relating to the East Skyway Rezoning to the meeting of December
18.
Brian Schumm, 5807 Bellina Court, stated his concerns about the process of rezoning this property
and requested delaying a decision on the rezoning until Council considers the South College Corridor
Plan.
IV
December 4, 2007
Councilmember Brown made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell to suspend the rules
and continue the meeting. Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell.
Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
City Attorney Roy stated rezonings are quasi-judicial and are governed by the criteria in the Land
Use Code. Any rezoning is to be done according to the criteria in the Code and Council needs to be
cautious in reviewing any other information that might distract Council or invite a decision based
on other considerations.
The vote on the motion to postpone consideration of Item #22 to December 18, 2007, was as follows:
Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 147, 2007,
Amending Section 2-606 of the City Code and Setting the
Salary of the Municipal Judge. Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance establishes the 2008 salary of the Municipal Judge.
Article VII, Section I of the Charter provides that the Municipal Judge is to be appointed for a term
of two years. Kathleen M. Lane was first appointed to serve as the City's Municipal Judge effective
July 1, 1989. Resolution 2006-127 reappointed Judge Lane for another two-year term ending on
December 31, 2008.
BACKGROUND
City Council is committed to compensating employees in a manner which is fair, competitive and
understandable. The goal as an employer is to attract and retain quality employees and to
recognize and reward quality performance. In order to accomplish this goal the City Council and
the Municipal Judge meet once a year to discuss last year's performance and set goals for the
coming year.
In 2007, the total compensation paid to the Municipal Judge included the following:
77
December 4, 2007
SALARYAND BENEFITS
ANNUAL
NON-MONETARYBENEFITS
Salary
$ 82,581
Vacation (26 days per year)
Medical Insurance
8,628
Holidays (11 days per year)
Dental Insurance
540
Life Insurance
289
Long Term Disability
653
ICMA (457)
2,477
ICMA (401)
8,258
Total Monetary Compensation
$ 103,416
The process established for evaluating the performance of the City Manager, City Attorney, and
Municipal Judge, adopted by the Council via Resolution 2000-123 on October 17, 2000, amended
by the adoption of Resolution 2001-018 on February 6, 2001, and further amended by the adoption
ofResolution 2006-124 on December5, 2006, provides that any change in compensationfor the City
Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge will be adopted by the Council by ordinance in
sufficient time for the change in compensation to take effect as of the first full pay period of the
ensuing year. "
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to Adopt Ordinance
No. 147, 2007 on First Reading, setting the base salary of the Municipal Judge at $86,958 and the
corresponding total compensation package.
Mayor Hutchinson noted the move of Municipal Court went smoothly and Council thanked Judge
Lane for doing an excellent job.
Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 148, 2007,
Amending Section 2-581 of the City Code and Setting
the Salary of the City Attorney, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council met in Executive Session on November 13 and November 27, 2007 to conduct the
performance review of City Attorney Steve Roy. Ordinance No. 148, 2007, establishes the 2008
salary of the City Attorney.
F-P
December 4, 2007
BACKGROUND
City Council is committed to compensating employees in a manner which is fair, competitive and
understandable. The goal as an employer is to attract and retain quality employees and to
recognize and reward quality performance.
In order to accomplish this goal the City Council and the CityAttorney meet once a year to discuss
last year's performance and set goals for the coming year.
In 2007, the total compensation paid to the City Attorney included thefollowing:
SALARYAND BENEFITS
ANNUAL
NON-MONETARYBENEFITS
Salary
$ 144,750
Vacation (35 days per year)
Medical Insurance
8,628
Holidays (11 days per year)
Dental Insurance
540
Life Insurance
418
Long Term Disability
1,144
ICMA (457)
4,343
ICMA (401)
14,475
Total Monetary Compensation
$174,297
The Sixth Addendum to the City Attorney's employment agreement, approved by the Council in
December 2006, set the City Attorney's 2007 salary at $144, 750, and provided for an increase
(based on satisfactory performance during 2007) to no less than $152,500 effective as of the first
pay period in January 2008.
The process established for evaluating the performance of the City Manager, City Attorney, and
Municipal Judge, adopted by the Council via Resolution 2000-123 on October 17, 2000, amended
by the adoption of Resolution 2001-018 on February 6, 2001, and further amended by the adoption
ofResolution 2006-124 on December 5, 2006, provides that any change in compensation for the City
Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge will be adopted by the Council by ordinance in
sufficient time for the change in compensation to take effect as of the first full pay period of the
ensuing year.
Councilmember Poppaw made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy to adopt Ordinance No.
148, 2007 on First Reading, setting the base salary of the City Attorney at $152,500 and the
corresponding total compensation package.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the City Attorney works for Council and serves Council with excellence.
Council thanked the City Attorney for his hard work and excellent advice.
79
December 4, 2007
Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 149, 2007,
Amending Section 2-596 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the City Manager, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council met in Executive Session on November 13 and November 27, 2007 to conduct the
performance appraisal of City Manager Darin Atteberry. Ordinance No. 149, 2007, establishes the
salary of the City Manager.
BACKGROUND
City Council is committed to compensating employees in a manner which is fair, competitive and
understandable. The goal as an employer is to attract and retain quality employees and to
recognize and reward quality performance.
In order to accomplish this goal the City Council and the City Manager meet once a year to discuss
last year's performance and set goals for the coming year.
In 2007, the total compensation paid to the City Manager included the following:
SALARYAND BENEFITS
ANNUAL
NON-MONETARYBENEFITS
Salary
$ 163,404
Vacation (30 days per year)
Medical Insurance
8,628
Holidays (11 days per year)
Dental Insurance
540
Life Insurance
472
Long Term Disability
1,291
ICMA (457)
4,902
ICMA (401)
16,340
Car Allowance
9,000
Total Monetary Compensation
$ 204,578
The process established for evaluating the performance of the City Manager, City Attorney, and
Municipal Judge, adopted by the Council via Resolution 2000-123 on October 17, 2000, amended
by the adoption of Resolution 2001-018 on February 6, 2001, and further amended by the adoption
ofResolution 2006-124 on December 5, 2006, provides that any change in compensationfor the City
Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge will be adopted by the Council by ordinance in
:1
December 4, 2007
sufficient time for the change in compensation to take effect as of the first full pay period of the
ensuing year."
Mayor Hutchinson stated Council unanimously believes the City Manager's performance has been
outstanding in all respects. Council policy is to establish market pay ranges for all city employees
using a market -average actual salary data with the goal of fairness to employees and fairness to tax
payers. An independent consultant has provided Council with salary data for city managers in 13
cities nationwide that are similar to Fort Collins and the conclusion is the City Manager's salary is
20% below the average salary of a city manager in similar cities. Council is considering raising the
City Manager's salary 20% over three years to reach the market average. He noted the City
Manager's salary is paid 40% from the General Fund, 40% is paid by Light and Power, and 20% by
Water Utility.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance No.
149, 2007 on First Reading, setting the base salary of the City Manager at $176,455 and the
corresponding total compensation package.
Council thanked City Manager Attebery for his excellent performance and management of the City
through difficult times.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy
and Troxell. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 137, 2007,
Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Natural Areas Fund
and the Capital Projects Fund - Soapstone Prairie Public Improvements
Capital Project to Be Used for the Design and Construction of
Public Improvements at Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 20, 2007, appropriates
revenue in the Natural Areas Fund and the Capital Projects Fund to be usedfor construction of the
access road at Soapstone Prairie Natural Area which was started in October and will be completed
by spring 2008. Funds being appropriated for thisproject will come from designated Natural Areas
Program sales tax revenues. The funds budgeted in 2007, 2008 and 2009 are revenues from the
Open Space Yes (City) 114 cent sales tax and Help Preserve Open Space (County) 114 cent sales tax.
The unappropriated funds available in 2007 are revenues from the original 114 cent Natural Areas
sales tax (collected from 1993-1997) and from the Building Community Choices 114 cent sales tax
revenues designated for the Natural Areas Program (collected from 1998 to 2005).
m
Funds Budgeted in 2007
Unappropriated Funds Available in 2007
Funds Budgeted in 2008
Funds Budgeted in 2009
Total Appropriation
December 4, 2007
$2,166, 000
$ 800,000
$2, 000, 000
$ 134.000
$5,100,000"
Councilmember Troxell asked the source of the $800,000 in unappropriated funds available in 2007.
Chuck Seest, Finance Director, stated the $800,000 represent savings the Natural Areas Fund had
set aside for certain capital projects that were not longer needed and were now available for this
specific project.
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 137, 2007 on Second Reading. Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and
Troxell. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 12:10 a.m.
i- 4", 1 zc
Mayor
ATTEST:
� � I Ilhi�� r� ► .
City Clerk
RE