HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-11/07/2006-RegularNovember 7, 2006
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 7,
2006, 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
The following individuals spoke in favor offunding for Dial -a -Ride:
Sarah Allmon, 1200 East Stuart Street #38.
Jenny Shock, 3604 Mt. Ouray Street, Wellington.
Frank Morisano, 1120 Wabash Street #3-102.
Shelbie Mestas, 127 North Meldrum Street #203.
Michael Devereaux, 2150 Maid Marian Court.
Jackie Adams, 1625 East Stuart Street #F31.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb.
Susan Williams, 400 Impala Circle.
Vivian Armenderez, 820 Mergenser Drive Apt. 908.
Debbie Jones, 216 North College Avenue.
The following individual opposed fumigation of prairie dogs on natural areas:
Kellie Cremer, 1225 West Prospect Road.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Mayor Hutchinson thanked those who spoke during Citizen Participation. He commented that none
of the Councilmembers wanted to cut Dial -a -Ride funding. The proposal was to reduce Dial -a -Ride
service to minimum ADA standards. Providing Dial -a -Service beyond that minimum level was too
expensive for Fort Collins and 65 other cities that had been surveyed. The City was looking at other
options and would facilitate a summit on the matter. He urged the public to participate in the
discussions that were being organized.
Councilmember Ohlson stated Dial -a -Ride funding was a "gut wrenching" issue for all seven
Councilmembers. The majority believed the status quo for funding could no longer continue. The
City was looking at ways to maintain a quality program with fewer City dollars. He commented the
423
November 7. 2006
matter was complicated by federal regulations. He asked that the public talk to other governmental
entities as well because "it was not the City's job to provide services to County residents who do not
live inside the City." He noted the County needed to take responsibility for its citizens. Options
were being explored to find a temporary and long term solution for those City residents who had
basic medical needs. There was an issue that some City residents would not receive Dial -a -Ride
service if the program was cut back to minimum ADA standards. This was a "complicated" issue.
Councilmember Brown stated the City was pulling together a team to look at Dial -a -Ride funding
options and that a summit would eventually be organized. He asked those who wanted to participate
in the discussions to contact the City.
Councilmember Kastein stated he would like to know the schedule for upcoming meetings on the
Dial -a -Ride issue and at what point Councilmembers could participate. He saw the City's role as
"facilitating the discussion" to work on short term and long term solutions. He would like to see
information on extending Dial -a -Ride everywhere within the City limits. City Manager Atteberry
stated he hoped to provide a detailed memorandum to the Council in the next Thursday packet about
the forthcoming community -wide dialogue on the Dial -a -Ride issue.
Mayor Hutchinson asked staff to talk about contact information. Don Bachman, Interim
Transportation Services Director, asked those who were interested in being part of the undertaking
to contact the City. The next meeting would probably be scheduled the week after Thanksgiving.
City Manager Atteberry stated there was a "good news" item to report. Steve Budner, Recreation
Administration, announced that Kathy Turner, Golden Corral Restaurant, was presenting a check
from a fund raiser done by the restaurant for the Recreation Division Scholarship Program. Ms.
Turner stated $314 was raised during the fund raiser and that there would be another event in August.
She thanked the Councilmembers who participated as "celebrity servers." Mayor Hutchinson
thanked the Golden Corral for the fund raising effort.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated item #21 Resolution 2006-109 Providing a Process for Implementing
City Fee Increases would be pulled from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the September 5.2006 Regular Meeting.
7. Items Relating to the Multi -jurisdictional Drug Task Force.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 162, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant
Revenue from the Bureau of Justice Assistance in the General Fund For the Larimer
County Drug Task Force.
424
November 7, 2006
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 163, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant
Revenue from the Office ofNational Drug Control Policy in the General Fund for the
Larimer County Drug Task Force.
These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 17, 2006, appropriate
grant funds received by the Larimer County Drug Task Force from the Office of National
Drug Control Policy and the Bureau of Justice Assistance. These funds are to be used to
fund the investigation of illegal narcotics activities in Larimer County.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 164, 2006, Adopting, and Determining the Effective Date
of. the District -Precinct Map for the 2007 Regular Municipal Election.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 17, 2006, adopts the
District -Precinct Map for the 2007 regular municipal election for the purposes of (1)
determining the eligibility for District Council offices for the April 2007 election; (2)
determining eligibility for any interim appointments to fill any District Council vacancies
which may occur after November 17, 2006; and (3) determining residency for voting in any
special municipal election conducted after November 17, 2006.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 165, 2006, Establishing Local Provisions for the Conduct
of Mail Ballot Elections.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 17, 2006, establishes
local provisions for the conduct of mail ballot elections in Fort Collins and supersedes Title
1, Article 7.5 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, as well as any rules and regulations
promulgated by the Secretary of State regarding mail ballot elections.
10. Items Relating to the Arbor South Second Annexation and Zoning,
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 166, 2006, Annexing Property Known as the
Arbor South Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 167, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Arbor South Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
These Ordinances, which were unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 17, 2006,
annex and zone 1.83 acres located on the west side of South College Avenue, east of Fossil
Boulevard, and north of West Fairway Lane. It is currently vacant, undeveloped property and
is in the T — Tourist Zoning District in Larimer County. The requested zoning in the City of
Fort Collins is C - Commercial.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 168, 2006, Vacating Portions of Right-of-way as
Dedicated on the Plat of Provincetowne P.U.D., Filing No. 2.
425
November 7, 2006
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 17, 2006, vacates
portions of right-of-way located in the Provincetowne, Filing Two that are no longer
necessary. A temporary access, drainage and utility easement is retained.
12. Items Relating to the Provincetowne P.U.D. Filing Three Development.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 169, 2006, Declaring Certain City -Owned
Property in Provincetowne P.U.D. As Road Right -Of -Way
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 170, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of a
Perpetual Drainage Easement and Temporary Construction Easement for the
Provincetowne P.U.D. Filing Three Development Project.
The developer of Provincetowne P.U.D. Filing 2, KB Homes Inc., wishes to modify two cul-
de-sacs in its development to connect with new roads included in the new Third Filing of
Provincetowne P.U.D.. This modification would require the designation of a portion of
Outlot I of Filing 2 (future park site) as right-of-way. The developer also wishes to acquire
a 30,771 square foot drainage easement through the future park site for the benefit of the
development. These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 17,
2006, designate the right-of-way and authorize conveyance of the drainage easement and
temporary construction easement.
13. Items Relating to the 2007 Downtown Development Authorityget.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 171, 2006, Appropriating Operating Funds and
Approving the Budget of the Downtown Development Authority for the Fiscal Year
Beginning January 1, 2007, and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Downtown
Development Authority for 2007 at Five Mills.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 172, 2006, Appropriating Revenue in the
Downtown Development Authority Debt Service Fund for Payment of Debt Service
for the Year 2007.
The Downtown Development Authority Board of Directors (the 'Board") adopted its
proposed budget for 2007 totaling $6,196,867 on September 7, 2006. The Board determined
the mill levy necessary to provide for payment of administrative costs incurred by the DDA
at its regular meeting of September 7, 2006. Ordinance No. 171, 2006, appropriates the
DDA operating funds and sets the mill levy.
Ordinance No. 172, 2006, appropriates funds for 2007 DDA debt service payments from the
tax increment received by the City. Both Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First
Reading on October 17, 2006.
14. Items Relating to Utility Rates and Charges for 2007.
426
November 7, 2006
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 173, 2006, Amending Chapter 26, Article III,
Division 4 of the City Code Relating to User Rates and Charges for Water.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 174, 2006, Amending Chapter 26, Article IV,
Division 4 of the City Code Relating to Wastewater Rates and Charges.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 175, 2006, Amending Chapter 26, Article VI,
Division 4 of the City Code Relating to Electric Development Fees and Charges.
D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 176, 2006, Amending Chapter 26, Article I & XII
of the City Code Relating to Utility Bills and Notices and Administrative Regulations
for Billing and Collection.
Ordinance No. 173, 2006 establishes Utilities monthly water rates for 2007. Ordinance No.
174, 2006 establishes Utilities monthly wastewater rates for 2007 and the second phase of
the wastewater plant investment fees (PIFs) to be implemented January 1, 2007. Ordinance
No. 175, 2006, updates electric development fees and charges to capture the costs associated
with providing capital improvements to new development. Ordinance No. 176, 2006,
modifies City Code to allow users an option of electronic delivery of utility bills and notices.
These Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 17, 2006.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 178, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund to Develop the I-25 and State Highway 392 Interchange Improvement Plan.
On September 7, 2006, the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization ("MPO")
awarded the City a grant of $25,420 to develop the I-25/SH 392 Interchange Improvement
Plan. The Plan is identified in the 2006-2007 Work Program for the Advance Planning
Department and $50,000 was allocated in the budget to represent the City's share in the joint
project. The MPO money was awarded after the project budget was allocated, so this
Ordinance is needed to appropriate the unanticipated additional amount of $25,420.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 179, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Recreation Fund to be Used for the Youth Pottery Program.
On August 15, 2006, Council adopted Resolution 2006-081 authorizing the City Manager
to enter into a grant agreement with the Colorado Council on the Arts for funding for the
Youth Pottery Program.
The City Recreation Division was recently awarded a matching grant from the Colorado
Council on the Arts in the amount of $7,030. This amount represents the difference between
expenses directly attributed to the Youth Pottery Program and program revenues during the
fiscal year, July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007. The Colorado Council on the Arts requires
that the City Council appropriate these funds. This request is to appropriate the amount of
$7,030 to support this program in 2006/2007 and authorize the transfer of appropriations
totaling $3,515, from the Recreation Fund 2006 operating budget to grant project budget,
427
November 7, 2006
representing the required 2006 matching dollars. Grant matching funds for 2007 ($3,515)
are included in the Recreation Fund 2007 budget.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No 180 2006 Appropriating an Revenue in the
Wastewater Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Within the Wastewater
Fund to be Used for Odor Control Measures at the Drake Water Reclamation Facility.
Additional project dollars ($1,200,000) are needed to fund odor control due to significant
increased costs in materials. The Wastewater Fund recently transferred land valued at
$2,000,000 to the General Fund in exchange for property used in the operations of the
various utilities. $800,000 of the property transferred to the Wastewater Utility is used in the
operations of the Water Utility. The Water Utility will pay the Wastewater Utility $800,000
for the property. The Wastewater Utility will also transfer $400,000 from budgeted
contingency funds to capital project for odor control.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No 181 2006 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue and
Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for the Restorative Justice Program and Authorizing
the Transfer of Matching Funds Previously Appropriated in the Police Services Operating
Budget to the Grant Project.
A grant in the amount of $30,635 has been received from the Colorado Division of Criminal
Justice (DCJ) for salaries associated with the continued operation of the Restorative Justice
Program. Restorative Justice is an alternative method of holding a youth offender
accountable by facilitating a meeting with the young offender, 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 repeat offenses by these youth will be reduced. A
$10,212 cash match is required and will be met by appropriating previously collected project
income (client fees) from users of this program in the amount of $6,212 and $4,000 of
already appropriated funds designated for Restorative Justice in the Police Services budget.
The grant period is from October 18, 2006 to June 30, 2007.
19. First Reading of Ordinance No 182 2006 Authorizing and Approving the Issuance and
Sale of Not to Exceed $20 000 000 Pollution Control Refunding Revenue Bonds
(Anheuser-Busch Project) Series 2006 of the City of Fort Collins. Colorado. to Refund
Certain Bonds of the City of Fort Collins Colorado Issued to Refinance Certain Water
Pollution Control Facilities Sewage Facilities and Solid Waste Disposal Facilities. the
Execution and Delivery of an Indenture of Trust to Secure Said Bonds: the Execution and
Delivery of a Loan Agreement Between Anheuser-Busch Companies hic. and the City of
Fort Collins Colorado Providing for the Repayment of the Loan of the Proceeds of Said
Bonds• the Execution and Delivery of a Tax Regulatory Agreement Bond Purchase
Agreement Official Statement and Said Bonds in Connection Therewith; and Providing for
Certain Other Matters in Connection with the Delivery of the Bonds.
In 1984, the City issued $35,000,000 of pollution control revenue bonds for the Anheuser-
November 7, 2006
Busch Companies, Inc. (the "Company"). In 1986, the bonds were reissued in the amount
of $20,000,000. The first call date for the 1986 bonds was September 4, 1996. The bonds
were used to finance the costs of acquiring, constructing, installing and equipping pollution
control facilities, sewage facilities, and solid waste disposal facilities to be owned by the
Company or one of its subsidiary companies. Because of the change in interest rates, the
Company would like to refinance the outstanding bonds to attain debt service savings. The
1986 bonds carry an interest rate of 7.375%. The refinanced rate of interest is expected to
be around 6.5%. The proposed refinancing will extend the maturity of the bonds from 2014
to 2036.
20. First Reading of Ordinance No 183 2006 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 increases the fee schedules for the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees and
Neighborhood Parkland Fee by the estimated 2006 changes in the Denver -Boulder -Greeley
Consumer Price Index ("CPI").
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 2005. This Ordinance increases the CIEF and the Neighborhood Parkland Fees
by the estimated 2006 increase in the CPI of 3.75%, and the Street Oversizing fees by 4.23%,
which reflects the projected increase reported in the Engineering News Record.
21. Resolution 2006-109 Providing a Process for Implementing City Fee Increases.
City Councilmembers have requested that staff develop a proposed process for reviewing
future increases to a variety of fees currently imposed by the City. This Resolution provides
direction to staff about an evaluation process and articulates City Council's goal of
evaluating the impact of fees on the community. The City Manager commits to a fee review
process which will compare City fees to those of other communities in the region.
22, Resolution 2006 110 Approving the Purchase of a Senses Networks In -Pavement Vehicle
Detection System.
The Traffic Operations Department has obtained federal funding to develop a travelers web
page. The web page will provide real-time information about traffic congestion to assist
drivers in planning for and selecting alternative routes. To determine congestion conditions,
vehicle detection will be installed along major corridors to collect count and speed
information. Sensys is the only manufacturer of wireless in -pavement vehicle detectors with
data collection software.
23. Resolution 2006 112 Responding to the Motion for Reconsideration of Ordinance No. 137
2006 Relating to the Southwest Enclave Annexation.
429
November 7, 2006
Following the City Council's adoption of an ordinance annexing the Southwest Enclave, the
Citizens Against Forced Annexation ("CAFA") filed a motion for reconsideration of that
ordinance with the City. This Resolution responds to the grounds stated in the motion, and
adoption of the Resolution would deny the motion.
24. Routine Easement.
Easement for construction and maintenance of public utilities from FC Timberline
Development, LLC, to underground electric system, located at 4502 JFK Parkway. Monetary
consideration: $5000.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
Items Relating to the Multi -jurisdictional Drug Task Force.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 162, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant
Revenue from the Bureau of Justice Assistance in the General Fund For the Larimer
County Drug Task Force.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 163, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant
Revenue from the Office of National Drug Control Policy in the General Fund for the
Larimer County Drug Task Force.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 164, 2006, Adopting, and Determining the Effective Date
of, the District -Precinct Map for the 2007 Regular Municipal Election.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 165, 2006, Establishing Local Provisions for the Conduct
of Mail Ballot Elections.
10. Items Relating to the Arbor South Second Annexation and Zoning.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 166, 2006, Annexing Property Known as the
Arbor South Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 167, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Arbor South Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 168, 2006, Vacating Portions of Right-of-way as
Dedicated on the Plat of Provincetowne P.U.D., Filing No. 2.
12. Items Relating to the Provincetowne P.U.D. Filing Three Development.
430
November 7, 2006
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 169, 2006, Declaring Certain City -Owned
Property in Provincetowne P.U.D. As Road Right -Of -Way
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 170, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of a
Perpetual Drainage Easement and Temporary Construction Easement for the
Provincetowne P.U.D. Filing Three Development Project.
13. Items Relating to the 2007 Downtown Development Authority Budget.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 171, 2006, Appropriating Operating Funds and
Approving the Budget of the Downtown Development Authority for the Fiscal Year
Beginning January 1, 2007, and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Downtown
Development Authority for 2007 at Five Mills.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 172, 2006, Appropriating Revenue in the
Downtown Development Authority Debt Service Fund for Payment of Debt Service
for the Year 2007.
14. Items Relating to Utility Rates and Charges for 2007.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 173, 2006, Amending Chapter 26, Article III,
Division 4 of the City Code Relating to User Rates and Charges for Water.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 174, 2006, Amending Chapter 26, Article IV,
Division 4 of the City Code Relating to Wastewater Rates and Charges.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 175, 2006, Amending Chapter 26, Article VI,
Division 4 of the City Code Relating to Electric Development Fees and Charges.
D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 176, 2006, Amending Chapter 26, Article I & XII
of the City Code Relating to Utility Bills and Notices and Administrative Regulations
for Billing and Collection.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 178, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund to Develop the I-25 and State Highway 392 Interchange Improvement Plan.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 179, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Recreation Fund to be Used for the Youth Pottery Program.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 180, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Wastewater Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Within the Wastewater
Fund to be Used for Odor Control Measures at the Drake Water Reclamation Facility.
431
November 7, 2006
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 181, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue and
Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for the Restorative Justice Program and Authorizing
the Transfer of Matching Funds Previously Appropriated in the Police Services Operating
Budget to the Grant Project.
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 182, 2006, Authorizing and Approving the Issuance and Sale
of Not to Exceed $20,000,000 Pollution Control Refunding Revenue Bonds
(Anheuser-Busch Project) Series 2006 of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, to Refund
Certain Bonds of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Issued to Refinance Certain Water
Pollution Control Facilities, Sewage Facilities and Solid Waste Disposal Facilities; the
Execution and Delivery of an Indenture of Trust to Secure Said Bonds; the Execution and
Delivery of a Loan Agreement Between Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. and the City of
Fort Collins, Colorado Providing for the Repayment of the Loan of the Proceeds of Said
Bonds; the Execution and Delivery of a Tax Regulatory Agreement, Bond Purchase
Agreement, Official Statement and Said Bonds in Connection Therewith; and Providing for
Certain Other Matters in Connection with the Delivery of the Bonds.
20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 183, 2006, 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.
29. Items Relating to the Adoption of a Transportation Maintenance Fee and a Community Park
Maintenance Fee.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 184, 2006, Amending Chapter 7.5 of the City Code
to Establish a Transportation Maintenance Fee.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 185, 2006, Amending Chapter 7.5 of the City Code
to Establish a Community Park Maintenance Fee.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt and approve
all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Consent Calendar Follow-up
Councilmember Ohlson spoke regarding item #17 First Reading of Ordinance No. 180, 2006,
Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Wastewater Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of
Appropriations Within the Wastewater Fund to be Used for Odor Control Measures at the Drake
Water Reclamation Facility and noted that he had asked the City Manager for further information
prior to Second Reading on development close to the treatment plant and the scale of one-time and
ongoing dollars needed to deal with odor complaints. He requested that on Second Reading this item
be placed on the discussion agenda rather than the Consent Calendar.
432
November 7, 2006
Councilmember Kastein asked that item #20 First Reading of Ordinance No. 183, 2006, 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 be placed on the
discussion agenda on Second Reading for additional discussion on collection of the parkland fee.
He spoke regarding item #22 Resolution 2006-110 Approving the Purchase of a Sensys Networks
In -Pavement Vehicle Detection System and noted that this was CMAQ grant. There was more than
$1 million available per year to the City for transportation improvement projects showing some
benefit to air quality. He suggested that the City needed a strategy on how CMAQ dollars should
be used.
Mayor Hutchinson suggested a work session to discuss the parkland fees.
Councilmember Ohlson agreed a work session should be held to go along with the Parks Master Plan
update. There needed to be a "serious look and justification" for the parks policies. He believed a
majority of the Council wanted to look at this fee issue and whether 17 new parks should be opened
in the next 20 years. City Manager Atteberry stated he understood a majority of the Council favored
looking at this issue. He had discussed this with staff and agreed that the appropriate place to look
at the matter was during the Parks Master Plan update.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Kastein reported on MPO discussions relating to a coalition to work on the RTA.
Staff ReRorts
City Manager Atteberry reported on the activities sponsored by the CSU/City liaison program and
the neighborhood partnership pilot program designed to build community partnerships between
students and non -students and create a positive neighborhood environment. He also reported that
three City staff members (Melissa Emerson, Rich Kopp, Robin Macdonald) participated in and
helped organize a "town/gown" program at the American Association of Code Enforcement
Conference.
Public Hearing and Resolution 2006-111
Approving the Programs and Projects That Will Receive Funds From the
Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment
Partnership (HOME) Grants and the Citv's Affordable Housing Fund, Adopted.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and Home Investment Partnership
(HOME) Program provide Federal funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) to the City of Fort Collins which can be allocated to housing and community development
433
November 7, 2006
related programs and projects, thereby, reducing the demand on the City's General Fund Budget
to address such needs. City funds for this item have been appropriated as part of the Affordable
Housing Fund in December 2005.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Resolution will complete the fall cycle of the competitive process for allocating City financial
resources to affordable housing programs/projects and community development activities.
BACKGROUND
This Resolution establishes which programs and projects will receive funding with CDBG and
HOMEfunds for the FY 2006 Program year, which started on October 1, 2006, including the use
of Carry-over CDBG Entitlement Grant funds, funds from the FY 2006 HOME Grant, funds from
the HOME Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) Set Aside and funds from the
City's Affordable Housing Fund. The CDBG Commission presents a list of recommendations as to
which programs and projects should receive funding.
The following table summarizes the amount and sources of available funds:
AMOUNT
SOURCE
$483, 687
FY 2006 HOME Grant
96,813
HOME CHDO Funds
105,787
CDBG Carry-over Funds
133,000
Affordable Housing Fund
$819 287
Total Funding Available
HOME Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) set asidefunds represent aportion
oftheHOMEgrantearmarkedfor CHDO agencies. CDBG Carry-over Funds represent theportion
of the FY 2006 CDBG Entitlement Grant that were not allocated during the spring cycle of the
competitive process.
The CDBG Commission presents recommendations as to which programs and projects should
receive funding from the available funding sources presented above. The following tables present
the allocations recommended by the Commission to the City Council within each major category:
Affordable Housing
Applicant
Project/Program
Funding
Request
Commission's
Recommendation
Unfunded
Balance
HO-1 Neighbor -to -Neighbor
$80,080
$80,080
$0
—Rehabilitation of Coachlight
and Conifer Properties
HO-2 Fort Collins Housing
$127,952
$0
$127,952
Corporation — Linden House
Rehabilitation
434
November 7, 2006
HO-3 Fort Collins Housing
$350,000
$163,500
$186,500
Corporation — Stadium
Apartments Acquisition and
Rehabilitation
HO-4 CARE Housing —
$300,000
$300,000
$0
Acquisition o Land
HO-5 City of Fort Collins —
$250,000
$250,000
$0
Home Bu er Assistance
All funding recommendations in the Ajjordabie Housing category are in theDorm
of a "Due on Sale Loan + 5% Simple Interest. "
Public Facility
Applicant
Funding
Commission's
Unfunded
Pro'ecvPro ram
Request
Recommendation
Balance
PF-1 CrossroadsSafehouse—
$12,475
$12,475
$0
Facilitv Improvement
All funding recommendations in the Public Facilities category are in the form of a
"Due on Sale Loan + 5% Simple Interest. "
A summary ofthe Commission's funding recommendations by category is presented in the following
table:
Recommended Fundin
% of Total
I Category
$793,580
98.5%
A ordable Housing
12,475
1.5%
Public Facilities
$806 055
100.0%
1 Total
The CDBG Commission has recommended that $806,055 (98.4%) of the available funding amount
of $819,287 be allocated leaving a balance of only $13, 232. The Commission recommends that all
of the funds from all sources be utilized except for the $13, 232 from the FY2006 CDBG Entitlement
Grant. The $13,232 will be carried over and will be available for allocation in the 2007 spring
cycle of the competitive process.
Recommended Funding
% of Total
I Cate ory
$806,505
98.4%
1 Allocated to Programs and Projects
13,232
1.6%
Car -over to 2007 S rin C cle
$819 287
100.0%
Total Funds Available
City Manager Atteberry introduced the agenda item.
Ken Waido, Chief Planner, stated in the fall cycle, there was slightly over $819,000 available,
including funds from two federal programs (CDBG and HOME programs) and the City's affordable
housing funds. The City received six proposals for the funds totally more than $1.1 million.
Typically there were more funding requests than dollars to allocate. The review process included
435
November 7, 2006
the Affordable Housing Board and the CDBG Commission. The Commission recommended the
allocation of slightly more than $806,000 and 98.5% was recommended to support affordable
housing projects while 1.5% (slightly more than $12,000) was recommended to go to apublic facility
proposal. The recommendation was that 98.4% of the available money be allocated and the
remaining $13,232 be carried over to the spring cycle in 2007.
Councilmember Roy asked about the Linden House rehabilitation project and noted there was a
request for a little over $125,000. He asked staff to characterize the nature of the repairs and
maintenance that was being deferred and the general condition the housing at that location. Waido
stated there would be interior upgrades to repair normal wear and tear for the existing single room
occupancy units. Bob Browning, CDBG Commission chair, stated the improvements included
upgrading windows for energy purposes and generally making the individual rooms more
inhabitable. The Housing Authority indicated it would go ahead and maintain the rental of these
units and would come back for funds in the future.
Councilmember Roy asked when the last major rehabilitation was done on that particular property.
Waido stated it had been a while.
Councilmember Roy stated this propertyhad "served its purpose very well' for many years "without
controversy." He understood all of the projects were "worthy" and not everything could be funded.
He believed this was a "strong housing unit' that had received quite a bit of funding in the past. He
expressed concern that the property continue to be maintained at "more than a basic level of service."
Councilmember Ohlson asked if the Linden House was privately owned. Waido replied in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if much money had been put into that property in the past. It appeared
to be owned free and clear and the property owner was unwilling to maintain it. He questioned why
the City should step in unless the property owner would invest some money to fix it up. He asked
if public money had been put into this property in the past. Waido stated CDBG had put $100,000
to $200,000 into this in the past.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he "appreciated the caution" in using public funds for this private
property and if public funds would be put toward this in the future, the property owner should put
in 3 to 1 in funds. He expressed a concern that the benefit could go to the property owner rather than
the residents since they did not have leases. Mr. Browning stated the CDBG Commission was
concerned about the lack of owner participation in helping with the rehab or in reducing rents in
return for the public subsidy. If the funding was approved for the project a condition would be that
residents would have leases.
Councilmember Roy asked if there was a lease for the upper floor. Mr. Browning stated he did not
believe that there was a current lease.
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution
2006-111.
436
November 7, 2006
Councilmember Kastein thanked the CDBG Commission for its hard work.
Mayor Hutchinson added his appreciation for the hard work done by the Commission.
Councilmember Roy stated he would like to know if the City had a lease at that particular property
since the agenda material indicated that there was such a lease.
Councilmember Weitkunat thanked the CDBG Commission for its work on this difficult task within
a program that was constantly in "transition."
Councilmember Manvel expressed thanks to the CDBG Commission and those who worked to
provide affordable housing in Fort Collins.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Hutchinson requested that the Council consider pulled Consent Calendar item #21 Resolution
2006-109 Providing a Process for Implementing City Fee Increases before the discussion agenda
because of its relevance to a discussion agenda item. The consensus was in favor of changing the
agenda order to consider item #21 next.
Resolution 2006-109
Providing_a Process for Implementing City Fee Increases, Adopted as Amended.
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Councilmembers have requested that staff develop a proposed process for reviewing future
increases to a variety offees currently imposed by the City. This Resolution provides direction to
staffabout an evaluation process and articulates City Council 's goal ofevaluating the impact offees
on the community. The City Manager commits to a fee review process which will compare Cityfees
to those of other communities in the region.
BACKGROUND
The City of Fort Collins imposes fees on a variety of activities within the community. The fees are
imposed for a variety of purposes including development impact fees, capital expansion fees, user
fees and permit fees. The level of these fees is set to cover the cost ofspecific City services including
the cost of providing municipal infrastructure, City services and administrative costs of City
services.
These fees are reviewed occasionally for appropriateness and the continued need for these fees.
437
November 7, 2006
Generally, the City Code defines how these fees are calculated and updated.
The Resolution outlines several actions that the City will undertake to achieve these goals:
1. Except as may be otherwise specifically provided in the City Code, each fee imposed by the
City will be reviewed by City staff no less frequently than every twenty-four (24) months,
which review shall occur in conjunction with the preparation of the City's biennial budget.
2. The overall purpose of the review shall be to evaluate whether the amount of each fee
appropriately covers the costs actually incurred by the City in providing the infrastructure
or services funded by the fee without unduly burdening the fee payer.
3. Staff shall also ensure, as a part of the review, that appropriate efforts have been made by
the City to control any escalating costs that might cause fees to increase by improving
efficiencies and work methods.
4. Based upon such review, the City Manager will recommend to the City Council any changes
in fee amounts that the City Manager may deem appropriate, taking into consideration the
amount offees imposed by other Front Range cities for similar purposes. "
City Manager Atteberry stated this Resolution was intended to be responsive to requests from
Council since this Council had taken office, that there be no "surprises" relating to fees. Council had
indicated that substantial fee increases were not "palatable" when there had not been a fee increase
for many years. The Resolution would create some accountability by directing the City Manager to
review fees in a "scheduled ways" consistent with the budget process and comparable to fees set by
other regional entities. There would be a commitment to a regular review of fees and sufficient
information would be presented to facilitate an understanding of what was "driving" the fee increase
and whether efficiencies or improvements could be undertaken within the organization to avoid the
fee increase. The Resolution would commit the staff to the new process for the long term. He
suggested an addition to the last WHEREAS clause to read: "WHEREAS, the amount of these fees
should also be-irr-line-nrith TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION fees charged by other Front Range
cities for similar purposes to help evaluate whether the City fees are reasonable." City fees could
actually be significantly lower or higher than fees set by others in the region and there should be a
good explanation if that was the case.
Councilmember Kastein stated the cost control data that would be provided was important because
it was "too easy" just to increase fees. It was important to have information that the organization in
that particular area was tracking costs and that the fee increase in noway reflected that a "department
was out of control." He asked if the cost control data would be provided at the start of the budget
cycle and/or at the time the fee increase was proposed to the Council. City Manager Atteberry stated
he believed that it would be useful to present the cost control data at both times. He anticipated
presenting information on likely fee increases or decreases for the following year at the beginning
of the budget process. There would be a more detailed analysis as the fee increase or decrease was
brought forward. There was a "rare" possibility for unanticipated cost increases that were not
discussed at the beginning of the budget cycle.
EM
November 7, 2006
Councilmember Kastein stated he would like Council to receive a "list" of "snapshot (best guess)"
of all fees that would be considered in the next year or two. It was necessary for the Council to have
a picture of all of the potential fees to prioritize and make a decision on any new fee. City Manager
Atteberry stated he expected this to happen "to the greatest extent possible." It was difficult to
anticipate fees two years out in all cases.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if the Resolution clearly reflected this intent. City Manager Atteberry
stated he believed staff clearly understood the Council's intent. He noted there were fees set by
Council and fees set administratively.
Councilmember Roy noted there were recent fee discussions involving the School Districts. He
asked if this Resolution would cover fees collected by the City for other parties. City Attorney Roy
stated he believed that such fees were covered by the Resolution because it talked about fees
established in the City Code.
Councilmember Kastein suggested language to direct that some kind of fee schedule and cost control
data report be prepared and published by staff. City Manager Atteberry suggested that thought be
given to the purpose of the report. He expressed a concern that people would interpret the report as
the City's "policy" and there could be issues if a fee was not set as outlined in the report. He stated
the report should not be considered to be "legally binding."
Councilmember Kastein stated the report could include that caveat.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if such a report would be published in the budget. City Manager Atteberry
stated rates would be published in the budget and he was not sure about fees. The Resolution could
be postponed to allow time to clarify out those details or that new language could be written at this
time.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked about the intent. She stated the Resolution had been brought
forward to provide a process to look at fees. She did not see a need to address the "technicalities"
of how that would occur. She saw this as a budget tool and something that would be taken to the
Council Finance Committee to work its way through the system. It might be preferable to leave the
"details" and the "depth" to the Committee. There was a need for some kind of "list" of fees to "get
everybody on the same page."
Mayor Hutchinson stated he agreed with Councilmember Weitkunat that the intent of the Resolution
was to set the "parameters" or "policy" for the process.
Councilmember Roy noted that much of the discussion had been about fees that had not been
reviewed in seven or eight years. The intent was that fee changes be brought forward in a timely
manner.
Councilmember Manvel suggested adding a phrase to Section 4 to say that "... the City Manager
will report the results of such review to the City Council and recommend ...."
439
November 7, 2006
Councilmember Kastein stated that would reflect his intent.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Resolution
2006-109.
Councilmember Manvel offered a friendly amendment to Section 4 to say "... that the City Manager
will report the results of such review to the City Council and recommend ...."
Councilmembers Weitkunat and Roy accepted the friendly amendment.
Councilmember Manvel stated he wanted to ensure the Council did not receive a lot of information
that it did not want i.e., the administrative fees. He believed this was taken care of by the language
that provided the process would relate to fees established by the City Code and language that
provided the staff would "evaluate the amount of each fee, except as otherwise provided in the City
Code." City Attorney Roy stated the first language referenced by Councilmember Manvel explained
that the process would not relate to fees that were set administratively. The purpose of the second
phrase was different because some fees set by the Code required an annual review and update. In
cases where the Code did not specify a periodic review, this Resolution would establish a review at
least every two years.
Mayor Hutchinson stated this was a "significant' item. Council had been very interested in the fee
issue for a long time because fees had an impact on the economic health of the City. The fees should
be kept to a minimum and this Resolution would lay the groundwork for a policy that had never been
addressed by the Council.
The vote on the motion as amended by the friendly amendment was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the Adoption of a Transportation Maintenance
Fee and a Community Park Maintenance Fee Adopted on First Reading.
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"FINANCL4L IMPACT
These Ordinances propose a Transportation Maintenance Fee (TMF) and a Community Park
Maintenance Fee (CPMF). The total net revenue from the new special services fees will equal
approximately $3.14 million per year. The TMF revenue will be allocated to the Pavement
Management Program and the CPMF revenue will be allocated to the maintenance of community
parks.
November 7, 2006
Revenue Weighting
Residential Fee
Revenue
Total
Revenue
TMF
CPMF
Total
TMF *
CPMF
$ $1.44 $2.97
02,260,90 $879,864
3,140,764
Option A:
Weighted to TMF
1.53
Option B:
$
$1,449,70 $1,686,72
$
Balanced
1.01 $2.67 $3.68
2 2
3,136,424
MF/CPMF
*TMFrates for non-residential properties are set by formula. The CPMF would not
apply to non-residential properties.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OPTIONA: Revenue Weighted to TMF
1. First Reading of Ordinance No. 184, 2006, Amending Chapter 7.5 of the City Code to
Establish a Transportation Maintenance Fee. (Option A)
AND
First Reading of Ordinance No. 185, 2006, Amending Chapter 7.5 of the City Code to
Establish a Community Park Maintenance Fee. (Option A)
OPTION B: Equal Revenue from TMF and CPMF
2. First Reading of Ordinance No. 184, 2006, Amending Chapter 7.5 of the City Code to
Establish a Transportation Maintenance Fee. (Option B)
AND
First Reading of Ordinance No. 185, 2006, Amending Chapter 7.5 of the City Code to
Establish a Community Park Maintenance Fee. (Option B)
At the October 10, 2006 Work Session, City Council directed staff to prepare two alternatives for
the proposed Transportation Maintenance Fee (TMF) and Community Park Maintenance Fee
(CPMF). Option A would weight the fee revenue toward the TMF, while Option B would equally
divide the revenue between the TMF and CPMF. For each option (A and B), a TMF ordinance and
a CMPF ordinance are presented. The Option A ordinances or the Option B ordinances should be
adopted as a set.
In summary, the two options would generate the same amount of new revenue, approximately $3.14
million per year in 2007.
Option A weights the fee revenue toward the TMF
441
November 7, 2006
• $2,260,900 (72%) from TMF
• $ 879,864 (2891o) from CPMF
• Residential pays 54% ($1,696,013)
• Non-residential pays 46% ($1,444,751
Option B equalizes the fee revenue between TMF and CPMF
$1,449,702 (46%) from TMF
$1, 686, 722 (54%) from CPMF
Residential pays 70% ($2,195, 497)
Non-residential pays 30% ($940,927)
Both options generate approximately the same amount of total revenue. Staff recommends adoption
of Option B, which would establish two new fees with equal revenue from each fee. This option
would mitigate some of the impact on businesses which would have been created under Option A.
Each of the fees is based on recovering a portion of the cost of the respective programs. The total
cost of the Pavement Management Program is over $9 million ($5.5 million is funded through the
Building on Basics Street Maintenance Sales Tax), and the total cost of maintaining the City's
community parks is $2.6 million. These figures represent the maximum amount that could be
charged through a special service fee. Neither of the proposed options exceeds the costs.
BACKGROUND
Special Service Fees
The proposed TMF and CPMF are "special service fees. " Such fees have been increasingly used
by Colorado municipalities over the last couple of decades as a means ofproviding supplementary
funding for particular government services. In order to establish a legitimate special service fee,
several court -established tests must be met in formulating the fee and expending the proceeds from
the fee. Essentially, a special service fee is distinguished from a tax in that it: (1) is imposed on
persons or property to defray the costs of a particular governmental service rather than the general
expenses ofgovernment, (2) the amount generated by fee must be reasonably related to the overall
costs of providing the service funded by the fee; (3) the methodology used to determine the amount
paid by individual fee payers must have a rational basis; and (4) revenues generated by the fee must
be segregated and used only for the purposes for which the fee is imposed.
Both the TMF and CPMF have been prepared by City staff with these criteria in mind. Neither fee
would generate revenues in excess of the cost of maintaining City streets and parks, and a
substantial portion of those costs will continue to be borne by other revenue sources.
Community Park Maintenance Fee
The implementation of the CPMF would support maintenance of the City's communitypark system.
The fee will be imposed on all residential dwelling units as defined in the attached ordinance. A flat
442
November 7, 2006
fee of $1.44 (Option A) or $2.67 (Option B) per dwelling unit will be added to monthly utility bills
beginning in 2007.
The fee will be used in conjunction with General Fund resources to fund all aspects of maintaining
community parks. Maintenance includes, but is not limited to maintenance of all landscaped areas,
facilities and infrastructure, administration, and minor capital improvements as needed to keep the
park facilities in safe and usable condition for the general public.
Under Option A, the CPMF contribution toward the maintenance of the City's community park
system would result in net savings to the General Fund, after utility billing costs, rebates and bad
debts, of 880 000. The fee of $1.44 per month or $17.28 per year would appear on City utility bills
produced after January 1, 2007.
Under Option B, the net savings to the General Fund from enacting the CPMF would be $1, 686, 722
after utility billing costs, rebates and bad debts. The fee of $2.67 per month or $32.04 per year will
appear on City utility bills produced after January], 2007.
Under either scenario, the fee would be adjusted annually for inflation based on the
Denver —Boulder -Greeley Consumer Price Index and as directed by City Council. The fee would
reduce the need for General Fund support in the park system and provide a possible funding source
for future maintenance of new parks.
Transportation Maintenance Fee
The establishment ofa TMF would support maintaining city streets, bike lanes, medians (excluding
landscaping), and City maintained sidewalks. Maintenance includes such work as keepingpavement
surfaces in good condition, performing seal coats as needed, repairing potholes and cracks,
repaving and other work to keep our transportation system safe.
The fee would be applied to all non-exempt properties within the city limits, including residential
properties and non-residentialproperties. Thefee would be aflat dollar amountfor each residential
dwelling unit, based on trip generation data for residential uses. A flat fee of $1.53 (Option A) or
$1.01(Option B) per dwelling unit will be added to monthly utility bills. Non-residential properties
would be assessed the fee based on various categories ofuse and the trip generation characteristics
of those categories.
Under Option A, the TMF contribution toward the maintenance of the City's street system would
result in a net savings to the General Fund, after utility billing costs, rebates and bad debts, of
$2,260,900. The fee of $1.53 per month or $18.36 per year per residential dwelling unit would
appear on City utility billsproducedafterJanuary 1, 2007. Non-residentialfees would be calculated
based on a formula which includes trip generation data by land use type and acreage.
Under Option B, the net savings to the General Fund from enacting the TMF would be $1,449, 702,
after utility billing costs, rebates and bad debts. The fee of $1.01 per month or $12.12 per year per
residential dwelling unit would appear on City utility bills produced after January 1, 2007. Non-
443
November 7, 2006
residential fees would be calculated based on a formula which includes trip generation data by land
use type and acreage.
Under either scenario, the fee would be adjusted annually for inflation based on the
Denver —Boulder -Greeley Consumer Price Index and as directed by City Council. The fee would
reduce the need for General Fund support of the street system. This funding would be in addition
to the voter approved Building on Basics Street Maintenance Sales and Use Tax and revenue from
state gas taxes and street cut fees. The total cost of the street maintenance program in 2007 is
projected to be over $9 million.
Rebates
A rebate program would be established to offset the impact of the new fees on low-income residents.
Residents would have to meet qualifications previously established through the rebate program for
sales tax on food as well as the new State immigration requirements. One rebate check would be
issued per dwelling unit for both fees and the grocery tax rebate. The rebate would be up to 100%
of the total fee paid. The rebate for both fees in 2007 would range from $35.64 to $41.16 per low-
income household, depending on the alternative approved by Council. Rebates would be made to
qualified residents in 2008 for fees paid in 2007.
Exemptions
Staffrecommends that the TMF exempt all property owned and occupied by government entities and
public schools. Though both generate a significant number of trips per day, charging a fee to these
entities would only serve to shift public money from one type of government to another and would
diminish the public revenues available to them to carry out their public purposes. No new net
increase in funds available for public services would be achieved.
Council has asked staff to also provide data and an option to provide exemptions from the TMFfor
places of worship and private schools (K-12).
EXEMPTION COSTS
Transportation Maintenance Fee
Property Category
Option A: Revenue
Weighted to IMF
Option B:
Balanced Revenue
Government
$112,558
$74,369
Public Schools
$190,557
$125,904
Sub -total
$303,115
$200,273
Places of worship
$82,981
$54,827
Private Schools
$7,686
$5,078
Grand Total
$393,782
$260,178
Staff recommends exempting government and public school properties for a total exemption of
November 7, 2006
$303,115 for Option A or $200, 273 for Option B. Staffdoes not recommend providing an exemption
for places of worship or private schools.
In case Councilmembers wish to include exemptions for places of worship and private schools,
alternative TMF ordinances for Option A and Option B have been included within the two TMF
ordinances. Options A-1 and B-1 would provide exemptions for places of worship and private
schools. Ifthese additional exemptions were approved by the Council, TMF annual revenues would
be reduced by $90, 667 under Option A and by $59, 905 under Option B. "Places of worship" and
"private schools" are defined in the Ordinance. "
City Manager Atteberry stated the two fees would support two important services: street and parks
maintenance. The adoption of the two fees was part of an overall strategy that had been developed
over the past eight months with Council's input to address the anticipated 2007 budget shortfall of
$5.8 million. The gap that was originally anticipated was $2.3 million and the remainder of the gap
was the result of underperforming sales tax revenues estimated to be about $3.5 million in 2007.
This gap would get larger as a result of some enhancements to fixed route and Dial -a -Ride services.
The gap that would need to be filled was about $7.9 million. The three primary themes of the budget
were to look at service efficiencies, to review with the Council levels of services and any reductions
or elimination of services, and to look at additional new revenue. Staff was asking that Council
consider on First Reading a transportation maintenance fee and a parks maintenance fee to generate
new revenue. The new revenues were special service fees that would help defray the cost of two
services provided by the City i.e., community park maintenance and street maintenance. This was
a "predictable and stable revenue source" for those services. Revenue sources needed to be diverse,
less dependent on sales and use tax, and predictable and reliable. The two fees would meet those
criteria. One of the primary questions for the Council was which of the two options presented for
each of the two different fees Council preferred. Option A was "weighted" to the TMF and Option
B would mean a "balance" between the TMF and PMF. The second question was what exemptions
the Council preferred: (1) governmental agencies, (2) public schools, (3) places of worship, or (4)
private schools. There had been previous lengthy discussions about each of those options.
Ann Tumquist, City Manager's Office, thanked the project team members for their work on this
package. The discussion was based on the assumption that the 2007 budget would need $3.1 million
in additional revenue to be balanced. On October 10, Council gave staff direction to prepare two
options for implementing a transportation maintenance fee and a parks maintenance fee. Either of
the two options would result in revenue of about $3.1 million. Option A would weight the revenue
towards the transportation maintenance fee (the original option) and Option B was presented to
Council at the October 10 work session and would have more of a balance between the two fees.
The two packages were "paired" and Council would need to adopt both Ordinances from either
Option A or Option B. A decision matrix had been created to facilitate the decision. She asked that
Council first choose either Option A or Option B and then discuss the exemptions for the selected
option. The transportation maintenance fee would apply to both residential and non-residential
properties throughout the City. Residential fees would be a flat rate per dwelling unit and non-
residential fees would be calculated based on a formula using trip generation data and the acreage
of parcels that would have the assigned fee. nder either option the TMF would pay for a portion of
the cost ofmaintaining the street system and the fees would be apportioned relative to the impact that
445
November 7, 2006
each different land use would have on the street system. The community park maintenance fee was
similar but would apply only to residential properties. It would cover a portion of the cost of
maintaining the City's community parks and would use a formula that allocated the cost equally to
all dwelling units across the City. Under Option A fees were apportioned as follows: 54%residential
and 46% non-residential. Under Option B fees were apportioned as follows: 70% residential and
30% non-residential. Under Option A the total for both fees for residential properties would be
$2.97 per month and under Option A the total of the two fees would be $2.68 per month for
residential properties. Non-residential rates would be determined by a calculation based on land use
type and acreage. Different land uses would have different costs based on the traffic generated by
the land use. Council asked staff to include rebates for low income residents in the proposal. The
same system as the one used for the sales tax rebates would be used and people would only to have
to apply once for their rebate. The rebates would be up to 100% of the residential TMF and PMF.
Council also asked that some exemptions be included in the Ordinances. Staff was recommending
exempting government properties and public schools from the transportation maintenance fee. She
noted the park maintenance fee did not cover non-residential properties and there were therefore no
exemptions. The rationale for exempting government properties, including public schools, was that
staff believed that assessing those fees to those properties would be transferring tax dollars between
different levels of government rather than increasing the resources available for the community's
public services. The other exemptions discussed were places of worship and private schools. The
range of cost for exempting places of worship would be $58,000 to $83,000 per year and $5,000 and
$8,000 per year for exempting private schools. Staff was prepared to discuss the revenue
implications of the exemptions. She asked Council to first look at Option A or B and then look at
the exemptions.
Jeff Wright, pastor of Heart of the Rockies Christian Church, stated staff was recommending that
places of worship and private schools not be exempted from the transportation maintenance fee. The
fee would place a burden on communities of faith, which had historically been exempted from taxes
in the United States because they provide a broad range of services to their communities. He argued
that the services provided would "far offset" the need to assess the transportation maintenance fee.
The fee would greatly impact the budgets for places of worship. Faith communities administered
a broad range of community projects, provided meeting space for non-profit and other community
organizations, and provided a source of attractive open spaces. Each individual church "worked to
help shape this community in positive ways." The private schools played an important role in the
community and should not be put at a disadvantage by having to pay the fee. He asked the Council
to vote to exempt places of worship and private schools from the TMF.
Councilmember Ohlson stated before Second Reading, he would like more detail on why small retail
places would pay almost as much as high traffic retail ($50 compared to $119) and so much more
than commercial ($15).
Mayor Hutchinson stated those amounts were "representative" and there would be a wide variation.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he understood the fee would be tied to traffic generation.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she understood the TMF assessment would be based on type of
Eno
November 7, 2006
business, trip generation and size. Mark Jackson, Transportation Planning Manager, stated there
were different types of retail and that retail as a category generated more trips than commercial. He
stated "commercial" included everything that was not retail, industrial or institutional. The qualifier
in the formula was based on acreage.
Mayor Hutchinson asked about the range of fees for small retail stores compared to large retail.
Tumquist stated Attachment 1 in the agenda item summary indicated that a small facility such as an
Old Town restaurant would fall in the retail category and pay $118 per year in TMF. A Wal-Mart
would fall under high traffic retail and would pay a much higher TMF because of trip generation and
the larger site. These were examples of fees. City Manager Atteber y stated a large lot (five acre)
church would pay about $78 per month ($940 per year) and a small lot church would pay about $7.84
per month ($94 per year). Tumquist stated the small lot churches were typically downtown.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the following process would be followed: to decide whether to consider
Option A or Option B, to make a motion to adopt an Ordinance, to consider amendments
(exemptions) and to vote on the Ordinance as amended.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to consider the
Option B package to provide for equal transportation and parks maintenance fees.
City Attorney Roy stated adoption of the motion would not result in adoption of the Ordinance.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the motion was to identify the package to be discussed.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he would not support the motion because he preferred Option A.
Mayor Hutchinson stated this would determine the "path" rather than the merits of the path that was
to be discussed.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein and
Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Manvel, Ohlson and Roy.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the discussion would focus on Option B and the next motion should be to
adopt the Ordinance so that the exemptions could be discussed. City Attorney Roy stated this would
be a motion to adopt Option B of Ordinance No. 184, 2006 relating to the TMF with whatever
exemptions the maker of the motion wanted to include. If the motion received a second and if there
were amendments (exemptions or otherwise) those should be considered in order before a final vote
was taken on the motion to adopt the Ordinance.
Councilmember Kastein asked for staff s recommendation on making up the dollar amount if an
exemption was included for places of worship and private schools. City Manager Atteberry stated
staff had discussed this. Tumquist stated if Council adopted Option B the fees could be increased
slightly to recover an additional amount of money without exceeding the program cost. This would
447
November 7, 2006
mean increasing the residential TMF by about 150 per dwelling unit to cover the cost of the
additional exemptions. Staff would have to come back with the exact dollar amount on Second
Reading. If Council adopted Option A any adjustments would have to be done in the parks
maintenance fee rather than the transportation maintenance fee.
Councilmember Manvel stated Council had received information in the "read before" packet
showing that adding the additional exemptions would add 5¢ extra in TMF per month. Turnquist
stated this would also increase the fees for the non-residential properties as well.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the definitions for "place of worship" and "private school"
correlated with State law. City Attorney Roy stated staff wrote the definitions and noted the State
law would go further than he understood the Council wanted to go. Two provisions of Article X of
the State Constitution created exemptions from taxes and the Council was not bound to those same
exemptions. There was an exemption for governmental entities, which was similar to what was
included in the fee Ordinance, and there was another exemption for property used for religious or
charitable purposes. Under the City Ordinance the exemption for places of worship was not
characterized as property used for religious purposes, which would be a broader definition. If
Council wanted to broaden the definition the staff needed to clearly understand Council's intent i.e.,
whether to include church -sponsored schools as well as places of worship, other kinds of church -
related or religious activities, etc. The definition in the Ordinance was limited to properties where
the central purpose was the place of worship itself. Council needed to decide if that definition was
broad enough.
Councilmember Kastein stated the definitions in the Ordinance "seemed broad as they are." He
asked what would distinguish a "place of worship" from an individual's house being used as a "place
of worship" and what would distinguish a "private school" from an individual's house being used
for home schooling. City Attorney Roy stated if someone was using a house as a temporary "place
of worship" and the house was primarily used as a residence and occasionally used as a "place of
worship" it would not qualify for the exemption. The same would be true of a house used as a home
school.
(**Secretary's Note: The Council took a recess at this point in the meeting.)
Mayor Hutchinson stated the Council had decided by majority vote of the Council to consider and
vote on Option B. He stated he would entertain a motion to adopt the Ordinance and noted the
Council would not vote on the motion until it had considered any amendments. The motion to adopt
the Ordinance could contain amendments relating to exemptions or any other amendments.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt
OrdinanceNo. 184, 2006 (Option B) on First Reading to establish a Transportation Maintenance Fee
with government exemptions.
City Attorney Roy requested clarification on the motion.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated her intent was to adopt Option B with government exemptions
only.
an
November 7, 2006
Mayor Hutchinson asked that the Council proceed to considering amendments.
Councilmember Brown asked for clarification on the process for considering amendments
Mayor Hutchinson stated he would entertain amendments to change the exemptions and noted the
motion on the floor was Option B with government exemptions.
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to amend the main
motion to include exemptions for places of worship and private schools (Option B-1) and to raise
the additional money by adjusting the fees for institutions that were not exempt from TMF.
The vote on the motion to amend the main motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown,
Hutchinson, Kastein and Ohlson. Nays: Councilmembers Manvel, Roy and Weitkunat.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Ohlson asked for clarification that there would be discussion on the parks
maintenance fee. City Attorney Roy replied the parks fee had not yet been put on the table for
discussion.
Mayor Hutchinson noted Option B was abalance between the community parks maintenance fee and
the transportation maintenance fee.
Councilmember Brown made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to amend the main
motion to direct the City Manager to present to the City Council on or before the last day of August
preceding each budget term a report summarizing anticipated financial impact of discontinuing the
fees imposed under this Ordinance and that within 30 days of receiving such report the City Council
shall decide by majority vote whether the City Manager and City Attorney should prepare for
Council's formal consideration an Ordinance repealing this Ordinance and terminating such fees.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he did not understand the need for this because any Council could
undo any fee at any time. It was an "unnecessary burden" to bring the matter back for a new
discussion when in reality any Council could choose to do that through proper process. He would
not support the motion.
Councilmember Brown stated he made the motion because he believed there needed to be
accountability to the voters. The fees were "supposed to fix a budget crisis" and the motion to
amend should be adopted to "prove to the voters we are serious" that the fees were a "last resort."
Future Councils should remember that "fees should not go on to the end of time." He questioned
whether a City fee had ever been terminated. He wanted this to be looked at every two years to
preserve accountability to the voters.
Councilmember Roy stated there were no funding mechanisms for transportation and parks
maintenance without these fees. He believed that Councilmember Brown's concern had already
been addressed.
Cu]
November 7, 2006
Councilmember Weitkunat stated this fee would help "fix this budget" and would help "fix future
budgets." Mechanisms needed to be in place to maintain streets and parks because of "dwindling"
sales tax dollars. The City needed to diversify its methods of receiving dollars and that fees were
a legitimate way to do that. Every Council had the option to eliminate fees and this was a good
means of "checks and balances." The fee review would bring the matter of fees to the forefront.
Councilmember Manvel stated a diversification of the City's income was a positive step because the
City had been too dependent on sales tax. If the City had "extra money" the Council could decide
what source of income should go away. The "financial crisis" had resulted in "better government."
He hoped that any time fees were not necessary the Council would remove the fees.
Councilmember Kastein supported the motion to amend. It was a "small thing" to ask for a report
in a couple of years to allow the Council to determine if the fee should be continued. There were
"lots of problems" with the fee because City residents would be the ones paying. A sales tax meant
that everyone paid. It was legitimate to demand accountability for this new fee.
Councilmember Brown stated the Resolution on the fee review process had nothing to do with
"eliminating fees" and related more to a "heads up" about fee increases. This Council would change
in April and he did not want to see "business as usual." If a fee was imposed, the Council's job
should be to eliminate those fees when the City was able to do so.
Mayor Hutchinson stated he agreed that there needed to be accountability and fee reviews.
Resolution 2006-109 set a Council policy relating to fee reviews. He believed that accountability
would be part of the budget process and that the Council could at any time change or eliminate fees.
The vote on the motion to amend the main motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown
and Kastein. Nays: Councilmembers Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat.
THE MOTION FAILED TO PASS.
The vote on the main motion as amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown,
Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Ohlson and Roy.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt
Ordinance No. 185, 2006 (Option B) on First Reading to establish a community park maintenance
fee.
Councilmember Kastein stated he would likely not support the fee. It was important that everyone
be on the "same page" about the budget as a whole. If that was not the case the budget as a whole
needed to be evaluated. It was important that the Council unanimously support the imposition of
the fees. He was not expecting the 5-2 vote on the last motion.
450
November 7, 2006
Councilmember Ohlson stated there were two readings and that the "point of record" would be on
Second Reading. It had been unclear to him when there would be a discussion about the 60/40 split
and he would have preferred that over the 70/30 split. There would be a balance between the TMF
and the PMF but there would not be a balance between the residential and business fees. The
discussion of the two options (A and B) was complicated with the exemptions. His preference
would have been weighted toward the residential and away from the business and a 60/40 split. He
understood the point that the Council should stay "united" on this. The likelihood of him voting yes
on the Second Reading of the TMF was "high." Using a figure such as ' $1.06" did not "build trust
in government" and that fees should be "rounded at least to a quarter." He asked that staff look at
an "appropriate and legal way" to round the fees. Before Second Reading of the parks fee he would
like to have information on a "parks fee" rather than a "community or neighborhood parks fee." He
would vote in favor of the motion that was on the table.
Councilmember Manvel stated there would be changes due to inflation yearly and after a year the
figure would no longer be "round" if there was a 7.1 % increase. He agreed with the idea that there
would be a "parks fee" instead of "community parks fee" if that was possible. The imposition of
fees was difficult for all of the Councilmembers and it would be a "stretch" to have a unanimous
decision. The Councilmembers may support a fee but not the particular choices made regarding
options, exemptions or the "split." He noted there were many options and it would be difficult to
get a majority vote on the "final product." Unanimity may not be possible on this issue.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated there had been ongoing discussions about what the parks
maintenance fee would address and it had been focused on community parks long ago. She
expressed concern that this was being brought up again. There had been difficulties with the
"details" even though there was support for the fee. There was no mechanism in place to generate
revenue to cover parks maintenance even though it required "massive" amounts of revenue from the
General Fund. A parks maintenance fee and transportation maintenance fee would provide a
beginning to solve some of the revenue problems. There would be another opportunity to work on
the problem at the time of discussion of assessing new parks coming on line. There were an
"incredible" number of parks in the community that had an "incredible cost." Everyone in the
community used the parks if only for "aesthetic reasons." It was important to move forward. She
was not as concerned with a "disparity in the vote" because the reasons for voting against the fee
were "very different than a lack of support."
Mayor Hutchinson asked Councilmember Ohlson to clarify the information he would like to have
before Second Reading.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he would vote against this on First Reading and wanted some
information that could help change his vote on Second Reading. He was not willing to vote yes
because it was a "stretch" for him on some of the details and the 70/30 split for residential and
business. He would like to call it a "parks fee" for "simplicity" and he did not think this would
change anything about the fee.
Mayor Hutchinson stated he thought that was a "legitimate question" to have answered before
Second Reading. City Attorney Roy stated staff needed direction on whether to bring forward two
options on Second Reading.
451
November 7, 2006
Mayor Hutchinson suggested that staffprovide a memo before Second Reading to clarify the issues.
City Attorney Roy stated he would appreciate an opportunity to have formal direction from the
Council on what should come forward on Second Reading. A change in the title of the fee would
mean a rewriting of the Ordinance. He needed direction on whether to bring forward a "community
parks fee" or a "parks fee" Ordinance or two options.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the vote would determine whether there was a Second Reading on the
community parks fee. City Attorney Roy stated the policy was that if two Councilmembers wanted
an option to be prepared that staff was to bring forward that option. Even if the majority vote was
in favor of a "community parks fee" on First Reading two Councilmembers could request that an
option be brought back on Second Reading for a "parks fee." Two Councilmembers had expressed
an interest in the second option.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked staff to clarify the difference between community parks and
neighborhood parks and why the Ordinance specifically referred to "community parks." Marty
Heffernan, CLRS Director, stated staff s opinion was that using the general term "parks fee" would
provide some benefit because the funding could then be used for any type ofparks maintenance. The
focus was on "community parks" because it was easier to understand that the benefit of those parks
was "widespread." There was a uniform distribution of neighborhood parks in the community i.e.,
about one per square mile. Both types of parks would benefit everyone in the community fairly
uniformly.
Mayor Hutchinson noted two Councilmembers were interested in the option of calling it a "parks
fee." There was therefore sufficient Council interest to bring that back as an option for Council
consideration on Second Reading.
Councilmember Roy stated he appreciated Councilmember Kastein's concern about other
Councilmembers' votes. It was important that Councilmembers be able to agree and disagree. There
were fundamental issues with the TMF and the "last second add-ons" that were considered and it was
"legitimate" to have concerns about those sorts ofissues. It was most important for Councilmembers
to vote in accordance with their beliefs on the Ordinance on First Reading.
Councilmember Kastein stated his understanding was that before Second Reading "a lot of things
could happen" including decisions to "not support either of these fees." He may want to suggest
something different depending on the election results on the library district. There were still some
"big picture" issues that could change before Second Reading. He would expect "unanimity" on the
fees on Second Reading and if that were not possible a "completely different route" needed to be
found.
Councilmember Manvel stated the "huge windfall" the City was expected to have if the library
district passed would be "down the road." The City would have a financial problem next year with
or without a library district.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the Leadership Team had begun discussions on the approach to be taken
if the library district passed. It would be at least three months after January 1 before those monies
452
November 7, 2006
would not be needed for library transition. The Council should take time to look very carefully at
all possible options and that a work session had been tentatively scheduled for discussions.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Roy.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Hutchinson pointed out the enactment of fees was a "truly last resort" to balance the City
budget and before the fees were considered efficiencies were found to make City government more
cost effective in providing the same services. It was not a "gleeful thing" to have to enact new fees.
Adjournment
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adjourn the
meeting to November 14, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. to conduct the annual performance reviews for the City
Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
ATTEST:
)tML)1�
City Clerk
453