Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-11/15/2005-RegularNovember 15, 2005 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, November 15, 2005, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy, and Weitkunat. Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy. Citizen Participation Mayor Hutchinson stated each participant would have three minutes to speak. Al Baccili, 520 Galaxy Court, stated he had seen on television that the City was paying $32 each for dinner for people and questioned spending that much money when the City was in a financial crisis. He opposed the proposed Southwest Enclave Annexation. Jim Clark, 1509 Hearthfire Drive, Director of the Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau, stated the CVB was conducting a series of three public forums as part of a strategic plan to give the organization and the tourism industry direction for the future. He encouraged everyone to participate in the depot tour to promote the "Shop Fort Collins First" program. Mikal Torgerson, 223 North College Avenue, stated he came to the meeting to present an appeal relating to a hearing officer's decision on the Cherry Street Station. He asked why this item was being postponed. Troy Jones, Fort Collins resident, stated there would be upcoming Council hearings on City Plan issues. He spoke regarding the principles and policies of City Plan relating to well defined and cohesive development, pedestrian mobility and transit that applied to development applications that would be coming forward. Dr. Edward Ronwin, Fort Collins resident, asked that the Council consider taking steps to remove the Canada geese from the City due to the mess they made on sidewalks. Les Kaplan, downtown property owner, stated on November 21 the Liquor Licensing Authority would be considering a tavern license application for the Purple Martini. He stated issuance of this license would "tip the balance" in the downtown toward an "alcohol -based entertainment district." He stated downtown experts hired by the City in recent years had "warned about this moment." He 10 November 15, 2005 stated if the Purple Martini license was approved, the challenges facing the downtown would "increase enormously." He urged the Council to consider reestablishing a Liquor Licensing Authority so that such decisions would be made by more than one person. He urged the City Council to be "more vigilant" about all proposals submitted to the Liquor Licensing Authority. He also asked the City to look at different ways to use the zoning ordinances to further influence what happened downtown. Cary Hewitt, owner of The Cupboard, spoke regarding the proliferation of bars and taverns in the downtown and opposed the tavern license application by the Purple Martini. He stated he had been collecting signatures to oppose the Purple Martini's application. He stated downtown business owners were almost unanimously opposed to this application. He asked the Council to give this matter its attention and consider the suggestions made by Mr. Kaplan. He stated the downtown could experience a loss ofretailers and employers, resulting in a downward spiral of commercial and residential land values. Citizen Participation Follow-up Mayor Hutchinson thanked those who spoke during Citizen Participation. He stated he would hold a mayoral meeting with the public on November 21 at 6:00 p.m. at the Public Library. He stated that meeting was the appropriate place to discuss the kinds of issues brought up by Mr. Baccili. Councilmember Ohlson requested that the memo prepared several months ago relating to the Canada geese be forwarded to Council again. He also requested information on pros and cons of the change from a citizen Liquor Licensing Authority to a one -person Authority (the Municipal Judge). He stated he would also like information on the legalities of the Council taking a position on a liquor license application since the Municipal Judge reports directly to the City Council. City Attorney Roy stated the City Manager would have some information on the way the City was approaching the Purple Martini issue and noted that the State law was specific with regard to the kind of input that could be received at a liquor licensing hearing. He stated input was allowed from the established neighborhood and from the City. City Manager Atteberry stated staff was planning to make arguments to the court to show that the Purple Martini license would "stretch" Police Services resources in the downtown area. He stated staff believed that there was an "undue concentration of liquor licenses" in the downtown. Mayor Hutchinson asked that staffclarify why the Cherry Street Station appeal was being postponed. City Attorney Roy explained that notice was not sent to some of the interested parties about the appeal hearing. He stated a decision was made to postpone the appeal hearing. Agenda Review City Manager Atteberry stated the agenda would stand as published. 11 November 15, 2005 CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Consideration and Approval of the Regular Council Meeting Minutes of October 18.2005. Items Relating to the State Highway 14 — East Frontage Road Annexation and Zoning, A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 086, 2005, Annexing Property Known as the State Highway 14 — East Frontage Road Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 087, 2005, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the State Highway 14 — East Frontage Road Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. This is a 100% voluntary annexation and zoning of a property approximately 35.86 acres in size. The site is located on the east side of the I-25 East Frontage Road approximately one - quarter mile south of State Highway 14 (East Mulberry Street). Contiguity with the existing municipal boundary is gained along the entire southern boundary which is shared with the north property line of the Galatia Annexation (230 acres). The annexation does not include the westerly 11.3 acres located along the Frontage Road and mostly in the Boxelder Creek floodplain. The recommended zoning is L-M-N, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood which is in conformance with the I-25 Sub Area Plan. Ordinance Nos. 086 and 087, 2005, were unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 16, 2005. 8. Items Related to the Issuance of City of Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2005A. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 2005, Authorizing the Issuance of City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Downtown Development Authority Taxable Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2005A, Dated Their Delivery Date, in the Aggregate Principal Amount of $1,890,000 for the Purpose of Financing Certain Capital Improvements and Capital Projects; and Providing for the Pledge of Certain Incremental Ad Valorem Tax Revenues to Pay the Principal of, Interest on and Any Premium Due in Connection with the Redemption of the Bonds B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 2005, Appropriating Proceeds from the Issuance of City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Downtown Development Authority Taxable Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2005A, for the Purpose of Making Certain Capital Improvements in the Downtown Area of Fort Collins, Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Funds And Appropriating 12 November 15, 2005 Expenditures from the Downtown Development Authority Debt Service Fund to Make the 2005 Payment on the Bonds. The City of Fort Collins created the Downtown Development Authority to make desired improvements in the downtown area. These Ordinances, which were unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2005, authorize the issuance of $1,890,000 in short-term bonds to pay for various projects. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2005, Designating the Beebe Clinic, 605 South College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. The owner of the property, William Lightfoot, and contract owner, Jay Stoner, are initiating this request for Fort Collins Landmark designation for the Beebe Clinic. The building retains excellent physical integrity and is judged to be both architecturally and historically significant under Fort Collins Landmark Standards (1), (2), and (3). The building is an excellent and locally rare example of the Art Moderne Style in Fort Collins. Character defining features include its flat roof with parapet, stucco wall material, and glass block and corner steel casement window details. In addition to its outstanding architectural value, the building served from 1939 to 1987 as the Beebe Clinic, a well -recognized and much noted element of Fort Collins' mid -town landscape. Dr. Nathan L. Beebe, himself, was also a noteworthy Fort Collins resident, contributing his services to the medical, business, and civic communities for more than a half -century. Ordinance No. 122, 2005, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2005. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 2005, Authorizingthe he Appropriation of Funds of the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport for Expenditure to Be Used to Purchase Snow Removal Equipment for Use at the Airport. Additional appropriations in the amount of $160,889 are needed for Airport improvements. In order for the Cities to expend this amount, each City must appropriate its half, $80,444. Ordinance No. 128, 2005, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 2, 2005. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2005, Authorizing. the Conveyance of a Sanitary Sewer Easement for a Spring Creek Ranch, LLC Development. Spring Creek Ranch LLC, is developing an 11-acre parcel located at 1926 Hull Street into 88 condo units. The proposed easement will connect the project to the existing City sewer line under Spring Creek Trail located to the north of the subject property. The City Parks Department is in agreement to allow the connection under above -said trail. The irregular - shaped easement would contain 120 square feet to install an eight inch sewer line. Ordinance No. 129, 2005, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 2, 2005. 13 November 15, 2005 12. Items Pertaining to the Minatta Annexation and Zoning. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2005, Annexing Property Known as the Minatta Annexation. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 2005, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Minatta Annexation. This is a request to annex and zone 35.829 acres located on the west side of Overland Trail, at the southwest corner of the Overland Trail - West Elizabeth Street intersection. The property is partially developed, containing one existing single-family residence (with out- buildings) and a portion of the existing Fort Collins -Loveland Water District Pump Station. It is in the FAl — Fanning Zoning District in Larimer County. The requested zoning in the City of Fort Collins is RF - Residential Foothills (15.132 acres) and LMN — Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood (20.697 acres). Ordinance Nos. 130 and 131, 2005, which were unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 2, 2005, have been amended on Second Reading to correct the legal descriptions contained in each Ordinance. 13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2005, Amending Chapter 26, Article IV, Division 4 of the City Code Relating to Wastewater Rates and Charges. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 2, 2005, increases the City's wastewater rates by 5% effective January 1, 2006. The increase is applied "across the board" for all customers. With the proposed rate, a typical single family residential customer's monthly bill will increase from $17.87 to $18.76 or 89 cents per month. This is based on a system average 5,200 gallons per month winter quarter water use. No rate changes are proposed for electric, water or stormwater for 2006. 14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 2005, Amending the City Code to Increase the Capital Improvement Expansion Fee, Street Oversizing Fee and Neighborhood Parkland Fee to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 2, 2005, increases the fee schedules for the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees and Neighborhood Parkland Fee by the actual 2004 and estimated 2005 changes in the Denver -Boulder -Greeley Consumer Price Index ("CPI"). Given that the 2004 CPI was 0.20% and that fees are adjusted by whole dollars, a significant portion of the individual fees would not have changed during 2005. Therefore, the 2004 CPI of 0.20% and the 2005 CPI of 1.90% have been combined, resulting in a cumulative change of 2.10%. 14 November 15, 2005 Costs in the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees ("CIEF") Study and the fee schedule for the Neighborhood Parkland Fees were calculated using costs from 1995. The fees were last adjusted in 2003. This Ordinance increases the CIEF and the neighborhood parkland fees by the combined increase in the CPI of 2.10%, and the Street Oversizing fees by 1.61%, which reflects the projected increase reported in the Engineering News Record. 15. Items Relating to the 2006 Downtown Development Authority Budget. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2005, Appropriating Operating Funds and Approving the Budget of the Downtown Development Authority for the Fiscal Year Beginning January 1, 2006, and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Downtown Development Authority for 2006 at Five Mills. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2005, Appropriating Revenue in the Downtown Development Authority Debt Service Fund for Payment of Debt Service for the Year 2006. The Downtown Development Authority Board of Directors adopted its proposed budget for 2006, totaling $2,377,757, on November 3, 2005. The Board determined the mill levy necessary to provide for payment of administrative costs incurred by the DDA, at its regular meeting of October 6, 2005. Ordinance No. 141, 2005, appropriates funds for 2006 from the tax increment received by the City for the DDA for debt service payments. Ordinance Nos. 140 and 141, 2005, were unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 2, 2005. 16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2005, Appropriating Prior Years Use Tax Carrvover Reserves for the Temporary Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate Program. In March 1996, City Council approved a Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate Program ("Rebate Program") for use tax paid on manufacturing equipment. The goal of the program was to maintain the local economic base by providing modest tax relief to manufacturers located in Fort Collins. The Rebate Program has provided rebates to manufacturers for the calendar years 1996 through 2001. The Rebate Program was suspended for calendar year 2002 due to economic conditions. Council reinstated the program in January of 2004 for a two year period to coincide with the biennial budget. Under the Rebate Program, the rebate payments are paid by the City during the year following the year in which the use tax was remitted by the vendor. This is a rebate of taxes paid in 2004 and not a tax exemption. Twelve companies have filed applications this year for a total of $168,000 in rebates. The source of funding for the Rebate Program is the sales and use tax fund, specifically the use tax carry-over reserve. 15 November 15, 2005 17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 2005, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue and Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for the Restorative Justice Youth Conferencing Program. A grant in the amount of $20,000 has been received from the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice for salaries associated with the continued operation of the Restorative Justice Youth Conferencing Program. Restorative justice is an alternative method of holding a young offender accountable by facilitating a meeting with the youth, the victim and members of the community to determine the harm done by the crime, and what should be done to repair the harm. By learning to understand the impact of their actions on the victim and community, criminal justice officials are optimistic that repeat offenses by these youth will be reduced. A $2,222 cash match is required and will be met by appropriating previously collected project income from users of this program. The cash match is currently in General Fund prior year reserves for Police Services. The grant period is from October 1, 2005 to September 30, 2006. 18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 2005, Approving a General Form of Petition for Initiated Charter Amendments. This Ordinance approves a general form ofpetition for citizen -initiated Charter amendments. 19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 146, 2005, Authorizing the Lease of City -Owned Property at 945 East Prospect Road for Up to Five Years. The City purchased this house and lot as part of the Prospect/Lemay Choices '95 Intersection Improvement Project, which is still pending. Should this project become active in the future, this house will be affected by the right -turn lane that is to be added turning south on Lemay Avenue from Prospect Road. The construction of this right -turn lane can be accomplished at a more affordable price if it can be constructed at the same time as the corner redevelops. It is staff s recommendation to continue renting this house in the interim, having the tenant responsible for all utility expenses and site clean-up. 20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 147, 2005, Authorizing the Grant of a Tempoorary Construction Easement and an Access Easement from the City of Fort Collins. Colorado. to Snring Creek Ranch, LLC. Spring Creek Ranch LLC, is developing an 11-acre parcel located at 1926 Hull Street into 88 condo units, and has requested a nonexclusive Access Easement and a Temporary Construction Easement on property owned by the City on the south side of Hull Street, in connection with the development. The proposed Access Easement will provide a necessary emergency access route to the development. The proposed Temporary Construction Easement will be used during construction of the Access Easement to provide proper grading of the area. Utilities (Stormwater) has determined that the proposed easements will not 16 November 15, 2005 impact the use of the property for stormwater purposes, and has no objection to the proposed easements. The triangular -shaped Access Easement contains 154 square feet and the rectangular Temporary Construction Easement contains 1,829 square feet. 21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2005, Designating the A.M. Woods House as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. The owner of the property, Gwyneth Robe, is initiating this request for Fort Collins Landmark designation for the A.M. Woods House. The building is judged to be both architecturally and historically significant under Fort Collins Landmark Standards (1) and (3). The A.M. Woods House is a good example of the locally rare Colonial Revival architectural style. The home is also significant as one of the oldest dwellings existing in Fort Collins. Built circa 1880, the home has been a part of the Eastside Neighborhood for nearly 125 years. The building exhibits good integrity, and readily conveys its architectural and historical significance. The property is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the State Register of Historic Properties, as a contributing element of the Laurel School National Register District. 22. Items Relating, to the Interchange Business Park First Annexation and Zoning. A. Public Hearing and Resolution 2005-117 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Interchange Business Park First Annexation. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 2005, Annexing Property Known as the Interchange Business Park First Annexation. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 150, 2005, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Interchange Business Park First Annexation. This is a 100% voluntary annexation and zoning of a property approximately 15.55 acres in size. The site is located on the east side of the I-25 East Frontage Road south of State Highway 14 (East Mulberry Street). Contiguity with the existing municipal boundary is gained along a portion of the southern boundary which is shared with the north property line of the State Highway 14 — East Frontage Road (35.86 acres). The recommended zoning is C, Commercial, which is in conformance with the I-25 Sub Area Plan. This annexation is the first in a series of three that will cumulatively result in the annexation of 62.33 acres. 23. Items Relating to the Interchange Business Park Second Annexation and Zoning_ A. Public Hearing and Resolution 2005-118 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Interchange Business Park Second Annexation. 17 November 15, 2005 B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2005, Annexing Property Known as the Interchange Business Park Second Annexation. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 152,2005, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Interchange Business Park Second Annexation. This is a 100% voluntary annexation and zoning of a property approximately 34.08 acres in size. The site is located on the east side of the I-25 East Frontage Road south of State Highway 14 (East Mulberry Street). Contiguity with the existing municipal boundary is gained along the entire south and a portion of the southeast boundary which is shared with the north property line of the Interchange Business Park First Annexation (15.55 acres). The recommended zoning is C, Commercial, which is in conformance with the I-25 Sub Area Plan. This annexation is the second in a series of three that will cumulatively result in the annexation of 62.33 acres. 24. Items Relating to the Interchange Business Park Third Annexation and Zoning. A. Public Hearing and Resolution 2005-119 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Interchange Business Park Third Annexation. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 2005, Annexing Property Known as the Interchange Business Park Third Annexation. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 2005, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Interchange Business Park Third Annexation. This is a 100% voluntary annexation and zoning of a property approximately 12.70 acres in size. The site is located on the east side of the I-25 East Frontage Road south of State Highway 14 (East Mulberry Street). Contiguity with the existing municipal boundary is gained along the entire east property line which abuts the Interchange Business Park Second Annexation (34.08 acres). The recommended zoning is C, Commercial, which is in conformance with the I-25 Sub Area Plan. This annexation is the third in a series of three that will cumulatively result in the annexation of 62.33 acres. 25. Resolution 2005-120 Authorizing the Lease of a Residence on City -Owned Property at Reservoir Ridge Natural Area For Up to Two Years. City Council approved Resolution 2001-095 on July 17, 2001, authorizing the acceptance of a donation from the Estate of Robert H. Udall of 20.133 acres of land as an addition to the Reservoir Ridge Natural Area. The donation reserved a life estate on part or all of the property for Mr. Udall's widow, Mary Michie Udall. Mrs. Udall decided not to remain on the property but requested that the Natural Areas Program permit the caretaker at the time, lu November 15, 2005 Tim LaBaw, to remain on the property. Staff has enjoyed and appreciated Mr. LaBaw's residency on the site since Mrs. Udall moved from this area in September 2002. Mr. LaBaw has been acting in many ways as a caretaker for the property. He has consistently been a responsible tenant. He appreciates the intent of the Natural Areas Program to restore the area, decline public access for the time, and eventually develop an educational center on the site. Entering into this lease with Mr. LaBaw will benefit the Natural Area. Mr. LaBaw will be the only tenant on the site and will continue to expel trespassers, keep the gate leading to the Udall Addition closed and generally watch over the property. Staff has negotiated an agreement for the lease of the residence to Mr. LaBaw for a period of at least one year, beginning November 1, 2005, with the option to renew for up to one additional year on a month -to -month basis. 26. Resolution 2005-121 Stating the City's Intent to Act As a Reviewing Entity in 2006 for Properties Within the Downtown Development Authority Boundaries for the Colorado Historic Preservation Income Tax Credit for Qualifying Historic Rehabilitation Projects Under C.R.S.§39-22-514. As a Certified Local Government, Fort Collins has the opportunity each year to choose to be a reviewing entity for the Colorado Historic Preservation Income Tax Credit during the next calendar year. The City Council must adopt a resolution stating whether or not it intends to take on this responsibility in the next year. On October 26, 2005 at a regular meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission discussed this function and made the decision to recommend that the city accept the reviewing entity function for the Colorado Historic Preservation Income Tax Credit in 2006 for properties within the DDA boundaries. The city is required to maintain a "preservation fund" of fees collected for the service. Fees are set by state legislation, but collected by the local government to be used for expenditures incurred in the performance of the design review duties. Fees range from $250 to $750 depending on the cost of the project. The reviewing entity function for the rest of the city will still be performed by the Colorado Historical Society staff for the 2006 calendar year so that the program will be available to all Fort Collins citizens. 27. Resolution 2005-122 Adopting the 2005-2007 Council Policy Agenda. Every two years the City Council adopts a Policy Agenda that outlines the policy initiatives it wishes to undertake in the two-year Council term. This proposed Policy Agenda has been developed through discussions with and among Council Members during two City Council retreats and a work session. 19 November 15, 2005 28. Postponement of the Consideration of the Appeals of the September 8. 2005, Determination ofthe Administrative Hearing Officer to Deny the Cherry Street Station Proi ect Development Plan to November 29, 2005 This hearing on the appeal of the September 8, 2005 Administrative Hearing Officer denial of the Cherry Street Station Project Development Plan must be postponed to November 29 because proper notice was not given to some of the parties -in -interest to the appeal. A new notice of hearing for November 29 was mailed to all parties -in -interest on Thursday, November 10, and the appellants were personally notified of the need for postponement of this hearing. Adoption of the Consent Calendar will accomplish the necessary postponement. 29. Routine Easement. A. Emergency access easement from American Retirement Properties, LLC, located in the Lee Minor Lot Division. ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. Items Relating to the State Highway 14 - East Frontage Road Annexation and Zoning. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 086, 2005, Annexing Property Known as the State Highway 14 — East Frontage Road Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 087, 2005, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the State Highway 14 — East Frontage Road Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. 8. Items Related to the Issuance of City of Fort Collins Downtown Development authority Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2005A. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 2005, Authorizing the Issuance of City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Downtown Development Authority Taxable Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2005A, Dated Their Delivery Date, in the Aggregate Principal Amount of $1,890,000 for the Purpose of Financing Certain Capital Improvements and Capital Projects; and Providing for the Pledge of Certain Incremental Ad Valorem Tax Revenues to Pay the Principal of, Interest on and Any Premium Due in Connection with the Redemption of the Bonds 20 November 15, 2005 B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 2005, Appropriating Proceeds from the Issuance of City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Downtown Development Authority Taxable Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2005A, for the Purpose of Making Certain Capital Improvements in the Downtown Area of Fort Collins, Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Funds And Appropriating Expenditures from the Downtown Development Authority Debt Service Fund to Make the 2005 Payment on the Bonds. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2005, Designating the Beebe Clinic, 605 South College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 2005, Authorizing the Appropriation of Funds of the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport for Expenditure to Be Used to Purchase Snow Removal Equipment for Use at the Airport. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2005, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Sanitary Sewer Easement for a Spring Creek Ranch, LLC Development. 12. Items Pertaining to the Minatta Annexation and Zoning. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2005, Annexing Property Known as the Minatta Annexation. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 2005, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Minatta Annexation. 13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2005, Amending Chapter 26, Article IV, Division 4 of the City Code Relating to Wastewater Rates and Charges. 14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 2005, Amending the City Code to Increase the Capital Improvement Expansion Fee, Street Oversizing Fee and Neighborhood Parkland Fee to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services. 15. Items Relating to the 2006 Downtown Development Authority Budget. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2005, Appropriating Operating Funds and Approving the Budget of the Downtown Development Authority for the Fiscal Year Beginning January 1, 2006, and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Downtown Development Authority for 2006 at Five Mills. 21 November 15, 2005 B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2005, Appropriating Revenue in the Downtown Development Authority Debt Service Fund for Payment of Debt Service for the Year 2006. 33. Items Relating to Occupancy Regulations and Other Neighborhood Quality of Life Issues. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2005, Making Various Amendments to the Fort Collins Land Use Code Relating to Residential Occupancy Limits. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2005 Amending Chapter 5, Article VI of the City Code Relating to Rental Housing. (Options A and B) C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2005, Amending the City Code Relating to Court Referees. D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 2005, Amending the City Code Relating to General Penalties. E. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2005, Amending Chapter 20, Article VIII of the City Code Relating to Abatement of Public Nuisances. 34. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 2005, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance Relating to the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2006 and Adopting the Budget for the Fiscal Years Beginning January 1, 2006 and Ending December 31, 2007, and Fixing the Mill Levy for Fiscal Year 2006. 35. Items Relating to 2006 Water, Sewer, Stormwater Plant Investment Fees and Electric Development Charges. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No.133, 2005, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Water Plant Investment Fees and Raw Water Requirements. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 134,2005, Amending Chapter 26 ofthe City Code to Revise Sewer Plant Investment Fees. (Phase -In Implementation - 1/3 in 2006) C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 135,2005, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Electric Development Fees and Charges. D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 13 6,2005, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Establish Stormwater Plant Investment Fees. 36. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2005, Adopting the 2006 Classified Employees Pay and Classification Plan. 22 November 15, 2005 Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2005, Appropriating Prior Years Use Tax Carryover Reserves for the Temporary Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate Program. 17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 2005, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue and Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for the Restorative Justice Youth Conferencing Program. 18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 2005, Approving a General Form of Petition for Initiated Charter Amendments. 19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 146, 2005, Authorizing the Lease of City -Owned Property at 945 East Prospect Road for Up to Five Years. 20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 147, 2005, Authorizing the Grant of a Temporary Construction Easement and an Access Easement from the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, to Spring Creek Ranch, LLC. 21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2005, Designating the A.M. Woods House as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. 22. Items Relating to the Interchange Business Park First Annexation and Zoning. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 2005, Annexing Property Known as the Interchange Business Park First Annexation. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 150, 2005, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Interchange Business Park First Annexation. 23. Items Relating to the Interchange Business Park Second Annexation and Zoning. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2005, Annexing Property Known as the Interchange Business Park Second Annexation. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2005, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Interchange Business Park Second Annexation. 24. Items Relating to the Interchange Business Park Third Annexation and Zoning. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 2005, Annexing Property Known as the Interchange Business Park Third Annexation. 23 November 15, 2005 C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 2005, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Interchange Business Park Third Annexation. 33. Items Relating to Occupancy Regulations and Other Neighborhood Quality of Life Issues. F. First Reading of Ordinance No. 155, 2005, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code Requiring the Provision of Accurate Ownership Information in Connection With the Provision of Utility Services. 37. First Reading of Ordinance No. 156, 2005, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Hellenic Plaza Rezoning. 38. Items Related to the Completion of the Fall Cycle of the Competitive Process for Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing Projects/Programs and Community Development Activities Utilizing HOME Investment Partnerships Funds, Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG") Funds, and Funds from the City's Affordable Housing Fund. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 157,2005, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Projects in the HOME Investment Partnership Program. D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 158,2005, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Projects in the Community Development Block Grant Program. Councilmember Manvel made amotion, seconded by CouncilmemberKastein, to adopt and approve all items on the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Marvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Consent Calendar Follow-up Mayor Hutchinson commented regarding Item #16, First Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2005, Appropriating Prior Years Use Tax Carryover Reserves for the Temporary Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate Program. 24 November 15, 2005 Councilmember Weitkunat commented regarding Item #17, First Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 2005, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue and Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for the Restorative Justice Youth Conferencing Program, and Item #27, Resolution 2005-122 Adopting the 2005-2007 Council Policy Agenda. Staff Reports City Manager Atteberry reported that the Sierra Club had named Fort Collins as one of four "Sustainable Best Practices" cities. He stated the other three cities selected were Austin, Texas, Chicago, Illinois and Portland, Oregon. Councilmember Reports Councilmember Ohlson noted that Matt Benson had accurately covered City government for The Coloradoan for about five years and that he was moving on to the Arizona Republic newspaper. Mayor Hutchinson reported on discussions at the regional quarterly meeting with Larimer County and the Loveland City Council regarding the Regional Transportation Authority and the airport strategic plan. Items Relating to Occupancy Regulations and Other Neighborhood Quality of Life Issues, Adopted The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "FINANCLIL IMPACT The proposed revisions to the occupancy regulations will require an additional housing inspector, including related commodities and contractual services costs, in order to effectively investigate and enforce the Land Use and Rental Housing Standards. The costs for the program would be $10,500 in one-time and $73,600 in ongoing funds. Permit and inspection fees, surcharges and fines will ultimately cover a portion and possibly all of these costs. Staff will provide an update on the actual costs of the program within one year of the effective date. The cost to implement and maintain a rental registration program would vary depending on the type ofprogram. Four options are provided for Council consideration. The cost for the most expensive of those options is $30, 000 annually, plus an additional $91, 000 in one-time costs during the first year. This would cover all system costs, software licensing fees, staff and administrative expenses. The program is designed to be self-supporting; thus, these costs will be covered in their entirety by registration fees. 25 November 15, 2005 In summary, the financial impact of both programs is: Housing and Occupancy Compliance Program $ 10,500 one time $ 73,600 ongoing Rental Registration Program (maximum cost) $ 91,000 one time $ 30,000 ongoing EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2005, Making Various Amendments to the Fort Collins Land Use Code Relating to Residential Occupancy Limits. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2005 Amending Chapter 5, Article VI of the City Code Relating to Rental Housing. (Options A and B) C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2005, Amending the City Code Relating to Court Referees. D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 2005, Amending the City Code Relating to General Penalties. E. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2005, Amending Chapter 20, Article VIII of the City Code Relating to Abatement of Public Nuisances. Should Council wish to utilize the Utilities records in lieu of a rental registration program, the following ordinance is included for consideration: F First Reading of OrdinanceNo.155,2005,AmendingChapter26oftheCityCodeRequiring the Provision ofAccurate Ownership Information in Connection With the Provision of Utility Services. This Council meeting will focus on revisions to the City's current regulations prohibiting more than three unrelated persons from inhabiting a single dwelling unit. Staffis also recommending revisions to the Land Use Code related to boarding houses and is presenting an option that would establish a rental registration program for the purpose of identifying rental units within the city limits offort Collins. Refinements have been made to various provisions since First Reading was held on October 18, 2005, including additional choices related to the rental registration program. These items are described in further detail throughout this Agenda Item Summary. 26 November 15, 2005 BACKGROUND On October 18, 2005 City Council approved on First Readingfeve ordinances related to occupancy, boarding houses, rental registration and a number ofrelatedprovisions. Council also directed staff to provide additional options and/or revisions to several of the ordinances. ORDINANCE NO 123 2005 AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE (Item A) Definitions and Occupancy Limit The most significant changes that would be made by adoption of this Ordinance are the changes to the City's occupancy regulation. The Ordinance keeps the occupancy limit separate from the definition offamily and make it easier to understand. It also includes anew definition offamily and a separate occupancy limit not based on relatedness. Additionally, the definition of "adult" has been revised in order to allow for adult dependents (18 years of age or older) who are living with their parents. "Occupancy limit" has been refined so that the maximum occupancy per dwelling unit will be: a. one family as defined in Section 5.1.2 and not more than one additional person; or b. two adults and their dependents, if any, and not more than one additional person. The occupancy limit would apply to all dwelling units: single family, duplex and multi family. 2. Boarding House Provisions - Revisions to the Land Use Code The other significant changes that would be made by this Ordinance have to do with boarding houses. Boarding houses are permitted in numerous zone districts. This Ordinance contains requirements that would have to be satisfied before a boarding house could be approved in any of those zone districts: minimum square footage, parking, and for boarding houses in the LMN zone district only, a density requirement. In addition to meeting the City's existing Rental Housing Standards, the minimum square footage required would be 350 square feet of habitable floor space per boarder plus an additional 400 square feet of habitable floor space for an occupant family. Following Council input, parking requirements have been changed since First Reading. Each boarding house would now be required to have. 75 (314) parking space per boarder, rounded up to the nearest whole parking space, plus one parking space per occupant family that might be occupying the house. Staff recommends adding a clause to the effect that one such parking space may be nonconforming, if approved by the Director, unless the lot abuts an alley or has at least 65 feet of street frontage length. This would allow for a four -boarder home to provide the requisite three spaces, but with those spaces accessible by a two -vehicle wide driveway rather than a three - vehicle wide driveway. The reason for this is that most of the lots in the LMN zone and many lots 27 November 15, 2005 in other zones are not wide enough to provide a wide enough driveway for three vehicles. Without this exception, very few boarding houses would ever be allowed in the LMN zone in particular. As originally drafted, this Ordinance added a provision requiring a 300 foot separation between boardinghouses in the LMNzone district. This has been modified to instead state that boarding houses in the LMN zone can make up no more than a certain percentage of the parcels on a block face. Staff is seeking Council decision as to what level of restriction is desired; specifically should it be no more than 10016, 25% or 33% of parcels on a block face? Attachment 1 illustrates these densities. This restriction will ultimatelyprovidegreaterfexibilityinlocating boardinghouses and, along with the other requirements, preserves the character of this single-family zone. No density requirement would be imposed on boarding houses in other zone districts. The occupancy limit would not apply to boarding houses. Rather, the combined requirements of minimum square footage per occupant, and off-street parking spaces and density requirements would work collectively to limit the maximum number of occupants in a unit. In the zones that allow boarding houses, applications for boarding houses are reviewed through a formal public hearing process under the Land Use Code. Following Council direction, staff considered several options for a simpler approval process than is used currently. The new recommendations are as follows: For applications for 5 or fewer boarders, or 4 boarders in the LMN zone, a Basic Development Review would be required. This is also sometimes termed use -by -right. For applications for 6 or more boarders, or more than 4 boarders in the LMNzone, a Type I (Administrative) review would be required. This requires a public hearing. Following issuance of a certificate of occupancy, neighboring properties could be notified of the certificate of occupancy and any conditions included with it, e.g. the maximum number of boarders allowed. Existing boarding houses would be grandfathered " if the owner can present a valid certificate of occupancy. Otherwise, the owner would need to obtain a new certificate of occupancy under the current requirements. The occupancy section would go into effect January 7, 2007; the remaining sections would be effective ten days after Second Reading. ORDINANCE NO. 124, 2005, AMENDING THE RENTAL HOUSING STANDARDS (Item B) This Ordinance makes basic changes to the Rental Housing Standards to update the minimum standards, eliminate the owner occupied "loophole" and change the penalty for an occupancy violation to a civil offense. On October 18, 2005 Council was presented with two options of this W. November 15, 2005 Ordinance: Option A, which did not include a rental registration program, and Option B, which added a rental registration program. Option B was adopted on First Reading. Amendments to Rental Housing Code Rental Standards These revisions to the Rental Housing Standards address commonly identified housing concerns that affect renters' health and well-being. They include provisions that specify that a lack of general maintenance of a structure, rat or vermin infestation, filth or contamination, or lack of ventilation or illumination are considered a nuisance. Additionally, provisions are included that correspond with the City's most recently adopted International Codes and Dangerous Building Code, and the 2003 International Property Maintenance Code. This assists enforcement staff in ensuring that minimal standards are maintained in the rental community. Pursuant to direction at the August 2005 work session, staffwill be presenting additional proposed amendments to the Rental Housing Standards in the first quarter of 2006. 2. Certificate of Occupancy The Ordinance further provides that, in order to obtain a certificate of occupancy for a boarding house, the Building Official could impose terms and conditions, including compliance with all state and local laws and regulations or administrative orders. In determining whether to revoke or suspend a previously issued certificate of occupancy, the official could consider any history or pattern of the applicant and/or of the applicant's property managers or tenants. 3. Occupancy Statement (Lrmerly termed Truth in Advertising) This new clause would require that any boarding house certificate specifying the number of occupants allowed be posted on the back of the front door of the dwelling. Originally, this clause also stated any advertisement, sign or other communication regarding the rental of a dwelling would have to state the maximum permissible occupancy of the unit. Staff recommends revising this requirement. The revised provisions would require that, when a rental property is rented or sold, a form stating the maximum permissible occupancy ofthe unit would have to be signed by the owner and presented to the tenant or purchaser. Additionally, an option is being presented (Option A-1 and B-1) that would require all signs or advertisements regarding the rental property to include the wording "occupancy limited by law. " 29 November 15, 2005 4. Violation and Penalties With these changes, a violation of the occupancy limits would become a civil infraction. The burden ofproofin a civil case is by a preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt, and adverse parties (those charged with a violation) can be called as witnesses in civil cases. Penalties could include a fine of not more than $1, 000 for each violation; a court order to comply with any conditions reasonably calculated to ensure compliance with the Code or with the terms and conditions of any permit or certificate granted by the City; an injunction or abatement order; and/or revocation or suspension of any certificate issued by the City with respect to the dwelling. It should be noted that the Ordinance has been amended to remove the mandatory minimum fine of $500. 5. Rental Registration — Annual Requirement On October 18, 2005 Council voted to adopt Option B of this Ordinance on First Reading. This adds a rental registration program to the Rental Housing Code amendments for the purpose of identifying single-family and duplex rental units; educating all parties about the various Codes related to neighborhood quality of life, nuisances and rental property standards; providing information that will support data -driven policy making; and increasing the efficacy of Nuisance Code enforcement through better information sharing. Tenant information would not be kept on file by the City; however, it would have to be provided to the City by the owner upon request by the City. The database itself, like most records kept by the City, would be considered a public record and made available for public inspection upon request. A listing of the addresses of those properties that have been registered can be made available online. The remaining information in the database (owner name and contact information, etc) would be available by request and would involve payment of a small administrative fee, similar to requests for criminal background checks or copies of police reports. There are approximately 21,000 rental units within the Fort Collins city limits, of which an estimated 5, 000 are single-family and 1,500 are two-family dwellings which would fall under the registration requirement. Additionally, the Corona Report (2005) estimates an additional 1,191 new households will form as a result of better enforcement of occupancy limits. This number does not take into account the new boarding house provisions, and it is likely some of these new households would form in multi family or owner -occupied units. Staff estimates, however, that as many as half of these households could locate in single-family or duplex rental units. Thus, an estimated 7,100 units will be required to be registered. Elements of the proposed registration program would include the following: Online registration and payment; mail -informs also available If the property owner is a corporation or business, a contact name would have to be provided Information required: 917 November 15, 2005 1. Owner name, address and phone 2. Property address and type of unit 3. Agent or contact person, if applicable, including address and contact information Term: annual renewal, or within 30 days upon change of ownership. Information would have to be kept current. Fee: $25 per dwelling unit for initial registration. $10 per dwelling unit annually thereafter. No chargefor updates to information unless theproperty changes owner. Penalty for non-compliance: civil infraction, punishable by a maximum fine of $1000 per violation. Properties owned by the Fort Collins Housing Authority, those inspected annually for HUD compliance, and other uses such as nursing homes and group homes would be exempt from the registration requirement. Administrative options available for implementing an annual registration program, include: a. Utilizing a fully automated registration system. One-time costs for the program are estimated to be $91,000forsystem licenses, a web interface and other administrative costs. The ongoing cost of the program would be $30,000. This fully automated program would be integrated with existing systems and would increase efficiency by allowing staffto access one system to respond to questions/requests related to rental activities, nuisance, contractor licensing and building code violations, as well as development review and building permitting activities. Additionally, it would optimize technical staff efforts by allowing them to maintain a single application and eliminate the duplication of support efforts by multiple technical staff groups. It offers robust reporting tools and allows users to do much of their own geographic and data analysis without the need for technical staff intervention. It also automates renewal processing, reducing the need for ongoing administrative staff. The cost of this registration system has been revised downward since it was first proposed. The City has been successful in negotiating a lower price for initial software licenses, and the lower ongoing costs noted in the Financial Impact section of this document reflect revised assumptions about the number of owners who will voluntarily comply and the number of those who will independently register their units using the online services, as well as the addition of the units noted in the Corona Report. The fees for initial registration and annual renewal would now be $25 and $10 respectively. b. Utilizing a simple internal database developed by Ciu staff. One-time costs for the program are estimated to be $32,000 for system programming, set up and other administrative costs. The ongoing cost of the program would be $29,000. This simple database could collect the necessary data, but would have limited functionality, minimal (ifany) integration with other systems, and require employees 31 November 15, 2005 to learn and access multiple systems to answer inquiries and collect data. It also creates a higher demand for technical support due to incompatibility and other support issues, the need to coordinate the efforts of disparate technical groups and the reliance on them for most reports and data analysis. The fees for this registration would be $10 per year, per dwelling unit. No changes to Option B, as adopted on First Reading, would be needed with regard to these implementation options. However, if Option B is adopted on Second Reading, Council direction as to one of these implementation options could be included in the motion to adopt Option B. Absent any Council direction on this point, the City Manager would decide upon the appropriate implementation option. 6. Rental Registration — One-time Requirement As a result of Council input, Option B-2 provides an alternative rental registration program for consideration. Under this option, single-family and duplex dwelling units would be required to be registered one time or within 30 days of change of ownership. There would be no cost to the property owner for this option. It is anticipated that there would be minimal 'hard costs' that could be absorbed by the City, provided that the system can be developed by existing technical staff. However, the time spent configuring and supporting this application could reduce resources available for other City systems/applications potentially causing service delays throughout the organization. All other elements of the registration program would be the same as described previously. USING UTILITIES DATA AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO A RENTAL REGISTRATION PROGRAM In response to Council feedback on October 18, 2005, staff members have investigated means to keep information the City receives about the ownership of rental properties confidential, and to make the rental registration program more affordable. Staff believes that an effective way to accomplish these two objectives is to use the Utilities' database in lieu of a separate rental registration program. The City would require owner information from all utility customers, including those who own residential rental properties. That information can then be used for both Utilities' purposes (since the property owner is ultimately responsible for the payment of utility bills) and for Code enforcement purposes. As to confidentiality, the Open Records Act requires that the names, addresses, telephone numbers and financial information of utility customers be kept confidential, although such information can be disclosed to police agencies conducting criminal investigations. Because the occupancy regulation and several nuisance ordinances may be decriminalized, we would add a local Code provision expanding the exception for criminal investigations so that the exception would also apply to investigations of civil infractions by Code enforcement officers. 32 November 15, 2005 The Open Records Act also permits information provided by utility customers to be made public in aggregate form, so the City could make public general information about the number of rental properties in the city and their locations. This option would require owner contact information be provided as a condition ofproviding utility services to rental properties. Enhancing communication between the Utilities and property owners when tenants apply for utility service would benefit both property owners and the Utilities, since unpaid utility bills can become a lien against the properties to which the utilities are delivered. Another advantage of this option is its cost, which would be much less than that of a separate rental registration program. The Code has in the past been silent as to the information that the General Manager of Utilities may require in connection with utility accounts. The Ordinance allows the General Manager to use his or her discretion in determining when more extensive information is needed to confirm the status of an account or the identity or status of a customer. Failure to provide the required information or providing false information regarding property ownership in accordance with the new Code provisions would constitute a violation of the Code, thus could be prosecuted as a misdemeanor criminal offense. IMPLEMENTA TION AND ENFORCEMENT The occupancyprovisions and the rental registration requirement or enhanced Utilities information program, if approved by the Council, will go into effect January 1, 2007. Prior to that, staff members will conduct comprehensive outreach and education campaign using variety ofinethods to reach property owners, property managers, tenants and others with an interest in these issues. Extra efforts will also be made to inform landlords about the potential for obtaining a certificate of occupancy for a boardinghouse and how to go about that process. Tools could include a direct mailing to those properties where the Assessor's records list an owner at an address different from the property, utility bill inserts, ads in local print media and meetings with various stakeholder groups. The County is also open to using 2007 property tax bills to notify owners of the new requirement. The rental registration ordinance allows those who have not registered to comply within seven days of being notified without being fined. It is assumed that most who do not apply will be brought to City attention through complaints. City staff will then follow-up on these complaints using means available, and when unsuccessful in locating the owner, will visit the property to talk with residents. If, after notice, owners fail to register their properties they would then be cited for violation of the registration requirement. Prior to implementation of the ordinances under discussion, enforcement of the existing occupancy code will remain "status quo. " The exception to this would be the new "occupancy disclosure" requirement (as discussedpreviously) and the revised boarding houseprovisions. These will go into effect ten days after Second Reading. 33 November 15, 2005 Once the new laws and related resources are in place, enforcement of the new provisions would follow that of other codes. If an alleged violation is brought to the attention of the Housing Inspector an investigation will be conducted to determine if there are sufficient grounds for a summons. If a summons is served, the violator(s) would be required to appear before the referee for a hearing. At the hearing, evidence would be presented on both sides. It should be noted that in the case of occupancy violations, neighbors may have to be called as witnesses. The referee would then decide if a violation exists and, if so, would assess a fine up to $1000. (The previously proposed minimum fine of $500 has been deleted from the ordinances) He or she could also enter orders to prevent future violations. The decision of the referee could be appealed to Municipal Court. If the fine was not paid, the potential exists to put a lien on property or use a collection agency. As with all prosecutions, it is possible that a plea agreement could be reached before the matter proceeded to hearing. OTHER PROPOSED ORDINANCES Three remaining ordinances are needed to fully implement the changes to the two ordinances described above. The effect of each ordinance is discussed below: Ordinance No. 125, 2005 - amendments to court referee section of the Code providing a civil infraction process (Item Q. Ordinance No.126, 2005 -amendments to the general penalty section ofthe Code setting the penalty parameters for civil violations (Item D). Ordinance No. 127, 2005 - amendments to the public nuisance ordinance allowingfor violations of civil infractions to be included in the public nuisance process and housekeeping changes to clarify the public nuisance process (Item E). CONCLUSION In addition to the Second Reading of Ordinances No. 123, No. 125, No. 126 and No. 127, Council faces several choices related to the Second Reading of Ordinance No. 124 as it relates to a rental registration program. If Council wishes to adopt the annual registration program: Adopt Ordinance No. 124, 2005, Option B, as adopted on First Reading. • Include Option B-1, occupancy statement, if desired. 2. If Council wishes to adopt a one-time registration requirement: Adopt Ordinance No. 124, 2005, Option B-2. Include Option B-1, occupancy statement, if desired. 34 November 15, 2005 3. If Council wishes to utilize the Utilities database in lieu of a rental registration program: (a) Adopt Ordinance No. 124, 2005, Option A (without rental registration). • Include Option A-1, occupancy statement, if desired. (b) Adopt on First Reading Ordinance No. 155, 2005, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code Requiring the Provision of Accurate Ownership Information in Connection With the Provision of Utility Services; and 4. If Council does not wish to implement a rental registration program or utilize the Utilities database for Code enforcement purposes: Adopt only Ordinance No. 124, 2005, Option A • Include Option A-1, occupancy statement, if desired. " City Manager Atteberry stated changes had been made to Ordinance No. 123, 2005 and Ordinance No. 124, 2005. City Attorney Roy stated he would explain the changes and that when a motion was made with regard to the two Ordinances, the changes would need to be read into the record. He stated Ordinance No. 123, 2005 related to occupancy limits and requirements regarding boardinghouses. He stated a concern had been expressed that some of the boardinghouse procedures and standards were more "extensive and stringent than is reasonable." He stated the proposed new language provided that those boardinghouses that would have only a basic development review, rather than a Type 1 review entailing a public hearing, would be exempt from most but not all of the standards. He stated the second proposed change related to the parking requirement for boardinghouses. He stated if there was a narrow lot upon which the proposed boardinghouse was to be situated (less than 65 feet) and it did not abut an alley, one of the required parking spaces could be relieved of the requirement that it take direct access from the street. He stated a third change addressed the maximum occupancy disclosure requirement. He stated those requirements had been clarified to specify the use of a form provided by the City and signed by all of the parties and that this form would become an addendum to any lease and kept on file for City inspection. City Manager Attebeny recognized the staff team that worked on this issue and stated he had received comments that this represented staff's and community's work at its best. Tess Heffernan, Policy and Project Manager, presented background information relating to the agenda item. She stated five Ordinances were presented for consideration on Second Reading: Ordinance No. 123, 2005 would make changes to the Land Use Code; that Ordinance No. 124, 2005 related to rental housing standards; and that the remaining three Ordinances would make changes relating to the civil penalty provisions throughout the City Code. She stated Ordinance No. 155, 2005 was being presented on First Reading to amend the Code in order to allow the utility database to be used. She stated Ordinance No. 123, 2005 addressed occupancy regulations and definitions and boardinghouse requirements, and that Ordinance No. 124, 2005 addressed rental housing 35 November 15, 2005 standards, certificates of occupancy, "truth in advertising" and penalties and that Option B of the Ordinance would adopt a rental registration program. She stated recommended changes to Ordinance No. 123, 2005 related to boardinghouses. She stated a change was made to require .75 off-street parking spaces per boarder and that there would be times when one of the required spaces could be aligned so that it did not provide direct access to the street. She stated if the parking requirement was too restrictive in the LMN zone few lots would apply for a boardinghouse Certificate of Occupancy because of the size of the lots. She stated there were proposed changes relating to the hearing process. She stated the basic development review would be used for applications for five or fewer boarders and for four boarders in the LMN zone. She stated this was an administrative review. She stated applications for six or more boarders or more than four in the LMN zone would require a type 1 review which would be a public hearing before an administrative officer. She stated boardinghouses subject to basic development review would not need to apply most Land Use Code standards, such as engineering standards (traffic impact studies, wider sidewalks, easement requirements, etc.). She stated boardinghouses subj ect to a type 1 review would have to meet those LUC standards. She stated a change had been made to the spacing requirement. She stated an option was being presented to have a density requirement in the LMN zone and that Council was being asked to decide whether the requirement should be a maximum of 10%, 25% or 33% for the number of parcels on a block face that could become boardinghouses. She stated this would be handled on a first -come -first -served basis. She stated Ordinance No. 124, 2005 dealt with rental standards, Certificate of Occupancy, occupancy disclosure and making penalties civil. She stated Option B was adopted on First Reading by Council and would add residential rental registration. She stated staff was proposing a requirement that when any dwelling unit was rented or sold the owner and tenants must sign a City -issued and approved disclosure form stating the maximum occupancy of the unit. She stated the completed form would have to be retained with the lease for City inspection during any investigation. She stated Option Al was presented for consideration in case Council chose Option A and that Option B 1 was presented in case Council chose to Option B to require signs or advertisements regarding rental property to have the statement "Occupancy Limited by Law." She stated the penalties would be amended to remove the mandatory minimum fine of $500 and to leave the penalty as up to $1,000. She stated Option B relating to rental registration had three variations presented: (1) the original proposal, including annual registration, having addresses available on a website at a cost of $25 per unit initially and $10 per unit each year thereafter; (2) a simpler version of an annual registration program which would be more staff intensive with a fee of $10 per unit per year; and (3) Option B2, a one-time registration with no fee. She stated Ordinance No. 155, 2005 was being presented on First Reading to direct that Utilities data be used in lieu of rental registration. She stated each utility customer receiving City utilities would be required to indicate whether the unit was owner occupied or a rental and provide owner information. She stated Utilities would be better able to contact owners about unpaid bills and that this would also serve Code compliance needs. She stated by law the information would be required to be kept confidential. She stated the information could be made public in an aggregate form and used for statistical analysis, investigations and educational mailings but that the information could not be given to the public. She stated there would be no additional cost to implement this option and that there would be no fee. She stated there would be a $91,000 one-time cost for the rental registration program and $30,000 in ongoing cost. She stated the simple database (annual registration) would cost $32,000 one-time and $29,000 ongoing. She stated Option B2 and 36 November 15, 2005 the Utilities database option could be done with existing resources and no fee. She stated January 1, 2007 would be the implementation date for the occupancy provisions and rental registration or the Utilities database option. She stated other provisions relating to boardinghouses and occupancy disclosure requirements would go into effect 10 days after Second Reading. Mayor Hutchinson stated this represented a fine piece of staff work and complimented staff on how quickly it handled complex changes. He stated the Council would consider each of the Ordinances separately and that citizen input would be received on all of the Ordinances at the same time. He stated each audience participant would have two minutes to speak. Teresa Ramos -Garcia, Fort Collins Board of Realtors, opposed the rental registration program. Richard Holmes, 6730 North County Road 15, stated he owned five rentals in the City and opposed the proposed new requirements making landlords responsible. Dolores Williams, 415 Mason Court #7A, stated the proposed requirements were too complicated and costly. Carrie Gilson, landlord, supported using the Utilities database to gather information on all owner - occupied and renter -occupied dwelling units. Bob Lawrence, 3017 Meadowlark Avenue, asked Council to accept the rental registration proposal. Don Earles, Front Porch Property Services and the National Association of Residential Property Managers, expressed concerns regarding the expense of adding language regarding occupancy to signs and advertisements. He supported the Utilities database option. Kevin Brinkman, 5151 Boardwalk Drive, stated 89% of nuisance notifications got to their destinations and rental registration would not help with the remaining 11 %. He expressed doubt that a rental registration program would have a higher success rate than 89%. He supported use of the Utilities database. J. J. Hinville, 1100 Emigh Street, opposed rental registration. Kay Lindgren, 1513 Independence Road, supported Option B as adopted on First Reading and opposed using the Utilities database because the public would not have access to landlord information. Dave Fredlake, 2005 Simsbury Court, opposed rental registration. Paul Anderson, Fort Collins resident, supported creating a database for rentals to identify a local responsible party. 37 November 15, 2005 Ron Burkhart, 626D South Grant Avenue, CSU student, stated occupancy limits were discriminatory and that the proposed Ordinances would further distribute students in the community. Jim Long, 2212 Lakefield Drive, asked the Council to adopt Ordinance No. 124, 2005 on Second Reading and Option B for rental registration. Pete Seel, 1837 Scarborough Drive, representing the Neighborhood Action Coalition, supported rental registration and opposed using the Utilities database because of the lack of public access to landlord contact information. He opposed the changes proposed to the truth in advertising requirements. He asked that if Council decided to use the Utilities database that the implementation date be moved up to August 1, 2006. He supported holding the boardinghouse density level to 10% in LMN zones. Kevin Westhuis, 2944 Telluride Court, supported using the Utilities database to identify rental and owner occupied dwellings. Jeff Wolf, 1823 Linden Lake Road, opposed a rental registration system and supported Ordinance No. 155, 2005 instead. Kelly Wilson -Walsh, 420 Smith Street, representing the Fort Collins Board of Realtors, presented over 600 petition cards against rental registration. She stated the City already maintained a database listing nuisance properties, and she supported using the Utilities database. Todd Gilchrist, 6945 Barbuda Drive, spoke in opposition to rental registration. Audrey Techau, 2102 Manchester Drive, CSU student, opposed occupancy limits and spoke regarding the financial and discriminatory impacts of the proposed Ordinance on students. Melissa Anderson, 2107 Constitution Avenue, stated the proposed registration program would appropriately shift costs to rental properties. She stated using the Utilities database would increase the City's costs and would not provide an open record for residents to use to determine the responsible party. Courtney Przybylski, Director of Community Affairs for ASCSU, stated ASCSU adopted a Resolution endorsing Option A of Ordinance No. 124, 2005; supporting an August 1, 2007 implementation deadline for Ordinance No. 123, 2005 and Ordinance No. 124, 2005; supporting the removal of the minimum fine of $500 for violations; and acknowledging that this is a compromise position that is not the "ideal" for students. She thanked the City for the work on boardinghouses. She spoke regarding the need for education and partnerships and noted that ASCSU did not support these Ordinances and wanted Council to recognize the adverse impacts of the new policies. Robert Swanstrom, 4720 Prairie Ridge Drive, opposed Ordinance No. 123, 2005 and asked that Council vote against the occupancy limits. He stated it would push up the cost of housing in Fort 9M November 15, 2005 Collins and would distribute rentals away from bus lines all over the community. He stated he did not oppose rental registration. Anna Burton, 1620 Remington Street, opposed rental registration and supported using the Utilities database. She stated the "three unrelated" Ordinance was "potentially discriminatory." Lisa Gordon, 816%Z Remington Street, CSU student, opposed the "three unrelated" Ordinance. Bill Fairbank, 1712 Clearview Court, asked the Council to support Option B relating to rental registration. John Muller, Vice President of ASCSU, stated ASCSU supported a phase -in date of August 1, 2007 to implement changes; endorsed Option A of Ordinance No. 124, 2005; endorsed allowing judicial discretion in assessing fines; and believed that this was a compromise position. He asked that the City recognize the effects of these changes on the student body. Taylor Dunn, 1131 Timber Lane, opposed the proposed Ordinances and stated they were discriminatory. He asked Council to phase -in any adopted changes on August 1, 2007 because of the "maj or financial, legal and personal implications" and the need for education and additional City work with the "stakeholder groups." Courtney Healey, President of ASCSU, stated ASCSU was not in agreement with the proposed Ordinances but recognized the need for a compromise at this time. She stated ASCSU would continue to focus on safety, economics and behavior of students. She asked that Council support judicial discretion in fines. Stacy Smith, 744 City Park Avenue, speaking on behalf of ASCSU, urged the Council to support Option A of Ordinance No. 124, 2005. She opposed rental registration and stated the City should become involved in neighborhood conflicts only as a "last resort." Jerry Gavaldon, 1252 Solstice Lane, opposed the proposed Ordinances because there were already Ordinances on the books to deal with these issues. Nicole Johnson, 316 West Prospect Road, CSU student, stated the boardinghouse provisions made this package a "compromise." She asked the Council to adopt the 33% formula for boardinghouses in the LMN zone. Chris Campbell, 222 South Whitcomb Street, urged the Council to adopt Ordinance No. 155, 2005 regarding use of the Utilities database. He stated this database would be inherently more accurate than a rental registration database and that the information would be confidential. He expressed a concern that if the rental registration information was public that it would be used to "selectively monitor and harass both tenants and owners." 39 November 15, 2005 Misty Leonard, 2955 Garrett Drive, CSU student, supported dropping the $500 minimum fine and allowing judicial discretion in determining fines. Doug Brobst, 1625 Independence Road, stated the participation at this meeting showed that rentals were a "big business" in Fort Collins. He stated rentals were a business and should not be located in residential neighborhoods. He opposed using the Utilities database and spoke regarding the need for "transparency" to allow neighborhoods to deal with rental issues. He asked that Council support Ordinance No. 124, 2005 Option B. Holger Kley, 2048 Bennington Circle, supported Ordinance No. 124, 2005 Option B with an implementation date of January 1, 2007. He stated similar Ordinances had been found by the courts to not be discriminatory. He stated people would have access to affordable housing because of the boardinghouse provisions. He stated investment companies were driving up housing prices by buying properties to rent. Jim Swanstrom, 400 Cormorant Court, stated densities should be increased around the university and that this was not being accomplished by the proposed Ordinances. He stated he owned a six - bedroom house in a high density neighborhood near CSU and would have problems with the boardinghouse parking requirements and with street improvements. He favored using the Utilities database to track rental properties and opposed occupancy limits. Scott Poland, landlord and real estate investor, expressed concern than renters could rent a five - bedroom house in the name of three people and bring in other occupants without the knowledge of the landlord. He stated houses with unoccupied bedrooms could also become "party places." He stated he opposed the three occupant Ordinance. Cassie Callahan, landlord, stated the proposed Ordinances would "put government in control of how we live our lives" and would "step over the threshold of the sanctity of our homes." She urged the City to continue the programs that were already in place and had reduced the number of nuisance violations. Arnold Drennen, 3412 Canadian Parkway, landlord, supported Ordinance No. 155, 2005 and opposed occupancy limits. Jon Fogelson, 7215 Trout Court, opposed Ordinance No. 124, 2005 Option B. Tom Peck, 4122 Vista Lake Drive, landlord, favored using the Utilities database and stated the current nuisance Ordinances were adequate. Eric Kronwall, 1119 Monticello Court, supported Ordinance No. 124, 2005 Option A and opposed Option Al. (Secretary's Note: The Council took a recess at this point.) 40 November 15, 2005 Miles Lovato, 242 Newsom Hall, CSU student, spoke regarding the financial impacts of the proposed Ordinances. Anita Kelly, County resident, landlord, spoke in opposition to the proposed Ordinances. Terry Anderson, landlord, supported allowing landlords and tenants to resolve any issues themselves. He suggested that neighbors try to work out issues with any problem properties rather than having the City "protect" them. He asked that the Council leave the current nuisance programs in place and let them work. Bev Perina, 521 North Taft Hill Road, stated the Public Nuisance Ordinance worked well and that Fort Collins should remain a community of "choice." She opposed the proposed rental registration Ross Mickenberg, 220 Garfield Street Apt. A, stated "three unrelated" laws were discriminatory and that people should not have to pay for something that was "not their problem." He stated the housing surplus should not be addressed by making students seek other housing to respond to occupancy limits. Laurie Dufloth, County resident and City property owner, opposed the rental registration program and noted that she had removed her address from the phone book listing in case she had a "problem tenant." She expressed a concern about her contact information being public information because of the possibility of harassment by neighbors complaining of minor problems. Christopher Riley, County resident and Cityrental property owner, opposed singling out renters and tenants and supported including all property owners on any registration list. He opposed the proposed advertising requirement and stated landlords should not be held responsible for "policing" tenants. Lori Peterson, rental property owner, stated landlords provided the community with affordable housing. She stated rental businesses were in "crisis" and that the current return on many investment properties was 0% to 3%, while many had negative returns. She asked that the City use the Utilities database at no cost to property owners. Greg McMaster, 1409 Skyline Drive, stated over 800 people had signed a petition asking Council for a registration program to help with enforcement and to reduce the cost of enforcement of all Ordinances relating to tenants and owners and to assure health and safety for tenants and adherence to zoning guidelines. He stated rental properties were a "business" and that property owners wanted everyone else to pay the cost of enforcing violations. Mazen Lyon, CSU student and renter, stated students and others relied on high occupancy to reduce rent costs. He asked that Council vote against occupancy limits. 41 November 15, 2005 Jason Hewitt, 2404 Stover Street, CSU student, opposed the proposed Ordinances. He challenged the Council to take the Ordinances to the ballot and stated Fort Collins needed to be "business friendly" and "take care of the students that were a vital part of the community." Matt Martindale, 348 Camino del Mundo, rental property owner, urged Council to vote against the "flawed" rental registration program and to repeal the "three unrelated" Ordinance. Mayor Hutchinson stated he would entertain Council questions relating to Ordinance No.123, 2005. Councilmember Ohlson asked why there would be no fee with the Utilities database based system. Mike Smith, Utilities General Manager, stated there would not be any additional major cost to continue collecting the data that was already being collected. Councilmember Ohlson asked for a definition of "habitable floor space" and whether an unfinished basement would qualify as "habitable floor space." Peter Barnes, Zoning Supervisor, stated Ordinance No. 123, 2005 added a definition for "habitable floor space" to the Land Use Code. He stated the proposed definition was that "habitable floor space" would mean "the space in a building approved for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, bathing and personal hygiene" and would provide that crawl spaces, storage, laundry rooms, utility spaces and similar areas were not considered to "habitable spaces." He stated the requirement for 350 square feet was for "finished habitable floor space." He stated an unfinished basement would not count as "habitable floor space." Councilmember Ohlson asked if there was a definition for "finished." Barnes stated there was no definition for "finished" in the Land Use Code or the Building Code. Councilmember Roy asked if staff had information on the boardinghouses that would have four or less boarders. Heffernan stated it was difficult to obtain specific information. She stated the total number of single-family and duplex units was 7,800 and that those would be the units most likely to apply for a Certificate of Occupancy. She noted that the percentages were not by unit and were by parcel. Councilmember Weitkunat asked about the amendments being made relating to boardinghouses that would be a new use. She stated the intent was that it not be "prohibitive" for someone to change a unit into a boardinghouse. She asked what changes were being made so that it would be possible for boardinghouses to exist. Barnes stated since First Reading staff had proposed several changes. He stated one was to simplify the process to allow boardinghouses to be done with basic development review (without public hearing) in all zones currently allowing boardinghouses for five or fewer boarders, except in the LMN zone for which a non-public hearing process was proposed when there would be four or fewer boarders. He stated another change was to address the parking standards. He noted that the initial proposal was for parking based on the number of bedrooms and that the revised proposal was to require .75 parking spaces per boarder. He stated a change was also proposed to the number of parking spaces for boardinghouses. 42 November 15, 2005 Councilmember Weitkunat noted the comments made by the speaker who referred to a six -bedroom unit on a 70 foot lot. Barnes stated staffwas proposing a change to include boardinghouses that were subject to basic development review in the same category as single-family dwellings subject to basic development review. He stated they would be exempt from having to comply with most of the engineering standards in Article 3 of the Land Use Code, although they would have to comply with the supplemental regulations. He stated there would be additional requirements and a public hearing process if there were six or more boarders. Councilmember Brown asked if there was a different parking requirement for owner -occupied boardinghouses that had tenants. Bames stated a single-family dwelling was required to have only one parking space. He stated the owner -occupied boardinghouse would be required to have .75 parking spaces per boarder and one space for the family. Councilmember Roy asked about criteria for nonconforming parking spaces. City Attorney Roy stated the applicable language was no longer in the proposed Ordinance. He read into the record the proposed language for Section 4 of Ordinance No. 123, 2005. He noted that the phrase "nonconforming" had been removed from the proposed language and that the Director would no longer have the discretion to review and approve the manner in which parking spaces would be aligned. He stated there was a separate requirement in the City Code that provided that no more than 40% of the front yard could be converted to an improved area for parking purposes. He stated a property owner with a narrow lot could determine how to align the parking spaces while meeting that requirement. Councilmember Roy asked for visual information illustrating how this could be done. Barnes presented visual information showing different scenarios for compliant parking spaces. Councilmember Roy stated one reason for unobstructed access was for response in emergency situations and asked ifthere were any other situations in which obstructed parking would be allowed. Barnes stated unobstructed access was preferred for emergency response and because it would be easier for the occupants to manage. He stated development applications had been submitted proposing the use of tandem parking to meet off-street parking requirements and that a variance or modification process was required. He stated such submittals had been approved on a few occasions. Councilmember Kastein asked for an explanation of "grandfathering" that would be done and whether the parking and other requirements would change for grandfathered parcels. Barnes stated there were some units that had been in existence for many years without a Certificate of Occupancy. He stated some level of proof would have to be presented to show that a unit had been occupied and operated as a boardinghouse since before Certificates of Occupancy were required. He stated those nonconforming units that legally existed were not required to become compliant with new requirements. He stated the Rental Housing Code standards did apply to all existing boardinghouses and all rental units and that compliance would be required if there was a safety complaint. Councilmember Kastein asked if that was a new requirement. Barnes replied in the negative. 43 November 15, 2005 Councilmember Kastein stated he appreciated the change to a percentage requirement instead of distance requirement for boardinghouses. He asked for a comparison of the two methods and noted that his intent was to come up with a method that would approximate a 300 foot separation between boardinghouses without a "strict' 300 foot separation. He stated he would like to know which of the possible percentage formulas would achieve that. Barnes stated one boardinghouse every 300 feet would result in about one boardinghouse every six lots. Councilmember Manvel stated he was concerned about this same issue. He stated he had done some modeling that showed that three to four boardinghouses would be the practical limit. He stated there would be more flexibility with the percentage requirement than the 300 foot distance requirement. He stated he believed that 15-20%would achieve approximatelythe same number ofboardinghouses as the 300 foot requirement. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the required distance would have been a radius of 300 feet. Councilmember Manvel stated his modeling allowed for the 300 foot radius. Mayor Hutchinson asked about the basis for the 300 foot distance requirement. Barnes stated the 300 foot distance requirement would be less restrictive than the separation requirement that was in place for other uses such as group homes. Councilmember Manvel suggested that 15-20% could result in approximately the same number of boardinghouses as the 300 foot distance requirement. He noted that in most zones there would be unlimited density and that the question was why density was being limited in some zones. He stated he believed that this was being done so that other residents in those zones would not be unduly impacted. He stated it was necessary to arrive at a `reasonable" percentage that would work for all residents of a block. Councilmember Weitkunat stated this would be a maximum percentage and that there would be restrictions and variables for housing to qualify as a boardinghouse. She asked if it could be assumed that there would not necessarily be a boardinghouse on every block in the LMN zone. Heffernan stated was a correct statement. Councilmember Ohlson asked if there needed to be a definition for "finished." Barnes stated a habitable space had to be "approved" for "living, sleeping, eating, cooking, bathing and personal hygiene" and that to be approved there must be the correct number of electrical outlets, ceiling height requirements must be met, and light and ventilation requirements must be met. He stated there was therefore some direction regarding what qualified as habitable space. Councilmember Ohlson stated there was a comment in the Agenda Item Summary regarding the possibility of notifications to neighbors following issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for a boardinghouse. He stated such notifications should either be required or not required rather than discretionary. Barnes stated the Ordinance would not require staff to give such notifications and that 44 November 15, 2005 it was staff s intention to notify properties in the block that a Certificate of Occupancy had been issued for a boardinghouse so that neighbors could help the City "monitor" the situation. Councilmember Ohlson asked if such notifications could be built into City policy in a formal way. Heffernan stated this could be built into the City's policies and regulating procedures. Councilmember Ohlson asked if thought had been given to change the outdated term "boardinghouse" to a more appropriate term. Barnes stated staff had not discussed a different term. He stated the current definition of a boardinghouse did not require it to be owner occupied. Mayor Hutchinson stated provisions for boardinghouses were already in place and the City would not have to "invent something new." City Manager Atteberry stated staff could come up with some suggestions if that was Council's direction. Councilmember Weitkunat stated definitions were changed in the Code all of the time and that this definition could be reviewed at a later time. City Manager Atteberry stated the next round of Land Use Code changes was scheduled in the spring. City Attorney Roy read additional changes to Ordinance No. 123, 2005 into the record. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Ordinance No. 123, 2005 on Second Reading with the percentage set at 15% for density of boardinghouses on a block. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to amend the motion to a density of 25% on a block. Councilmember Manvel spoke in support of the motion for 15%. He stated he had looked at one example and for that example 10% (one boardinghouse allowed) would be unreasonably restrictive while 25% (four boardinghouses allowed) would allow too many boardinghouses on a block. He stated two boardinghouses on his block would not destroy the character of that block, while four boardinghouses would change the neighborhood into a place he would not want to live. He stated he believed that two boardinghouses on the block in both examples would be fine. Councilmember Weitkunat stated the primary purpose for including boardinghouses in this Ordinance related to the ability of four people to live together. She stated she did not believe that most boardinghouse applications would be for more than four people. She stated this would be a maximum percentage and that she doubted that there would be many high intensity applications. She stated it was important to have a possibility for those kinds of boardinghouses. She stated the process would be self -restricting because some applications would not meet the other criteria. She stated she was concerned with preserving the opportunity for four people to live together in some areas. She stated a 300 foot distance requirement could mean that few boardinghouses could exist in the City. She stated she did not believe that four boardinghouses on a block face with 16 houses would be too "extreme." She stated she favored a percentage of 25%. She stated this was a 45 November 15, 2005 "realistic number" to "accommodate the rental market." She stated she did not believe that there would be a proliferation of boardinghouses for six or eight people because of the other criteria. Councilmember Brown stated boardinghouses were included so that there would still be affordable housing. He stated he would like to see more than 25% and would be "willing to settle" for 25%. Councilmember Roy stated he would not support the 25% figure. He stated the impetus was to try to make neighborhoods "healthier" for the residents. He expressed concern regarding the parking issues for boardinghouses. He stated his concern was with protecting the core neighborhoods and that 25% was "too aggressive" and would move the City away from the goal of healthy neighborhoods. Councilmember Manvel stated this would be a transition between areas that would allow unlimited boardinghouses and those that would not allow boardinghouses. He stated everyone's rights needed to be recognized. Councilmember Kastein asked ifthe percentage would apply in all zones where boardinghouses were allowed. Barnes stated the percentage would apply only in the LMN zone. Councilmember Kastein asked for confirmation that an unlimited number of boardinghouses were allowed now. Barnes replied in the affirmative and stated the Ordinance would set a maximum percentage allowed in the LMN zone. Councilmember Kastein asked if the requirements for boardinghouses would apply in all zones allowing boardinghouses, with some exceptions. Barnes replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Weitkunat stated core neighborhoods tended to be RL and that RL would not allow any boardinghouses. She stated boardinghouses were actually being eliminated in a huge area of the City. She stated this was a compromise to accomplish affordable housing and accommodate the rental market that was necessary for the community. Councilmember Ohlson stated he would not support the motion to amend. He stated he could support 20% and could not support 25%. He stated a 1,250 square foot home with a finished basement could allow seven boarders and there could be eight boarders in a 1,500 square foot home with a finished basement. He stated there could therefore be 32 people living in the four boardinghouses allowed on a block. He noted that the boardinghouses would have to have off-street parking but that there would be no requirement that cars actually be parked off-street. He stated 32 people in four units could add 32 automobiles to a neighborhood. Barnes stated off-street parking would have to be available and that people could choose not to use it. Councilmember Ohlson stated he would be voting against the amendment 46 November 15, 2005 Mayor Hutchinson stated this was a key element that added balance to the issue. He stated this would be a maximum percentage in the LMN zone, that single-family neighborhoods were being protected, and that he would support the motion to amend to 25%. The vote on the motion to amend to 25% was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Manvel, Ohlson and Roy. MauCQK#QUIC$l�QIIZK\;7;iI;l�a Councilmember Weitkunat stated she initially wanted to remove the "three unrelated" Ordinance from the books. She stated this was an "important compromise" and that the issue for her was "renters versus homeowners." She stated renters needed housing and fairness and that she could not have supported the Ordinance without the boardinghouse element. She stated establishing criteria meant that there would be a methodology to alleviate the problem. She stated she did not believe that neighborhoods would become "inundated" with boardinghouses because of the controls and restrictions. She stated she would support the motion as amended as a "reasonable solution for all parties." Councilmember Ohlson stated the neighborhoods brought this issue forward and that the Board of Realtors showed "courageous and wise leadership in supporting this." He thanked everyone involved and stated he would support the motion. Councilmember Roy stated the CSU student body also got involved in the issue. He stated this may not be a "perfect solution" but that this was the result of a "lot of hard work" as well as "soul searching." He stated the Ordinance could be adjusted in the future if needed. He thanked the City staff for the work on the matter. Councilmember Manvel thanked all those involved and stated this was a good compromise. He stated he hoped that this would be an "enforceable" Ordinance and that it would help solve the problems that exist. Councilmember Kastein stated this had been a long and difficult process and that there were to "legitimate" sides to the occupancy issue. He stated there was a `compelling argument" regarding discrimination, and that there were `compelling arguments to protect families" and single-family neighborhoods. He stated he supported leaving the occupancy limit at the current three and noted that boardinghouses had already been addressed in the Code. He stated he saw this as "making a statement' that the City would enforce the previously ignored existing laws and enforce "behavior issues." Mayor Hutchinson stated the Council had an obligation to help single-family neighborhoods retain that "flavor." He suggested that the Council had worked hard in "innovative ways" to avoid problems with what would be enacted. 47 November 15, 2005 The vote on the main motion as amended to 25% was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Hutchinson stated he would entertain questions and discussion regarding Ordinance No.124, 2005. City Attorney Roy read proposed amendments to Ordinance No. 124, 2005 relating to the disclosure requirement into the record. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adopt Ordinance No.124, 2005 (Option A: without rental registration) on Second Reading with the amendments read by the City Attorney. Mayor Hutchinson summarized Option A. Councilmember Kastein asked about the effective date for the disclosure requirements set forth in Option A. City Attorney Roy stated the requirements would take effect 10 days after Second Reading. Councilmember Kastein asked for the rationale. City Attorney Roy stated staff believed that there was no reason to delay the requirement to disclose the maximum number of occupants since the City currently had a maximum number of occupants. Councilmember Ohlson stated he would support the motion. He stated there would now be no minimum fine and that the City now "fully intended to enforce the law." He stated there would be flexibility for the judge to determine the fine. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if any new rental would have to carry a disclosure statement beginning in 10 days and if this would be retroactive for any existing rentals. City Attorney Roy stated when any property was sold or rented again there would be a disclosure requirement. Heffernan stated the disclosure form was ready for use. Councilmember Weitkunat stated this was a "credible compromise." She stated the disclosure requirement was a key element of the package. Councilmember Kastein stated Option B represented what was adopted on First Reading. He stated he saw a need for "reliable statistics" to help in setting policy and that would require a database. He stated this would also help the City in sending out educational mailings to rentals. He stated there would be benefits of a registration system but that he would not support one because of the non - confidential nature of the information that would be collected. He stated there could be opportunities for that information to be misused. He stated he appreciated the "creative work" that was done on W. November 15, 2005 the Utilities database option, which would allow confidentiality. He stated the disclosure requirement was now more acceptable than the previous truth -in -advertising requirement. Councilmember Manvel stated he agreed that the disclosure requirement was now more acceptable. He stated Option A would place a "great responsibility" on the City staff and that he would have preferred that information was accessible to allow neighbors and landlords to work out issues among themselves. He stated having this "secret database" would increase government by bringing the City into the dispute "loop" more often. He stated this would be a "minimally intrusive" and less expensive system. He stated he would support the motion and would wait to see if this type of registration would work well without "too much burden on City staff." Mayor Hutchinson stated he voted for Option B on First Reading in hopes that there would be more public interaction on Second Reading. He noted that the majority of people who spoke at this meeting were concerned primarily with registration. He stated most objected to a single database created by the City to address a subgroup of the community. He stated the Council did need information to have "data driven policy." He stated Ordinance No. 123, 2005 (just adopted) could have some unintended consequences and that those consequences could not be tracked unless data was available. He stated Option A would not have the negative drawbacks and would give Council data to track any impacts of the occupancy limits and boardinghouse provisions and move quickly to make any necessary adjustments. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. (Secretary's Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point.) Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Ordinance No. 125, 2005 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance No. 126, 2005 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt Ordinance No. 127, 2005 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. m November 15, 2005 THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt Ordinance No. 155, 2005 on First Reading. Councilmember Manvel asked about Section 26-27 relating to penalties for reporting incorrect information regarding the identify and address of the owner. He noted that there were references earlier in the Ordinance to reporting the telephone number as well. City Attorney Roy stated the Ordinance was broad enough to cover the reporting of all required information. He stated staff could look at the language prior to Second Reading to determine if an amendment was needed. Councilmember Manvel noted that the information would be reported at the time of signing up for utility service and that this might be done by a property owner or a tenant. He stated this would mean that the person signing up for utility service would have to provide personal information and information about the property owner. He asked for clarification about how this reporting would be done in light of comments received during citizen participation. City Attorney Roy stated the obligation would be for every customer, whether it was the owner or the tenant, to provide accurate and complete information regarding ownership. He stated if the tenant did not have that information and could not provide it, the tenant would have to persuade the owner to provide the information or there would not be utility service. He stated this would apply to current customers and new applicants on the effective date of January 1, 2007. Councilmember Manvel asked if utility service would be provided if the Utilities was confident it had the correct information, whether that information was provided by the tenant or owner. Smith replied in the affirmative. City Attorney Roy stated the owner would be notified when the tenant obtained service and there would be a presumption that the owner was consenting to it. He stated the service would not be provided if the owner objected. He stated the owner was ultimately responsible for the unpaid utility bills and liens could be placed against the property if the bills were not paid. Councilmember Manvel stated this Ordinance would benefit the Utilities for many reasons. Smith stated it help the Utilities deal with delinquent accounts and stay in touch with owners. Councilmember Manvel stated it would be a "stringent requirement" to require the name of a "real person" and a telephone number and that this should help in contacting owners that were trusts or corporations or out-of-state. City Attorney Roy stated applicants would be required to provide contact information for a natural person authorized to act as an agent for the owner with regard to the management of the unit. Councilmember Roy asked about plans to do an analysis on how well this would work; i.e., to test the accuracy of the information collected. Smith stated staff checked the information against the County records wherever possible. Councilmember Roy asked if the City would be able to check the system. Smith stated staff intended to develop processes to check the information. 50 November 15, 2005 Councilmember Roy stated he would like conceptual information on those processes at the time of Second Reading of the Ordinance. Councilmember Kastein how this Ordinance would be implemented. Smith stated the effective date was January 1, 2007 and that staff had not worked out the procedures and processes yet. Heffernan stated staff had considered possible procedures and processes for the rental registration program that was initially considered. She stated the Neighborhood and Building Services staff could assist the Utilities staff. She stated resources included direct mail using existing addresses, stakeholder group contacts, and possibly an insert in tax bills by the County Assessor in 2007. Smith stated there was some time to work on this. Councilmember Weitkunat stated there had been some discussion that this would be a "free ride" and a "burden to the City." She stated if this turned into a "cumbersome" or "more intense" process than anticipated that a processing fee should be explored as a possibility. She asked if language needed to be drafted to allow the Utilities to assess a nominal fee if needed in the future. She stated she would like to "leave that door open" because there could be costs to the City. She stated she would support adding language to the Ordinance at this time or coming back with an amendment at a future date. Councilmember Kastein asked if this would save the City money because there would be a central database with information needed. City Manager Atteberry stated staff anticipated spending less time on tracking down the 10-13% of violators. Mayor Hutchinson stated this option met the concerns of the Council and the citizens. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. City Manager Atteberry thanked the Council for the long hours spent on this item and the "partnership" developed between the Council and staff. Ordinance No. 132, 2005, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance Relating to the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2006 and Adopting the Budget for the Fiscal Years Beginning January 1, 2006 and Ending December 31, 2007, and Fixing the Mill Levy for Fiscal Year 2007, Adopted on Second Reading The following is staff's memorandum on this item. 51 November 15, 2005 "FINANCIAL IMPACT During First Reading of this Ordinance, Council approved two amendments to the 2006-2007 Biennial Budget. (1) Add a 0.50 FTE Bicycle Coordinator position at a cost of $40, 840 in 2006 and $42, 840 in 2007, f coded by one-time savings in the General Fund. (2) Appropriate $256,041 in the General Fund from one-time savings, but not earmarked for a specific use at this time. The Ordinance has been amended to reflect the aforementioned changes. This Ordinance represents the annual appropriation for fiscal year 2006, and adopts the total budget for fiscal year 2006 at $477, 048,152 and for fiscal year 2007 at $464, 005,551. This Ordinance also sets the City mill levy at 9.797 mills, unchanged since 1991, for fiscal year 2006 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ordinance No. 132, 2005 was adopted 5-2 (Nays: Ohlson and Roy) on First Reading on November 2,2005. Council adopted the 2006-200 7 City Biennial Budget and the corresponding appropriation of monies for fiscal year 2006 expenditures. f KreCt"11AYAI The 2006-2007 Biennial Budget establishes the services and financial plan to achieve results that support the seven key outcomes: • Improve Economic Health • Improve Environmental Health • Improve Neighborhood Quality • Safer Community • Improve Cultural, Recreational And Educational Opportunities • Improve Transportation • A High Performing Government For the General Fund, the sales tax rate remains unchanged at 2.25% and the property tax rate remains unaltered since 1991 at 9.797 mills. The budget includes a number offee adjustments and increases —the most notable relating to a Transportation Development Review Fee to recover 80% ofdevelopment review costs; increases in Recreation Fees and in Water and Wastewater utility rates (userfees); consideration ofa Transportation Maintenance Fee (TMF) in 2007; and increased Plant Investment Fees (development impactfees) related to Water, Wastewater, Stormwater, and Electric. 52 November 15, 2005 Final Budget Adjustments Based on Council's review and discussion of the biennial budget at First Reading (November 2), there were two amendments that are included in Second Reading ofthe 2006-2007 budget adoption and 2006 appropriation ordinance. 1. Bike Coordinator — a haftime Bike Coordinator to plan and implement programs to promote bicycling as an alternate form of transportation is included in the budget for 2006 and 2007. The Coordinator will conduct marketing, outreach activities, grant writing, and coordinate events. Monies are also included for marketing and promotional activities. Costs are divided as follows: $40,840 for the half-time Bike Coordinator and $16,173 for marketing. 2006: $ 57,013 $16,173 CMAQ (Existing grant contract) (One-time) $40,840 Medical Benefits One-time Savings 2007: $ 59,013 $16,173 CMAQ (Existing grant contract) (One-time) $42,840 Medical Benefits One-time Savings 2. 2006-2007BiennialBud¢et One-time Savings —based on updatedprojections, ourestimated costs for covering medical benefits for employees in 2006 have been reduced. In the General Fund this amounts to $639,844; savings among other funds, apart from the General Fund, amount to $844, 291. Also, the Trash Districting Study, a one-time cost, was eliminated from the recommended budget. Consequently, additional one-time resources that amount to $670,389 are available to cover service needs in the General Fund. Based on Council's direction, these one-time monies have been allocated for use in the 2006 and 2007 budget as follows: Source: One-time Medical Benefits Savings $639,844 One-time Trash District Study 30.545 TOTAL RESOURCES .................................................... $ 670,389 Use: a. Dial -a -Ride 2006 $ 60, 000 b. Dial -a -Ride 2007 80,000 c. Lorimer Humane Society 2006 65,748 d. Lorimer Humane Society 2007 124,920 e. Bike Coordinator/Marketing 40,840 f. Bike Coordinator/Marketing 42.840 TOTAL USES.............................................................. 414,348 NET AVAILABLE AFTER USES ...................................... $ 256,041 53 November 15, 2005 This "Net Available After Uses " of $256, 041 will be appropriated in the General Fund, but not earmarked for any particular use at this time. The amount will set aside as 2006-2007 Biennial Budget One-time Savings and available for Council to designate for a service use at a later time. Recap of Changes from the Recommended Budget A recap of all the changes Council made to the City Manager's recommended budget that are included in the budget adoption and appropriation ordinance follows: • Dial -a -Ride ($60,000 in 2006 and $80, 000 in 2007—General Fund One-time dollars) • Enhance Camera Radar ($177,000 in 2006 and $185,850 in 2007—General Fund Ongoing New Fee/Fine Revenue) • Trafc Ticket $35 Surcharge/added Police Traffic O :cers ($240,000 in 2006 and $247,200 in 2007—General Fund Ongoing New Fee/Fine Revenue) • Lorimer County Humane Society ($65,748 in 2006 and $124,920 in 2007—General Fund One-time dollars) • Restorative Justice/Enhanced ($17,373 in 2006 and $18,508 in 2007—General Fund Ongoing dollars). The Restorative Justice/Basic Service of$52,118 in 2006 and $55,525 in 2007 is anticipated to be funded by grants. • Neighborhood/Homeowners Association Data Base ($15,000 in 2006 and $15,000 in 2007—General Fund Ongoing dollars) • Street Sweeping/Quarterly Service for Neighborhood Streets ($112,000 in 2006 and $115,940 in 2007—Stormwater Utility Fund —Ongoing dollars) • Half-time Bike Coordinator and Marketing ($57,013 in 2006 and $59,103 in 2007—General Fund and CMAQ One-time dollars) 2006-2007 Biennial Budget One-time Savings ($256, 041 in 2006—General Fund One- time dollars) • Trash Districting Study ($30,545 in 2006—General Fund One-time dollars). The study was eliminated and these one-time resources are credited to General Fund savings. Future Budget Issues While the Budgeting for Outcomes process was an effective tool for allocating the City's available resources for services and actions directly related to the key outcomes, three key issues remain and will be addressed in preparation for the 2007 Budget Exception Process. Transportation Maintenance Fee (TMF) The biennial budget includes a recommendation to enact a Transportation Maintenance Fee in 2007. Over the next few months and prior to the 2007 Budget Exception Process (adjustments to the 2007 budget and appropriation ordinance that occur in late 2006), Council and staff will work with the community and carefully examine the Transportation Maintenance Fee, as well as other options for addressing street maintenance and other 54 November 15, 2005 General Fund operational needs. Without an added revenue source in 2007, additional cuts approximating $2.7 million must be made to the 2007 budget plan. 2. Employee Compensation and Benefits In preparation for 2007 employee pay adjustments, the City Manager will work on refining the City's performance review system to achieve a greater emphasis on pay based on performance. This includes usingpay as aperformance incentive; refining the "market"for City jobs (e.g., ifjobs are more locally benchmarked, use local comparisons; ifjobs are more regional, use broader or more regional comparisons). Discussion will focus on the underlying principles of how employees' pay progress within their pay grades. 3. Police Staffing and Services Ensuring a safe community is a key result and priority in our community. Before we determine the specific, future staffing and resource needs related to Police services, a more specific service plan and set of metrics that are pertinent and directly applicable to our community profile and public safety needs must be developed. As a starting point, Council supported the creation ofa Council subcommittee to work closely with the City Manager and staff to develop the service plan and metrics. " City Manager Atteberry introduced the agenda item. He stated this was the culmination of "lengthy and substantive process." He expressed appreciation for the partnerships that had been developed on this budget with the Mayor and Council, Results Teams, Executive Lead Team and Budgeting for Outcomes Lead Team. He stated Deputy City Manager Jones was a "consummate professional and incredible partner" through this process. He stated the Budgeting for Outcomes process was needed because there had been structural changes in the local economy and City revenue stream. He stated building on base budgets no longer worked and that there was a need to review all of the City's costs. He stated this was a true outcome -based budget that addressed the Council's priorities: the budget and the local economy. He stated the total budget was $477 million for 2006 with a $97.5 million General Fund budget. He stated on First Reading the Council added a half-time FTE bicycle coordinator position in 2006 and 2007 using one-time dollars and directed the appropriation of $256,000 plus in the General Fund from one-time savings to be set aside for uncertainties and not earmarked for specific purposes in 2006. Councilmember Ohlson asked if there were preliminary figures on the sales and use tax figures for the month. Chuck Seest, Finance Director, stated the October sales activity information was gathered in November and remitted in December to the City. Councilmember Ohlson asked if there was an October report for September figures. Seest stated those figures showed that for the first nine months of the year there was a 3.1 % combined sales and use tax increase over 2004 figures. He stated the trend was continuing for the sales tax to slightly lag, while the use tax was far ahead of budget projections. 55 November 15, 2005 Councilmember Ohlson asked if staff was still comfortable with the projections for 2006 and final numbers for 2005. Seest replied in the affirmative. Mayor Hutchinson stated each audience participant would have four minutes to speak. Kay Rios, Affordable Housing Board, stated the Budgeting for Outcomes process was flawed as noted in a memo that had been sent from the Board to the Council. She stated the budget "loudly made a statement" of lack of support for affordable housing in Fort Collins. She urged Council to remember that affordable housing was a large component of economic sustainability and was closely tied to five of the seven core values on which the budget was based. She stated the outcomes did not reflect that. She stated the Board believed that low income citizens were being impacted in a variety of ways through cuts to other programs and increases in user impact fees. She stated a "message" was being sent that people should not plan on living in Fort Collins if they were "not healthy, not wealthy and don't have their own resources." She stated Council must address how to keep the idea alive that this was a "welcoming community for all people." She stated the first step would be to reinstate the affordable housing funds. Sarah Allmon, 1200 East Stuart Street 938, disabled resident, spoke in favor of funding for transportation. Jenny Shock, social worker, spoke in favor of funding for night-time Dial -a -Ride and expanded bus routes to Harmony Road. Paul Rosenzweig, 413'/2 East Mulberry Street, supported funding for expanded transit. Bruce Hall, 924 Whalers Way, spoke in support of reallocating funding for transit in the southeast comer of the community. Susanne Durkin -Schindler, 1342 Stonehenge Drive, thanked Council for its decision to fund the grant -funded Restorative Justice Program and spoke regarding the purpose of the program. She stated she understood that consideration was being given to additional funding and noted that there were 25 program volunteers who would "step to the plate." Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt Ordinance No. 132, 2005 on Second Reading. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she had "countless calls" regarding the bicycle coordinator's salary. She stated she and many community members were "astounded" to find that $40,000 would be the salary for a half-time employee. She asked why the figure was so high for a part-time position. City Manager Atteberry stated the job description listed the pay range as $19,396 to $26,377 for a half-time position. He stated the total cost for salary and benefits for the top of the range would be $34,452 and that $5,548 was intended for miscellaneous minor program costs and any costs associated with training. 56 November 15, 2005 Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the City was required to provide benefits. City Manager Atteberry stated the position could be staffed by a contract employee with no benefits. He stated the dollar amount provided was the highest possible cost and that the actual cost could be lower. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the Council would need to provide direction to say that the position should be staffed for fewer dollars. City Manager Atteberry stated he would like Council to allow him the discretion to answer those concerns and to work with Human Resources on the position. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she heard from many citizens about the high cost of the part-time position in these difficult economic times. Councilmember Ohlson stated he would be voting against the Pay Plan later in the meeting. He expressed concern that the bicycle position would be treated differently than other positions with similar responsibilities. City Manager Atteberry stated the Pay Plan applied to classified and unclassified employees as well as contract and hourly positions. He stated this position was aligned with the Administrative Professional 02 designation used for Publicity and Marketing Specialist. He stated the hiring supervisor, the service area director, the Human Resources Director and the City Manager typically worked together to make a position competitive. He stated some contract and hourly employees did not receive benefits. Councilmember Manvel stated he had proposed the dollar amount for the bicycle coordinator position based on figures received from staff. He stated he would support leaving the figure as proposed and allowing staff to work on finding a good person for the least possible money. He stated this position should not be treated any differently than any other position. Councilmember Roy asked if the mill levy was being fixed for 2006. City Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative and stated this could be considered as a friendly amendment to the language of the motion. Councilmember Ohlson asked ifmore information was available on the Restorative Justice Program. He noted that three options were discussed and asked what program enhancements would be achieved under each of the three optional dollar amounts discussed. He stated he would like to know if there was Council interest in additional funding for the program. Deputy City Manager Jones stated the dollar amount included in the budget was the State Juvenile Justice Center grant awarded in agenda item #16; that there was a pending Bohemian Foundation grant of $30,000; and that on Second Reading more than $17,000 was included in the Citybudget for 2006 and $18,508 for 2007 in ongoing monies. She stated there were five scenarios discussed with regard to adding money for the program. Councilmember Ohlson asked if staff had an opinion on those options. Dennis Harrison, Police Chief, stated five options were presented in information given to Council. He stated the program was seeking permanent funding that would not rely on grants. He stated if the Bohemian Foundation grant was received, if the $17,000 for 2006 was approved, and if the $20,000 from the State was 57 November 15, 2005 received, funding would be at around $67,000. He stated this was a positive program with benefits to the community, and that the question was how much the program should be enhanced. Councilmember Roy asked if the coordinator had any comments. Perrie McMillen, FCPS Restorative Justice Program Coordinator, stated several options had been presented. She stated the original intention was to achieve stability in funding. She stated the options that were presented were dependant on receipt of the Bohemian Foundation grant and that the program would learn by later in the month whether that grant would be awarded. She stated she applied for the maximum amount allowed ($30,000) and that adjustments would need to be made depending on the actual amount received. She stated if the program received the Bohemian Foundation grant and the funding approved by the City Council, the program would be able to continue the programs that were already in place and take direct referrals from school administrators, avoiding the courts. She stated services in the schools could be expanded if additional funding was received from the Council. She stated the program would also like to do collaborative work with Neighborhood Services to develop a restorative process to address nuisance violations. Councilmember Ohlson noted that options were provided for another $20,000 or $40,000 in City support. He asked if this would be ongoing money or one-time dollars. City Manager Atteberry stated the only available money was one-time dollars. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if dollars could be reallocated during the budget exceptions process next June. City Manager Attebeny stated this could be considered again during that exceptions process and Council could consider this at any time. Councilmember Weitkunat stated this was an important program and that she would like to know about the Bohemian Foundation grant before making a determination on additional funding. She suggested using the exceptions process to look at this funding again. She stated it was also important to look at a funding stream to keep the program alive and stated this may not have to occur at this time. She stated she would be willing to consider this for the 2007 budget. Councilmember Kastein stated this was a valuable program and that there were many other competing health and safety needs. He asked that this discussion be continued with future police staffing strategic discussions. Councilmember Ohlson stated one-time monies could help with this kind of program but were not appropriate for police and fire funding. He stated he was open to looking at options for matching grants. Councilmember Manvel stated he like the idea of matching grants. He asked when the program would be impacted if the $30,000 Bohemian Foundation grant was not received. McMillen stated the award date would be December 1. She stated one of the two primary programs would probably have to be cut if the grant was not received and if additional funding was not received from the City. W. November 15, 2005 Councilmember Weitkunat stated money had been appropriated for the grant. McMillen stated if more money would be available in June that the program could probably continue until then without cuts. Councilmember Weitkunat supported looking at this funding strategically so that the program did not have to struggle along with uncertain grant funding. Mayor Hutchinson asked if there was support for an amendment to the Ordinance. Councilmember Ohlson stated he did not plan to offer an amendment. He asked if there was consensus to look at funding in the exceptions process if grant funding did not come through. City Manager Atteberry suggested that dollars not be set aside at this point to cover costs in the event the grant was not received. He stated he would report back to the Council on the grant and that a decision could be made at that time about what to do. Mayor Hutchinson stated there was a consensus in favor of the City Manager's suggestion Councilmember Roy stated he would not support the motion. He expressed appreciation for the detailed examination of the budget. He stated he had concerns about omissions from the budget that affected the "most vulnerable" people in the community. He stated he was concerned about the impact of the budget on affordable housing, transit and environment. Councilmember Kastein stated there was not enough money to cover all needs. He stated the Council's policy agenda included eight statements about transportation (with three relating specifically to transit). Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would support the Ordinance on Second Reading. She stated this was the "worst" as well as the "most meaningful" budget she had worked on during her six years on the Council. She stated it was difficult when there were limited funds and that choices and compromises had to be made. She stated she hoped that the next budget process would be "clearer" to enable the City to address problems and policies that concerned the community. She stated the Restorative Justice Program was an example of an important program that should be kept but could not be fully funded. She stated this was a "beginning" and that there would be a clearer path to outcomes in the next budget cycle. Councilmember Ohlson stated he would vote against the Ordinance on Second Reading. He stated he had not given up on a youth center on the south side, transportation demand management funding, environmental program funding, changes to the 70th percentile pay plan, the unresolved $20 million retirement plan, a trash districting study, and changes to the two -tiered bus driver structure. Councilmember Brown stated the City could not afford some things in the budget. He stated Budgeting for Outcomes gave transparency to the budget process. He noted that there had been a great deal of public input on this budget. He stated he would support the Ordinance on Second Reading. 59 November 15, 2005 Councilmember Manvel stated he would support the motion. He stated he believed that there would be more problems with the 2007 budget than with the 2006 budget. He expressed appreciation for the compromise and discussion that had occurred. He stated there were still many remaining questions. Mayor Hutchinson stated this was a "tough budget" and that this budget "struck a balance." He noted that employee pay was being unfrozen while positions were being cut. He stated the Council was "pushing for an organization of excellence." He stated the budget reflected a commitment to quality of government at a level the citizens expected. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Ohlson and Roy. THE MOTION CARRIED. Meeting Extended City Manager Atteberry made recommendations regarding the agenda items that must be completed. City Attorney Roy suggested a motion to extend the meeting until midnight. He stated if the Council wanted to go beyond midnight there must be a motion to suspend the rules. He noted that the Gil) meeting was a separate meeting. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to extend the meeting to midnight. Councilmember Kastein stated he would not support extending the meeting past midnight. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. City Manager Atteberry asked if it was Council's intent to complete the agenda. Mayor Hutchinson stated that was the intent. Items Relating to 2006 Water, Sewer, Stormwater Plant Investment Fees and Electric Development Charges Adopted on Second Reading The following is staffs memorandum on this item. November 15, 2005 "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 2005, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Water Plant Investment Fees and Raw Water Requirements. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 2005, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Sewer Plant Investment Fees. (Phase -In Implementation - 113 in 2006) C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 2005, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Electric Development Fees and Charges. D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 136, 2005, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Establish Stormwater Plant Investment Fees. These Ordinances adopt the water, sewer and stormwater plant investment fees and electric development fees. These fees were presented and discussed at City Council's August 23, 2005 work session. The fees are one-time charges paid by developers or builders for the cost of the utility infrastructure needed to serve a new development. Ordinance Nos. 133, 135, and 136, 2005, were unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 2, 2005. Ordinance No. 134, 2005 (Option B - to phase -in implementation) was adopted 6-1 (Nays: Manvel) on First Reading on November 2, 2005. Per Council direction during the First Reading of these Ordinances, a revision has been made to each Ordinance by adding Code language requiring staff to review the fees annually and to present the fees to Council for approval on at least a biennial basis, which appears in Section I of each Ordinance. These Code changes are being made to mitigate the impact of adjustments in anyone year. A housekeeping revision has been made to the Wastewater PIF Ordinance No. 134, 2005 (Option B) since the First Reading. The change helps to clarify the calculation of the fees for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS) for high strength customers and those customers with tap sizes greater than three inches. " City Manager Atteberry stated staff would be available to answer any questions. Councilmember Kastein asked about stormwater rates for hotel use. He noted that this was significantly higher than any other city. Teri Bryant, Utilities Budget and Finance Manager, stated some cities had many different basins and that those basin fees were averaged to arrive at an average cost for the stormwater fee. She stated other cities collected a minimum stormwater fee and collected the balance for stormwater development through rates. Councilmember Kastein stated his question also related to water rates for hotels. Bryant stated it was difficult to obtain comparative information for hotels because of the unique ways communities 61 November 15, 2005 calculated rates. She stated some communities used a room count and some used square footage. City Manager Atteberry stated he would be suggesting that regional City Managers get together to share information on a monthly basis. He stated he wanted to determine if there was interest in forming a consortium to collect information about fees charged by other cities. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to adopt Ordinance No. 133, 2005; Ordinance No. 134, 2005; Ordinance No. 135, 2005; and Ordinance No. 136, 2005 on Second Reading. Councilmember Kastein stated he would vote against the motion because the data indicated that this was "not acceptable." He stated cost analysis had not been done. He stated in the future he wanted to see annual cost comparisons for any fee items. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Kastein. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 139, 2005 Adopting the 2006 Classified Employees Pay and Classification Plan. Adopted on Second Reading "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Pay Plan continues in support ofthe practice ofsetting Citypay range maximums at the market 70th percentile. Data from thepublic and private sectors, including reported published survey data and a special City of Fort Collins Compensation Survey, were used to determine the prevailing market rates for 100 benchmarkjobs. Ordinance No. 139, 2005, was adopted 6-1 (Nays: Ohlson) on First Reading on November 2, 2005. " City Manager Atteberry stated staff would be available to answer questions. Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt Ordinance No. 139, 2005 on Second Reading. Councilmember Ohlson stated he would vote against the Ordinance on Second Reading. He stated he believed that work still needed to be done on the 70th percentile. Mayor Hutchinson stated he believed that everyone was committed to working further on the 70th percentile policy. 62 November 15, 2005 The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Ohlson. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 156,2005, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Hellenic Plaza Rezoning. Failed on First Reading "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This parcel was annexed into the City in February, 1964 and placed in the A —Residential District. It was rezoned RH -residential High -Density in 1965. In March of 1997, in order to implement City Plan and Land Use Code, the 1.267 acre property now being considered for rezoning was placed in the CC — Community Commercial District. In March, 1999, in accordance with the adoption of the West Central Neighborhoods Plan, theproperty was rezonedMMN-Medium DensityMixed-Use Neighborhood. The MMN District does not permit a coffee and pastry/deli shop (fast food restaurant) as requested on the Rezoning Petition. Therefore, the rezoning request does not comply with City Structure Plan and the West Central Neighborhoods Plan. APPLICANT. Eastpoint Studio, LLC c% Don Brookshire 3207 Kittery Court Fort Collins, CO 80526 OWNER: Hellenic Plaza, LLC P.O. Box 1613 Fort Collins, CO On October 4, 2005, Council considered and denied this rezoning request. At the request of the applicant, who was not present at the hearing on October 4, Council, at its October 18 meeting, voted to rescind its October 4 decision and scheduled a new hearing at this meeting. BACKGROUND The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N.- RL, NCB; Existing single-family residential S: Not Zoned; Existing Colorado State University Alumni Center E: NCL; Existing single-family residential W MMN,• Existing sorority house (Chi Omega) .� November 15, 2005 The property was annexed as part of the Delta Eta House Association Annexation in February, 1964, and zoned A (a residential district). The property was rezoned RH - Residential High -Density in 1965 and remained RH until March, 1997. The property was rezoned CC - Community Commercial in March, 1997 with the adoption of the new comprehensive plan, City Plan. The property was rezoned MMN- Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood in March, 1999 with the adoption of the West Central Neighborhoods Plan. The property has not been platted to date. However, it does contain one vacant building, most recently having been the Sigma Chi Fraternity House. City Plan Rezoning In March of 1997, in order to implement CityPlan and Land Use Code, the 1.267 acre property now being considered for rezoning was placed in the CC— Community Commercial District. In March, 1999, in accordance with the adoption of the West Central Neighborhoods Plan, the property was rezoned MMN- Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. Current Request The applicant, Hellenic Plaza, LLC, c% Eastpoint Studio, LLC/Don Brookshire, filed a rezoning petition with the City on July 15, 2005. The applicant is requesting a rezoning of 1.267 acres from MMN— Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood to CC - Community Commercial. The MMN District does not permit a coffee and pastry/deli shop (fast food restaurant) as requested on the Rezoning Petition. The property currently contains one vacant building, most recently having been the Sigma Chi Fraternity House. The requested zoning for this property is the CC - Community Commercial District. There are numerous uses permitted in this District, subject to either administrative review or review by the Planning and Zoning Board. The City's adopted Structure Plan, apart of the Comprehensive Plan, presently suggests that Medium Density Mixed -Use Residential is appropriate in this location. In evaluating the rezoning request, staff is guided by Article 2, Sections 2.9.4(H)(2) and (3). The request to rezone the 1.267 acre parcel is considered a quasi-judicial action since the parcel is less than 640 acres. The requested rezoning and amendment to the Zoning Map shall be recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board or approved by City Council only if the proposed amendment is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 64 November 15, 2005 West Central Neighborhoods Plan The Land Use and Housing Densities Plan, as part of the West Central Neighborhoods Plan, adopted in March, 1999, identifies this property as Medium Density Mixed -Use. As stated in Policy Bl of the West Central Neighborhoods Plan, under Medium Density Mixed -Use Residential Areas: "Areas currently devoted to, or in the future developed/redeveloped into, higher density and intensity multi family residential uses including apartment complexes, condominiums, townhomes, fraternityand sorority houses, and other types ofgroup quarters, and mixed -use dwellings (residential units located with non-residential uses, e.g., units on the upperfoors of non-residential uses) along with supporting uses such as schools, churches, parks, etc. " This section goes on to say that these areas should either retain their current MMNZoning applied during the City Plan community -wide rezoning effort in March, 1997, or be rezonedfrom the current CC - Community Commercial to the MMN Zone. As stated in Policy B2 ofthe West Central Neighborhoods Plan, under Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District (MMN): "The Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District is intended to be a setting for concentrated housing within easy walking distance of transit and a commercial district. These neighborhoods form a transition and link between surrounding neighborhoods and commercial areas. " This property, being in the MMN District, is north of and in close proximity to the Campus West commercial area in the CC - Community Commercial District. The intent of the West Central Neighborhoods Plan for this area is to revitalize and create a stronger CCzone district to the south of the subject property, in the Campus West area, and discourage the proliferation of commercial uses along the South Shields Street arterial street frontage. At this time the requested rezoning of the propertyfrom MMN to CC is not in compliance with the adopted West Central Neighborhoods Plan. Structure Plan The City Structure Plan, an element of the City's comprehensive plan, is a map that sets forth a basicframework, showing how Fort Collins shouldgrow and evolve over the next 20 years. The map designates theparcelas "Medium Density Mixed- Use Residential." Therefore, therequestforCC- Community Commercial zoning is not in compliance with the City Structure Plan. Findings In evaluating the request for the Hellenic Plaza Rezoning, Amendment to the Zoning Map from MMN — Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood to CC - Community Commercial, Recommendation to City Council, Staff makes the following findings of fact: 65 November 15, 2005 With the City Plan rezoning in March of 1997, in order to implement City Plan and Land Use Code, the 1.267 acre propertynow being considered for rezoning was placed in the CC — Community Commercial District. In March, 1999, in accordance with the adoption of the West Central Neighborhoods Plan, the property was rezoned MMN - Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. 2. The requested rezoning of the property from MMN - Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood to CC - Community Commercial is not in compliance with the adopted West Central Neighborhoods Plan. 3. The subject propertyfor the Hellenic Plaza Rezoning is designated on City Structure Plan as "Medium Density Mixed -Use Residential". The request to rezone the property to CC - Community Commercial, therefore, does not comply with the City Structure Plan. 4. The request to rezone does not satisfy the applicable review criteria of the Section 2.9.4 (H) of the Land Use Code. " Steve Olt, City Planner, stated the Planning and Zoning Board had recommended denial of the Hellenic Plaza rezoning from MMN to CC. He stated on October 4 the Council considered the recommendation and upheld the Board's recommendation for denial. He stated it was determined at the Council meeting that the applicant was not present and Council entertained a request from the applicant to reconsider the item. He stated the Board's recommendation for denial remained unchanged. Mayor Hutchinson stated the applicant would have five minutes to speak. Don Brookshire, Eastpoint Studio, LLC, 3207 Kittery Court, representing the Hellenic Plaza owners, stated the project would be mixed use and would include a multi -family housing geared toward student housing because of the location across the street from Moby Gym and other uses such as a copy or mail shop, a bookstore, a coffee and bagel shop i.e. uses that may assist with CSU needs. He stated the Land Use Code did not allow the coffee and bagel shop use, which was defined as a "fast food restaurant." He stated the MMN zone district would allow a "convenience store" and that definition was close to the description of the proposed use except for a formal seating area. He stated the applicant was pursuing this because of the prevalence of Internet cafes. He stated this coffee shop use would be compatible with all of the other uses in the mixed use project. He stated a coffee shop would be no more intensive than any other allowable uses in the MMN zone. He stated the applicant was seeking a rezoning to achieve essentially the same prof ect that was allowable in the MMN zone with the exception of a particular use. He stated the development of the project would support many of the features outlined in City Plan and the Land Use Code as well as the Structure Plan. He stated this location on Shields Street with the proposed uses would provide a buffer to residential uses on properties to the west. He stated this would be a neighborhood center and gathering place for the residents. :. November 15, 2005 Mayor Hutchinson asked staff to explain how Council should consider the Ordinance. CityAttomey Roy stated there were criteria in the Land Use Code for rezonings. He stated Council had the discretion to apply the criteria. Councilmember Kastein stated this was a request for a rezoning to allow for a particular use. He stated the danger of the rezoning would be that a higher intensity use than the one proposed by the applicant could qualify. He asked if there was any way for the coffee and bagel shop to be allowed if there was an appeal process. Greg Byrne, CPES Director, stated the Land Use Code Review Team was considering an option that would add that use to the MMN zone. He stated an up -zoning would allow a broad range of uses that could not be controlled. He stated Council must review the option to add that use during the next round of Land Use Code changes. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if this project could be reconsidered once that use was added to the MMN zone. Byrne stated if the Land Use Code change was made that staff would accept a development review application for the project. Councilmember Ohlson asked if the Council must take some action. City Attorney Roy stated the zoning must conform to the Structure Plan and that a rezoning must be warranted by changed circumstances in the area. Councilmember Ohlson asked if the Council must therefore vote the Ordinance up or down. City Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to deny the rezoning request and defeat Ordinance No. 156, 2005 on First Reading. Councilmember Kastein stated he wanted to avoid the possibility of a higher intensity use and favored allowing the proposed use in the MMN zone. Councilmember Ohlson stated the staff work indicated that this proposal was not in compliance with the West Central Neighborhoods Plan, the City Structure Plan or the Land Use Code and that staff and the Planning and Zoning Board recommended denial. He stated he would support the motion to deny. The vote on the motion to deny was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. November 15, 2005 Items Related to the Completion of the Fall Cycle of the Competitive Process for Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing Projects/Programs and Community Development Activities Utilizing HOME Investment Partnerships Funds, Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG") Funds, and Funds from the City's Affordable Housing Fund Adopted on First Reading "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Public Hearing and Resolution2005-123ApprovingtheFiscalYear2005HOMEInvestment Partnerships Program and the Utilization of Unprogrammed and Reprogrammed Funds from Previous Fiscal Year HOME and CDBG Grants, and HOME and CDBG Program Income. B. Resolution 2005-124 Allocating Funding from the City's Affordable Housing Fund. C First Reading of Ordinance No. 157, 2005, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Projects in the HOME Investment Partnership Program. D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 158, 2005, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing the Transfer ofAppropriations Between Projects in the CommunityDevelopment Block Grant Program. The City Council is scheduled to conduct a public hearing and consider the adoption of two resolutions. Resolution 2005-123 will establishes which programs and projects will receive funding from the City's HOME Program for the FY 2005 Program year and which programs and projects will receive funding from other available HOME Program and CDBG Program funds. Resolution 2005-124, establishes which programs and projects will receive funding from the City's Affordable Housing Fund. The Resolutions establishing which programs and projects will receive HOME, CDBG, and City Affordable Housing Fund dollars represent the culmination of the fall cycle of a competitive applications process. This process was approved in January 2000 by the Council to apply the City's financial resources to affordable housingprograms/projects and community development activities. Additional background material about the competitive process is included in Attachment A. The total amount offunding requests considered by the CDBG Commission was approximately $2.1 million, however, only about $1.9 million of funds are available. The CDBG Commission recommends full funding for six (6) proposals, partial funding for two (2), and no funding for one (1) proposal. Unallocated funds will be carried over to the Spring 2006 cycle of the competitive process. rep November 15, 2005 BACKGROUND The CDBG Commission recommends which programs and projects should receive funding from several funds including: the City's Home Investments Partnership ("HOME) Program funds for the FY 2005 Program year; other available HOME Program and CDBG Program funds; and/or the City's Affordable Housing Fund. Selection Process The competitive process established criteria to determine priorities between proposals received by the City. The ranking criteria are divided into five major categories. Each category is given a total number of points that has been weighed according to their importance with respect to local and federal priorities. The five major categories are: 1. Impact/Benefit 2. Need/Priority 3. Feasibility 4. Leveraging Resources 5. Capacity and History The Impact/Benefit criteria provide greater rewards to proposals that target lower income groups. The Need/Priority criteria help assure the proposal meets adopted City goals and priorities. The Feasibility criteria rewards projects for timelines and documented additional funding. The Leveraging Resources criteria rewardsproposals which will return funds to the City (via loans) and for their ability to leverage other resources. The Capacity and History criteria help gauge an applicant's ability to do the project and rewards applicants that have completed successful projects in the past. The ranking sheet used to assist the CDBG Commission is included in Attachment 1. The Commission also considered the funding guidelines contained in the Priority Affordable Housing Needs and Strategies report adopted by the Council on July 20, 2004. These guidelines include: • HOMEfundsshouIdgenera llybeallocatedasfollows:90%forHousingprojects and 10% for Program Administration. The Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD') HOME Program regulations also require the City to set aside 15% for CHDO projects and allow an allocation of 5% for CHDO operations; • CDBG funds should generally be allocated as follows: 65°%a for Housing projects; 15% for Public Services; and the balance for Public Facilities and Program Administration; • funds allocatedtohousing shouldgenerallybedivided asfollows:70%forrental projects and 30%for homeownership opportunities; and • the average subsidy should be $7,400 per unit, with relatively more funding to projects producing housing for lower income families. November 15, 2005 The CDBG andHOMEPrograms are ongoinggrantadministrationprogramsfundedbyHUD. The City of Fort Collins has received CDBG Program funds since 1975 and HOME Program funds since 1994. The City is an Entitlement recipient of CDBG funds and a Participating Jurisdiction recipient of HOME funds, meaning the City is guaranteed a certain level offending each year. The level offending is dependent on the total amount of funds allocated to the programs by Congress and on a formula developed by HUD, which includes data on total population, minorities as a percentage of population, income levels, housing stock conditions. Additional background information on the City's HOME and CDBG Programs are presented in Attachments 3 and 4 respectively. On January 13, 2005, the CDBG Commission held a public hearing to obtain citizen input on community development and affordable housing needs. The HOME/CDBG Program officeplaced legal advertisements in local and regional newspapers starting in July to solicit requests forHOME and CDBG funded programs and projects and for proposals for the use offuding from the City's Affordable Housing Fund. The application deadline was Thursday, August 18. At the close of the deadline the City received nine (9) applications requesting a total of approximately $2.1 million. Copies of all applications were forwarded through the City Manager's office to the City Council on September 1, 2005, and placed in the Council Office for review. Also on September 1, 2005, copies of the applications were distributed to the CDBG Commission and the Affordable Housing Board. On September 15, 2005, the Affordable Housing Board conducted a special meeting to review the affordable housing proposals and formulate a list of priority projects which was forwarded to the CDBG Commission (see Attachment 2). On September 22, 2005, the CDBG Commission met to hear presentations and ask clarification questions from each applicant. The Commission then met on September 29, 2005, for the purpose ofpreparing a recommendation to the City Council as to which programs and projects should befunded within funds available from the fall cycle ofthe competitive process. At this meeting the Commission reviewed the written applications, the applicant's verbal presentation, the information provided during the question and answer session, and reviewed the performance of agencies who received HOME finds, CDBG funds, or other funding in previous years. The Commission then worked on their list of recommendations. AVAILABLE FUNDS The amount of the City's FY 2005 HOME Grant available for projects is $613, 693. Added to the HOME Grant will be $200, 000 ofestimated HOME Program Income, $229,258 of Unprogrammed and Reprogrammed HOME finds from previous grants, $185,329 of Unprogrammed and Reprogrammed CDBG funds from previous grants, and $735,898 from the City's Affordable HousingFund to create a potential pool of$1,964,178 offunds available for programs and projects during the fall cycle of the competitive process. Unprogrammed funds are funds that are available from a previous grant that have not been allocated to any specific program/project. Reprogrammed funds are funds that are available from a previous grant that were allocated to a program/project but have been returned to the City. 70 November 15, 2005 CDBG funds are typically allocated in the spring and are not available for use in the fall cycle of the competitive process. However, the City did not allocate all of its available CDBG funds in the spring cycle of 2005 carrying over an amount of $185, 329 for allocation in the fall cycle. The following summarizes the amount and sources of availablefunds: AMOUNT SOURCE $511,411 HOME FY05-06 Grant $102,282 HOME FY05-06 CHDO $46,265 HOME FY03 Reprogrammed $159,663 HOMEFY04 Unprogrammed $23,330 HOME FY04-05 CHDO $200,000 HOME Program Income $22, 611 CDBG FY04 Reprogrammed $121,436 CDBG FY05 Unprogrammed $9,582 CDBG FY05 Reprogrammed $31, 700 CDBG Program Income $735,898 Affordable HousinFund $1964178 Total CDBG COMMISSION'S LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS HUD HOME regulations limit the amount of available funds that can be allocated to various categories. Fundsfor administrativepurposes are limited to 10% ofthe HOME Grant which means 90% of the Grant must be used for housing projects. Within the 90% required for projects, the City is required to set aside 15% for CHDO projects and allow an allocation of 5% for CHDO operations (if any applications are received). Similarly, HUD CDBG regulations limit the amount of available funds that can be allocated to various categories. Funds for Administrative purposes are limited to 20%ofthe CDBG Grant and estimated Program Income and funds forPublic Services are limited to 15%. The City allocated all eligible funds for public services during the spring cycle of the competitive process and designated approximately 13%for administrative purposes. The Commission not only decided which applicants presented programs and projects which best fit into the City's HOME and CDBG Programs, but also insured funding allocations were kept within HUD regulations and follow the funding guidelines contained in the Priority Affordable Housing Needs and Strategies report. Listed below is a summary of each applicant's initial request for funding and the Commission's list of recommendations. 71 November 15, 2005 I. HOUSING PROJECTS 1. ACCESSIBLE SPACE — FORT COLLINS, COLORADO SUPPORTIVE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT Amount of Request: $500, 000 ($250, 000 HOME/ $250, 000 Affordable Housing Fund - Due on sale loan15% simple interest fee) Recommendation: $500,000 - Grant ($95,570 from HOME FY04 Unprogrammed, $204, 430 from HOMEFY05-06 Grant, and $200, 000 from the City's Affordable Housing Fund). Funding must be in the form of a grant because local funding must be a grant in order for the project to receiving additional Section 811 funding from HUD. Accessible Space will develop one newly constructed, barrier free 2 story project with a centrally located elevator for ease of resident access. The building will provide housing for 22 very low income persons with disabilities and will include 18 one bedroom and 5 two bedroom units, including one unitfor an on -site caretaker. Theproject will serve adults with a wide range ofdisabilities levels up to and including those individuals requiring the use of a wheelchair. 2. CITY OF FORT COLLINS — HOME BUYER ASSISTANCE Amount of Request: $200, 000 HOMEI $100, 000 Affordable Housing Fund - Due on sale loan15% simple interest fee Recommendation: $300, 000 - Due on sale loan15% simple interest fee ($200, 000 from HOME Program Income and $100, 000 from the Affordable Housing Fund) This program is administered by the Advance Planning Department and provides zero - percent interest loans, to eligible first-time homebuyers. A five percent fee is added to the loan balance at the time of repayment. The assistance covers down payment and closing costs to a maximum of $9, 600 for households at 51 % to 80% of Area Median Income CAMI') and $19,200for buyers at or below 50%ofAMI working through Habitat or Section 8 Homeownership projects. Approximately 32 households will be assisted with this funding. CDBG funding of $200,000 has already been allocated and must be matched with other funds. 3. LARIMER COUNTY— HOME IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Amount of Request: $60, 000 HOME -GRANT Recommendation: $60, 000 — Grant from the Affordable Housing Fund This program has two components. The first component is the on -going repair and rehabilitation program serving all of Larimer County. The program is designed to assist 72 November 15, 2005 homeowners who are at or below 80% of AMI. The program serves a high percentage of seniors who are long term homeowners receiving only social security. They generally can not afford to make the necessary repairs to their homes without grant assistance. The second component is emergency assistance (Emergency Funds Program). Theprogram assists very low income families in need of emergency assistance such as water heaters, furnace replacement or other related repairs; generally these are mobile homes. 4. FORT COLLINS HOUSING CORPORATION — VILLAGE ON COWAN STREET REHABILITATION Amount ofRequest: $110, 358 CDBG Due on sale loan/5% simple interest fee Recommendation: $110,358 - Due on sale loan/5% simple interest fee ($46,265 from HOME FY03 Reprogrammed and $64,093 from HOME FY04 Unprogrammed) The Village on Cowan Street is owned by the Fort Collins Housing Corporation ("FCHC') and consists of 19 total units. There are 16 two bedroom units, one one -bedroom apartment, and two single-family homes on the site. Many items identified as immediate needs relate directly to preserving the integrity of the structures. Repair items include concrete repair; low maintenance exterior siding; energy efficient windows and doors; and HVAC system repairs. 5. FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY — VILLAGE ON PLUM FINAL PHASE (FORMERL Y KNO WN AS SLEEPY WILLOW) Amount of Request: $304,296 CDBG Due on sale loan/5% simple interest fee Recommendation: $304,296 - Due on sale loan/5% simple interest fee ($3,611 from CDBG FY04 Reprogrammed, $121,436 from CDBG FY05 Unprogrammed, $9,582 from CDBG FY05 Reprogrammed, and $31,700 from CDBG Program Income) The FCHC is requesting funds to increase the curb appeal of Village on Plum with interior and exterior rehabilitation. The funding is for the final phase ofrehabilitation ofthe project. The project is located at Taft Hill Road and West Plum Street. The project is conveniently located near shopping, schools and public transportation. 6. FORT COLLINS PWC — WILLOX LANE AFFORDABLE HOUSING Amount of Request: $600,000 Affordable Housing Funds Due on sale loan/5%simple interestfee Recommendation: $200,000 - Due on sale loan/ 5% simple interest fee from the Affordable Housing Fund 73 November 15, 2005 The proposed project involves the acquisition of a portion of a 10.3 acre site to construct a 64 unit affordable housing development, including 24 two -bedroom units and 40 three bedroom units, with 100% of the households earning 50% or less of "I. The project includes a 2,500 square foot community building with a full kitchen, exercise room, meeting/recreation room, laundry room and leasing office and computer learning center. 7. NEIGHBOR TO NEIGHBOR — REHABILITATION OF CRABTREE APARTMENTS Amount of Request: $74,300 CDBG Due on sale loan/5% simple interest fee Recommendation: $74,300 - Due on sale loan/5% simple interest fee ($23,330 from HOME FY04-05 CHDO and $50, 970 from HOME FY05-06 CHDO) The proposed project involves the rehabilitation of two side -by -side four plexes on Crabtree Drive. CDBG funds are requested to rehabilitate the kitchens and bathrooms, which will include addressing mold and water damages issues. 11. PUBLIC FACILITIES 1. NEIGHBOR TO NEIGHBOR — FACILITY IMPROVEMENT Amount of Request: $271,500 Due on sale loan/5% simple interest fee Recommendation: $0 Neighbor to Neighbor is requesting funds to consolidate two offices. The main office of Neighbor to Neighbor located at the United Way building will be moved to the Coachlight Plaza Apartment. The Coachlight offices will be remodeled and expanded to accommodate 14 total employees. The consolidation will save approximately $25, 000 a year which will be invested back into client services. III. PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION 1. NORTH FORT COLLINS BUSINESS ASSOCIATION— ACTIONPLAN Amount of Request: $20,000 CDBG Grant Recommendation: $19, 000 Grant from CDBG FY04 Reprogrammed North Fort Collins Business Association is requesting funds to perform a marketing study in the area with two main components: 1) create a detailed Land Use Inventory of all parcels, ownership, status ofuse, status ofsite improvements, inventory owners' interest in redevelopment and land assemblage; and 2) develop a Land Use Plan that will identify prospective development opportunities and the actions that are required to allow for their active marketing and development. Presented below is a listing of the CDBG Commission recommendations by funding source. 74 November 15, 2005 CDBG FY04Reprogrammed $22,611 available Recommendation Applicant —Project $3, 611 Fort Collins Housing Corp. - Village on Plum $19, 000 NFC Business Association - Action Plan $22,611 Recommended Funding Total $0 Remaining Balance CDBG FY05 Unproerammed (5121.436 availahle) Recommendation Applicant — Project $121,436 Fort Collins Housing Corp. - Village on Plum $121,436 Recommended Funding Total $0 Remaining Balance CDBG FY05 Reproerammed /59.582 availahlel Recommendation Applicant — Project $9,582 Fort Collins Housing Corp. - Village on Plum $9,582 Recommended Funding Total $0 Remaining Balance CDBG Program Income (931.700 availahle) Recommendation Applicant —Project $31,700 Fort Collins Housing Corp. - Village on Plum $31,700 Recommended Funding Total $0 Remaining Balance HOME FY03 Reprogrammed $46,265 available Recommendation Applicant — Project $46,265 Fort Collins Housing Corp. - Village on Cowan $46,265 Recommended Funding Total $0 Remaining Balance HOME FY04 Unproerammed (SLS9.663 availahle) Recommendation Applicant — Project $95,570 Supportive Housing Development $64, 093 Fort Collins Housing Corp. - Village on Cowan $159,663 Recommended Funding Total $0 Remaining Balance 75 November 15, 2005 HnMF. FYI)i-06 C4St t d r 1 Recommendation Applicant — Project $204,430 Supportive Housing Development $204,430 Recommended Funding Total $306 981 Remaining Balance HOME FY04-05 C..14nn (.401 Zan avana6in'i Recommendation Applicant — Project $23,330 Neighbor to Neighbor - Crabtree A is Rehab $23,330 Recommended Funding Total $0 Remaining Balance HOME FVO5-06 C UDn otl fie ?a,7 avaua6�n� Recommendation Applicant —Project $50,970 Neighbor to Neighbor - Crabtree A is Rehab $50,970 Recommended Funding Total $51312 Remaining Balance HOME Program income 1P2fin-find) avaua6)n,k Recommendation Applicant —Project $200,000 City of Fort Collins - Home Buyer Assistance $200,000 Recommended Funding Total $0 Remaining Balance Affordable Housina Fund 0e714_uoft ava;)a6�c� Recommendation Applicant — Project $200,000 Supportive Housing Development $100,000 City of Fort Collins - Home Buyer Assistance $60,000 Larimer Home Improvement Program $137,967 Fort Collins Housing Corp. - Village on Plum $200,000 Willox Lane Affordable Housing $697,967 1 Recommended Fundinja Total $37 931 1 Remainin Balance SUMMARY Total amount offunding requested = $2,118,954 Total amount offunding available = $1,964,178 Total amount offunding allocated = $1,567,954 The total amount offunding requests considered by the CDBG Commission was approximately $2.1 million, however, only about $1.9 million offunds are available. With the amount oftotal requests exceeding available funding, obviously not all applications could be funded. 76 November 15, 2005 The CDBG Commission has recommended full fundingforsix (6) proposals, partial fundingfor two (2), and no funding for one (1) proposal. The Commission's reasons for either full funding, partial funding or no funding, for all projects are presented in Attachment 5. 1. The Commission has recommended allocating all (1009/6) of the available $185,329 of CDBG funds. 2. The Commission has recommended allocating $684,658 (66°yo) of the $1,042,951 available HOME funds. 3. The Commission has recommended allocating $697, 967 (95%) ofthe $735,898 available from the Affordable Housing Fund. Unallocated funds will be carried over to the Spring 2006 cycle of the competitive process. A summary of the Commission's CDBG funding recommendations by category is as follows: Recommended Funding % of Total Cate ory $ 19,000 1.2% Planning $1,548,954 98.8% Affordable Housin $1567 954 100.0% Total City Manager Atteberry stated he did not anticipate this to be a lengthy item. Mayor Hutchinson noted that detailed information was presented to the Council at the October 25 Study Session. Ken Waido, Chief Planner, stated he and the Chair of the CDBG Commission would be available to answer any questions. Councilmember Weitkunat stated a letter was received from the North College Business Association expressing appreciation for consideration in the fall cycle and the grant of funding for a market study for North College Avenue. She thanked the CDBG Commission for its work on this. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Resolution 2005-123, Resolution 2005-124, Ordinance No. 157, 2005 on First Reading and Ordinance No. 158, 2005 on First Reading. Councilmember Roy thanked the CDBG Commission for the quality of its work. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. 77 November 15, 2005 Other Business Councilmember Ohlson stated he would like staff work on in-fill/redevelopment issues relating to sidewalks and cited an example at Stover and Mulberry Streets where a six-foot sidewalk was required. He stated there had been comments on the severity of costs and that he would like staff work on whether there could be flexibility in some situations with regard to extending the time for payments, costs sharing, etc. He asked if there was Council support for having staff look at this as part of the refill plan and having staff look in the short term at ways to work with the Stover/Mulberry situation. Mayor Hutchinson stated he had gone at to look at the situation at Stover and Mulberry. He stated there were existing two -foot sidewalks at nearby locations and that there was no sidewalk at the Stover and Mulberry location. He stated the temporary occupancy permit was extended until April and that the City offered to take some actions. He stated staff looked at cost mitigation and changing the schedule and that both of those actions were not feasible and were not legal. He stated action was being taken to have staff talk with County staff on creative solutions. Councilmember Roy stated he would be interested in having staff work on a long term payback option if that would be feasible. He asked about the costs to the citizen at Stover and Mulberry. Councilmember Ohlson stated the cost was $11,000 to $15,000. Mayor Hutchinson stated staff looked at the option of long term payback and that this could not be done under the Code. He stated he would like to approach this methodically to help all small businesses and not just solve one problem. Councilmember Weitkunat suggested discussing this issue at another time. Councilmember Ohlson stated he would like to have staff look at this issue as part of the refill project. He expressed concern that a two -foot existing sidewalk was determined to be sufficient. Mayor Hutchinson stated he hoped that this effort would lead to "economic gardening improvements" to help create a good climate for small businesses. Councilmember Ohlson asked if there was Council support to ask staff to work on gathering information regarding a pit bull ban in Fort Collins. Councilmember Kastein suggested that staff prepare a two -page memo on the pit bull ban issue. He noted that there were many other priority issues the staff and Council needed to work on. Councilmembers Roy and Manvel stated they would support Councilmember Ohlson's request for information. Mayor Hutchinson asked that the two -page memo on pit bulls include information from Animal Control. U1 November 15, 2005 Councilmember Kastein noted that many questions would arise if the Council considered a pit bull ban and that the issue would generate a lot of hard work. City Attorney Roy stated there were two perspectives — the legal perspective and the Humane Society's perspective on breed specific bans. He stated staff would develop a two -page memo giving both perspectives. Adiournment Councilmember Weitkunat noted that there would be no study session on November 22. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to cancel the December 6, 2005 regular meeting and adjourn this meeting to a special meeting to be held on November 29, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 11:55 p.m. Mayo ATTEST: 79