Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-07/18/2006-RegularJuly 18, 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, July 18, 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. Mayor Hutchinson announced that Fort Collins was rated the "Best Place to Live" by the July 24, 2006 Money Magazine. Citizen Participation Cheryl and Jessica Sutherland, 1536 Preston Trail, spoke in support of funding for the Youth Activity Center. Jon Prouty, Lagunitas Companies, 3944 JFK Parkway, asked Council not to cut staff for Engineering and Planning because of the important services they provided. Linda Mahr, 5401 Clarendon Hills, expressed concern about funding cuts for the Youth Activity Center. Dick Dunn, Council for a True Bypass, presented a letter regarding the bypass issue and asked the Council to "fulfill the mandate of the voters" that the City Council meet with the County Commissioners to discuss the truck bypass issue. He stated it was not true that a NEPA study could not take place because of the wording of the 1999 ballot measure. He stated "political will' was the "stumbling block" at this point. Lloyd Walker, Rolland Moore West Neighborhood Network, opposed the City cutting the new position to enforce the revised occupancy ordinance. He suggested that the $60,000 allocated for the "branding" of Fort Collins be used to fund the occupancy enforcement position. Roberta Kunze, 1044 Cunningham Drive, supported funding to continue the Youth Activity Center. Erin Grogan, 3034 Clemma Court, opposed prairie dog fumigation on City natural areas. Laura Sebastian, 1225 West Prospect, spoke in opposition to prairie dog fumigation and asked for more time to explore alternatives. She requested that an environmental study be done to determine the impact of eradication of prairie dogs. 119 July 18, 2006 Deanna Dacus, 1101 Green Street, opposed fumigation ofprairie dogs and asked for a review of the City's policy regarding killing of prairie dogs. Citizen Participation Follow-up Mayor Hutchinson thanked those who spoke during Citizen Participation. Councilmember Roy requested information on the consequences of delaying prairie dog fumigation and whether other solutions could work. City Manager Atteberry stated the Natural Resources and Natural Areas staff managed the natural areas in a sensitive manner. He stated the City's prairie dog policy was "best practice." He would talk with staff about the impact of delaying the planned fumigation. The fumigation strategy was a management strategy. Councilmember Ohlson stated he shared the concerns about the prairie dogs and there were many "myths" relating to the prairie dog issue. He encouraged the Council to read the information presented by those who spoke during Citizen Participation, Councilmember Kastein stated the Council met on a quarterlybasis with the County Commissioners and discussed the truck bypass issue at the last meeting. He requested the notes from that meeting be provided to Mr. Dunn. City Manager Atteberry stated he and the Mayor had a recent conversation with Karla Harding of CDOT about the environmental study and he was told that all options must be considered in a NEPA study. City Manager Atteberry noted that Mr. Prouty spoke regarding the development review first point of contact. He stated staff was looking at consolidating development review into a "one stop shop" to improve efficiency and customer service. He also noted that Mr. Walker spoke about the position for occupancy ordinance enforcement. He stated it was a high priority to the Council to proactively enforce the ordinance and that staff believed full enforcement could be done with existing resources. The new position had not yet been cut and he would advise Council if he determined that the new position was not needed. Agenda Review City Manager Atteberry stated item #20 First Reading of Ordinance No. 108, 2006, Authorizing Amendments to the IntergovernmentalAgreements Between the City and Poudre School District and Thompson School District Pertaining to the Land Dedication and In -Lieu Fee Requirements Contained in Such Agreements was being withdrawn from the agenda pending further discussions between the Homebuilders Association, Poudre School District and the City. He stated staff would work with the Leadership Team to reschedule the item. Councilmember Ohlson withdrew item #35 Resolution 2006-075 Authorizing the City's Participation in the Proposed Fort Collins Regional Library District from the Consent Calendar due to a perceived conflict of interest. 120 July 18, 2006 CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meetings of May 2 2006 May 16, 2006, and June 6. 2006, and the Adjourned Meetings of May 23 2006 June 13 2006 and June 27 2006 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 071, 2006, Vacating Portions of the Rights -of -Way as Dedicated on the Plat of Cameron Park Second Filing. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 2, 2006, vacates the right-of-way for the frontage road in Cameron Park Second Filing, located west of College Avenue, north of Cameron Drive. The Redtail development proposal, submitted November 20, 2003, shows a different street layout than was originally platted in the Cameron Park Second Filing. The right-of-way is no longer needed but the area will be retained as a utility, drainage and public access easement. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No 091 2006 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund - Willow Street Environmental Remediation Project and Northside Aztlan Community Center Replacement Project to be Used for Environmental Site Mitigation in the Vicinity of Willow Street. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 6, 2006, appropriates $200,000 in unanticipated revenue in the Capital Projects Fund - Willow Street Environmental Remediation capital project, in the form of a payment from Public Service Company of Colorado, and up to $50,000 in the Northside Aztlan Community Center Replacement Project in the form of payment from Schrader Oil Company of Colorado. The payment will help offset some of the City's costs in complying with Environmental Protection Agency requirements to mitigate contamination and take reasonable steps required in connection with contamination that passes across and under Willow Street and the Northside Aztlan Community Center site. The payment from Schrader is designated for design and construction of a passive vapor barrier/venting system for the Northside Aztlan Community Center. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 093, 2006 Amending Section 2-447 of the City Code Relating to Membership of the Youth Advisory Board. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 6, 2006, reduces the membership of the Youth Advisory Board from 9 members to 7 and will no longer require any members to be appointed by Team Fort Collins. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 094, 2006 Amending Section 2-182 of the City Code Relatingto Membership of the Community Development Block Grant Commission ("CDBG Commission"). 121 July 18, 2006 The membership of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Commission ("Commission") consists of l I members appointed by City Council. For the past several years it has become difficult to recruit and maintain full membership. The Commission has been experiencing difficulty in obtaining a quorum for some of its meetings, making it difficult to conduct its duties and functions. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 6, 2006, reduces the membership of the Commission to 9 members to make it easier to obtain quorums and to perform its duties in a more efficient and timely manner. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 095, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of Certain Real Property along Cedarwood Drive Subject to a Perpetual Utility Easement. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 6, 2006, authorizes conveyance of fee title to real property located along Cedarwood Drive by the City. Staff has determined it is not necessary for the City to own the property, originally purchased to install a sewer line to serve surrounding development. The City will reserve and retain a utility easement on and under this tract for the existing sewer line and in order to utilize the easement for any other utility purposes. The Ordinance has been amended on Second Reading to state that the property will be offered to the general public on set terms and conditions and for the established price of $1,000. The reason that this change has been made is that the prospective purchaser of the property is a City employee and Article IV, Section 9(b)(2) of the City Charter prohibits City employees from purchasing property from the City unless the property is offered for sale to all members of the general public on the same terms and conditions, at an established price, and not by bid or auction. 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 096, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the Cargill Rezoning This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 6, 2006, rezones 29.5 acres located on the north side of Drake Road, approximately 'h mile east of Timberline Road. The site currently contains the Cargill canola research facility and test fields. It is in the T - Transition District. The requested zoning for this property is LMN - Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. 13. Items Relating to the Peterson Annexation and Zoning A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 097, 2006, Annexing Property Known as the Peterson Annexation. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 098,2006, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Peterson Annexation. 122 July 18, 2006 These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 6, 2006 annex and zone 27.89 acres located on the south side of East Vine Drive between Interstate 25 and County Road 5. The property is undeveloped and located in the FA I - Farming District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for this annexation is UE - Urban Estate, which is consistent with the Structure Plan designation and is in conformance with the I-25 Subarea Plan. 14. Items Relating to the Streamside Annexation and Zoning_ A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 099, 2006, Annexing Property Known as the Streamside Annexation. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 100, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Streamside Annexation to the City. These Ordinances, which were unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 6, 2006, annex and zone 73.67 acres located on the south side of East Vine Drive between Interstate 25 and County Road 5. The property is undeveloped and located in the FA1 - Farming District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for this annexation is UE - Urban Estate, which is consistent with the Structure Plan designation and is in conformance with the I-25 Subarea Plan. 15. Items Relating to the Johnston Annexation and Zoning A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 2006, Annexing Property Known as the Johnston Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map ofthe City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Johnston Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 6, 2006, annex and zone a property approximately 36.82 acres in size. The site is 6111 South Timberline Road, approximately one-half mile south of Kechter Road on the west side of Timberline Road. 16. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 2006 Calling a Special Municipal Election on September 12, 2006 and Authorizing the Conduct of Said Election as a Mail Ballot Election On May 19, 2006, the City Clerk's Office received an initiative petition to amend the City Charter relating to collective bargaining. The Clerk's Office has completed its review of the petition and has determined that the petition contains a sufficient number of signatures to place the initiated measure on a special election ballot. Pursuant to C.R.S. 31-2-210(4), if the petition is certified as sufficient by the City Clerk, the election must be held as near as possible to the approximate date stated in the petition (September 12, 2006). This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 6, 2006, calls for the election to 123 July 18, 2006 be held on September 12, 2006 and authorizes the election to be conducted as a mail ballot election. 17. First Reading of Ordinance No 105 2006 Appropriating Unanticipated Developer Contributions in the General Fund for Affordable Housing. This Ordinance appropriates unanticipated revenue in the Advance Planning budget from Flying Heights, LLC, for density bonuses the Cityreceived in exchange for abinding, written recordable relinquishment of the City's rights under the Agreement of Restrictive Covenants Affecting Real Property. $14,242 will be appropriated to the Affordable Housing Fund to be used in the Competitive Process to award the funds for other affordable housing projects. 18. First Reading of Ordinance No 106 2006 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for the Development of the North Fort Collins Business Association Action Plan. On November 15, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution 2005-123, which allocated $19,000 from the Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG") Program to the North Fort Collins Business Association ("NFCBA") to complete an Action Plan outlining redevelopment strategies for the North College Avenue commercial corridor. The City has contracted with PMG Associates, Inc. ("PMG Associates") for consultant services to help complete the Action Plan. The contract has a total cost of $20,000. As recommended by the CDBG Commission, the NFCBA is contributing $1,000 toward the development of the Action Plan. This Ordinance appropriates the $1,000 contribution from the NFCBA. 19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 107, 2006, Authorizing the Transfer of ADDropriations Between the Building Community Choices - Taft Hill Road Improvements Drake Road to Derby Court Project and the Building Community Choices - Prospect Road Improvements Poudre River to Summitview Drive Project to Be Used for the Riverbend Ponds Berm Stabilization Work. This request is to transfer $779,890 ofexcess funds from the previously constructed Taft Hill — Drake to Derby project, to the Prospect Road - Poudre River to Summitview Project to address a greater than anticipated drainage need. 20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 108, 2006 Authorizing Amendments to the Intergovernmental Agreements Between the City and Poudre School District and Thompson School District Pertaining to the Land Dedication and In -Lieu Fee Requirements Contained in Such Agreements. Since 1998, the City of Fort Collins has collected a fee -in -lieu of land dedication for both Poudre School District and Thompson School District. These fees allow a residential developer to pay a school site fee to the School Districts rather than to dedicate a parcel of land to the District for development of future schools. The ability of the school districts to require land dedication is provided under State of Colorado Statute. 124 July 18, 2006 The last time the amount of these fees was adjusted was in 2001. This ordinance will change the amount of the fees for each district and also modifies the fee structure to reduce the cost in payments for larger, multi -family developments. 21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 109.2006, Amending Various Provisions ofthe Fort Collins Traffic Code. The Colorado General Assembly amended certain statutory provisions this legislative session relating to various provisions in state traffic laws. This Ordinance ensures the Traffic Code is consistent with state traffic laws. 22. First Reading of Ordinance No. 110 2006 Calling a Special Municipal Election to Be Held in Conjunction with the November 7, 2006 Larimer County General Election. This Ordinance calls a Special Municipal Election to be held in conjunction with the November 7, 2006 Latimer County General Election, and preserves the opportunity for Council to place initiated or referred issues on the November ballot. 23. First Readine of Ordinance No. 111, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Permanent Non-exclusive Underground Utility Easement and Multiple Temporary Construction Easements on City Property to the Boxelder Sanitation District for the Purpose of Extending Regional Sanitary Sewer. The Boxelder Sanitation District is extending a regional sanitary sewer line to the east of its current plant at the confluence of Boxelder Creek and the Cache La Poudre River. The sanitary sewer will provide service to areas designated within the District's service area to the east of 1-25. This Ordinance authorizes the conveyance to the District of a permanent non-exclusive utility easement and a temporary construction easement on a City -owned property that is part of the Timnath Community Separator and a number of temporary easements on former Resource Recovery Farm property and Archery Range Natural Area, all for the regional sewer line project. 24. First Readine of Ordinance No. 112, 2006 Authorizing the Conveyance of a Temporary Construction Easement over City Property to the Boxelder Sanitation District for the Purpose of Extending Sanitary Sewer. In 1999, Boxelder Sanitation District acquired a deed of perpetual easement along the western edge of the Vangbo property (a 2005 Natural Resources Timnath Community Separator purchase, east of the Boxelder Plant across I-25) from the previous owner. The easement was acquired in anticipation of the construction of a sanitary sewer line on the east side of 1-25. At the same time the District acquired a temporary construction easement 30 feet in width and adjacent to the perpetual easement. This temporary construction easement was for a period of one year with a one year extension. The project has not yet been constructed and the temporary construction easement has expired. 125 July 18, 2006 The construction of the sanitary sewer line is now planned to begin in the summer of 2006. The construction will take place in the existing perpetual easement area, however because the original term ofthe temporary construction easement has expired, Boxelderhas requested a 30 foot wide construction easement for a period of two years. No trenching or installation of permanent facilities will be done within the temporary construction easement area. Staff has determined that the temporary easement is not in an area that is ecologically sensitive and the disturbed land can be easily restored. Vegetation along the proposed easement alignment consists of a smooth brome dominated pasture. Restoration of the easement area will utilize grass mixes reflective of existing vegetation. 25. First Reading of Ordinance No. H 3, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Permanent Drainage Easement on Pelican Marsh Natural Area for the Provincetowne Third Filing Development. The proposed permanent, non-exclusive drainage easement consists of a 50-foot wide area on Pelican Marsh Natural Area that extends up to approximately 73 feet in length (2,937 square feet) and outlets into an existing 200 foot drainage easement already located on the Natural Area. The channel to be constructed within the proposed easement is designed to convey 25 cubic feet per second ("cfs") and will consist of side slopes of4:1(four horizontal feet to one foot of vertical increase), a depth of 1 foot, and a 2-foot bottom width. The proposed easement is in an area of reestablished native vegetation. Staff has determined that impacts to this area can be restored. Reclamation of these easement area will utilize grass mixes reflective of existing vegetation. 26. First Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 2006, Desi ngnating the Reinholt/Mitchell House 509 East Myrtle Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code The owner of the property, Robert Mitchell, is initiating this request for Fort Collins Landmark designation for the Reinholt/Mitchell House. The building is judged to be both architecturally and historically significant under Fort Collins Landmark Standards (2) and (3). The Reinholt/Mitchell House has tremendous architectural significance to Fort Collins as a rare and locally distinctive example of Prairie -influenced 20th Century Vernacular architecture, with very good integrity. Additionally, the residence is an excellent illustration of the elaborate work of noted Fort Collins master mason Leroy "Roy" Nye. 27. First Reading of Ordinance No. 115, 2006 Amending Section 4 21(b)(2)© of the Land Use Code to Add Two Permitted Uses to the H-C. Harmony Corridor Zone District This is a request for Two Text Amendments to the Land Use Code to add, Small Animal Hospitals andlndoorKennels as permitted uses in the Harmony Corridor Zone District. The proposal to add Indoor Kennels would be conditioned such that there must bean association with either a Small Animal Veterinary Clinic or Small Animal Veterinary Hospital. Both new uses are proposed as being subject to Administrative Review (Type One). 126 July 18, 2006 28. First Readine of Ordinance No. 116, 2006, Vacating an Alley Right-of-way on Block 33 Established as Part of the 1873 Map of the Town of Fort Collins. This Ordinance authorizes the vacation of an alley right-of-way located north of Maple Street, west of North Mason Street, in Block 33. A pedestrian spine linear park is proposed through the middle of the block where the right-of-way is located. The right-of-way is no longer needed, but access, drainage, and utility easement will be retained. 29. Items Relating to Block 33, Fort Collins, Colorado. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 117, 2006, Authorizing the Sale of City -owned Property Consisting of the Vacated Alley Right -of -Way on Block 33, Fort Collins, Colorado to Penny Flats, LLC. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 118, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non - Exclusive Public Access, Drainage, Utility and Maintenance Easement to Penny Flats, LLC. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 119, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Temporary Construction Easement over Portions of Block 33 to Penny Flats, LLC. In July 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution 2004-081, setting out a process for selling portions of Block 33 to a private developer. A developer was selected and on July 19, 2005, City Council approved Ordinance No. 077, 2005, which authorized the sale, in phases, of a portion of Block 33 to Penny Flats, LLC. The proposed development is a mixed use project having approximately 150 dwelling units with approximately 30,000 square feet of commercial space. The Option Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Real Property was entered into on February 24, 2006. This Agreement has the property being conveyed in three parcels, with the first portion to be conveyed 30 days following final approval of the PDP process for the development, which is expected this fall. During the negotiations and planning of this project, a few items were identified that needed further Council approval. These Ordinances approve these items. 30. Resolution 2006-070 Approving Expenditures from the Art in Public Places Reserve Accounts in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund and the Storm Drainage Fund to Commission an Artist to Create Sculptural Elements for the Spring Canyon Community Park Proiect. This Resolution would approve expenditures of $92,000 for design, fabrication, travel, installation, contingency and related project expenses for a project to install multiple art elements by Karl Ciesluk in Spring Canyon Community Park. 127 July 18, 2006 31. Resolution 2006-071 Adopting the Recommendations of the Cultural Resources Board Re arding Fort Fund Disbursements. The guidelines for the Cultural Development and Programming and Tourism Programming accounts (Fort Fund) provide a three -tiered funding system. Organizations may apply for grants from these accounts to fund community events. Tier #1 was established as an annual programming fund for organizations whose primary purpose is to present three or more public events annually. These groups may apply for funding from Tier #1 each April. Tier #2 allows organizations that are not eligible for Tier #1 support to apply for funding of events that are not fund-raising in nature and do not generate more than $5,000 in proceeds after expenses. Tier #3 allows organizations that are not eligible for Tier #1 support to apply for funding of events that generate more than $5,000 in proceeds after expenses and are fund- raising in nature. Applications for support from Tier #2 and Tier #3 are accepted each January and June. Disbursements from funds in the City's Cultural Development and Programming and Tourism Programming accounts as shown on Exhibit "A" to the Resolution were recommended by the Cultural Resources Board at its regular meeting of June 28, 2006. Adoption of this Resolution will approve the recommended disbursements for Tier #2 and Tier #3 applicants. 32. Resolution 2006-072 Authorizing the Execution of a Grant Contract with the Colorado Council on the Arts forFundineofthe Lincoln Center's Outreach and Educational Activities The City Cultural Services Department was recently awarded a matching grant from the Colorado Council on the Arts in the amount of $18,750 to support the Lincoln Center's outreach, partnership, and educational activities during the 2006-2007 performance season. The Colorado Council on the Arts requires that the City Council obligate the local match funding, as well as authorize the City Manager to execute the contract and bind the City to its terms. Match funding was appropriated in the Cultural Services Department budget by Ordinance No. 132, 2005, which authorized the 2006 City expenditure budget. 33. Resolution 2006-073 Adopting a Real Estate Resale Provision for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Home Investment Partnership (HOME) and Affordable Housing Fund Loans. The City currently uses a competitive process to allocate funding from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnership (HOME) federal grant programs, and the Affordable Housing Fund for the acquisition of land and/or buildings (real estate) for affordable housing programs/projects and providing for, or improving public facilities. Funds are allocated as deferred, due on sale, zero -interest loans with a five percent (5%) simple interest loan to be repaid if the real estate is ever resold. Staff and the CDBG Commission propose an expansion of the current City policy to include a Real Estate Resale Provision that would protect City resources from projects that fail to be completed and are 128 July 18, 2006 resold at a profit of more than five percent. 34. Resolution 2006-074 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter Into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Colorado Department of Transportation for the Provision of Transportation Services for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities. The Colorado Department of Transportation awarded the City of Fort Collins two replacement vehicles for the Dial -A -Ride fleet under the Federal Transit Administration 49 USC §5310: Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities. In the BFO process, accepted Offer #521: Paratransit Vehicle Replacement acknowledged this application process and match requirements. The match ratio is higher than 20% due to the Colorado Department of Transportation's required vehicle acquisition process. All grantees use the same bid, already compiled by Colorado Department of Transportation staff. Dial -A -Ride vehicles utilize safety and vehicle features different than those outlined in the Colorado Department of Transportation bid, and therefore are at additional cost. 35. Resolution 2006-075 Authorizing the City's Participation in the Proposed Fort Collins Regional Library District. A citizen group has petitioned for creation of a Library District that would include the City in its service area. Voters will be asked to form and fund the District in November. State law requires the City, as operator of an existing public library within the boundaries of the proposed District, to decide whether or not to participate in the District [C.R.S. §24-90- 106(1)], and to consent to the County paying the costs of the election, rather than requiring the petitioners to post a bond to cover those costs [C.R.S. §24-90-107(3)(c)(II)]. This Resolution approves the City's participation, in the event the District is formed, and consents to the County paying the costs of the election. 36. Resolution 2006-076 Making an Appointment to the Natural Resources Advisory Board A vacancy currently exists on the Natural Resources Advisory Board due to the resignation of Gerry Hart. Councilmembers Manvel and Brown reviewed the applications on file and are recommending Elizabeth Pruessner to fill the vacancy. The term will begin immediately and is set to expire on December 31, 2010. 37. Routine Easement. A. Easement for construction and maintenance of public utilities from Randall J. Morgan, to underground existing electric system, located at 931 East Harmony Road. Monetary consideration: $10. (See Map #1). B. Easement dedication for drainage from Los Encinos, LLC, located at 2313 Kechter Road. Monetary consideration: $0. (See Map #2). 129 July 18, 2006 C. Deed ofdedication for right-of-way from Timberline Autoplex, LLC and Timberline Star Properties, LLC, located on Timberline Road (7,681 square feet). Monetary consideration: $0. (See Map #3). D. Deed of dedication for right-of-way from Timberline Autoplex, LLC, located on Timberline Road (17,645 square feet). Monetary consideration: $0. (See Map #3). E. Deed of dedication for right-of-way from Timberline Development, LLC, located on Timberline Road (18,554 square feet). Monetary consideration: $0. (See Map #3). F. Deed of dedication for right-of-way from Timberline Star Properties, LLC, located on Timberline Road (4,965 square feet). Monetary consideration: $0. (See Map #3). G. Deed of dedication for an emergency access easement from Timberline Star Properties, LLC, located on Timberline Road (30,844 square feet). Monetary consideration: $0. (See Map #3). H. Deed of dedication for slope and drainage easement from Timberline Star Properties, LLC, located on Timberline Road (9,629 square feet). Monetary consideration: $0. (See Map #3). 1. Deed of dedication for temporary construction easement from Timberline Star Properties, LLC, located on Timberline Road (5,136 square feet). Monetary consideration: $0. (See Map #3). J. Deed of dedication forutility and drainage easement from Timberline Star Properties, LLC, Timberline Star Properties, LLC, located on Timberline Road (12,330 square feet). Monetary consideration: $0. (See Map #3). K. Easement for construction and maintenance of public utilities from Jay D. Stoner, to underground electric service, located at 1295 North College Avenue. Monetary consideration: $500. (See Map #4). ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 071, 2006, Vacating Portions of the Rights -of -Way as Dedicated on the Plat of Cameron Park Second Filing. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 091, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund - Willow Street Environmental Remediation Project and Northside Aztlan Community Center Replacement Project to be Used for Environmental Site Mitigation in the Vicinity of Willow Street. 130 July 18, 2006 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 093, 2006, Amending Section 2-447 of the City Code Relating to Membership of the Youth Advisory Board. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 094, 2006, Amending Section 2-182 of the City Code Relating to Membership of the Community Development Block Grant Commission ("CDBG Commission"). 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 095, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of Certain Real Property along Cedarwood Drive Subject to a Perpetual Utility Easement. 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 096, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the Cargill Rezoning. 13. Items Relating to the Peterson Annexation and Zoning. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 097, 2006, Annexing Property Known as the Peterson Annexation. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 098, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Peterson Annexation. 14. Items Relating to the Streamside Annexation and Zoning. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 099, 2006, Annexing Property Known as the Streamside Annexation. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 100, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Streamside Annexation to the City. 15. Items Relating to the Johnston Annexation and Zoning. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 2006, Annexing Property Known as the Johnston Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Johnston Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. 16. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 2006, Calling a Special Municipal Election on September 12, 2006 and Authorizing the Conduct of Said Election as a Mail Ballot Election. 41. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 092, 2006, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves Designated 131 July 18, 2006 for Fire Services in the Fire Protection Capital Improvement Expansion Fund for Payment to the Poudre Fire Authority to be Used for Headquarters Building Expansion. ( 42. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 104, 2006, Making Various Amendments to the Land Use Code. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Developer Contributions in the General Fund for Affordable Housing. 18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 106, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for the Development of the North Fort Collins Business Association Action Plan. 19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 107, 2006, Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between the Building Community Choices - Taft Hill Road Improvements, Drake Road to Derby Court Project and the Building Community Choices - Prospect Road Improvements, Poudre River to Summitview Drive Project to Be Used for the Riverbend Ponds Berm Stabilization Work. 21. First Reading ofOrdinance No. 109, 2006, Amending Various Provisions of the Fort Collins Traffic Code. 22. First Reading of Ordinance No. 110, 2006, Calling a Special Municipal Election to Be Held in Conjunction with the November 7, 2006 Larimer County General Election. 23. First Reading of Ordinance No. 111, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Permanent, Non-exclusive Underground Utility Easement and Multiple Temporary Construction Easements on City Property to the Boxelder Sanitation District for the Purpose of Extending Regional Sanitary Sewer. 24. First Reading of Ordinance No. 1 12, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Temporary Construction Easement over City Property to the Boxelder Sanitation District for the Purpose of Extending Sanitary Sewer. 25. First Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Permanent Drainage Easement on Pelican Marsh Natural Area for the Provincetowne Third Filing Development. 26. First Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 2006, Designating the Reinholt/Mitchell House, 509 East Myrtle Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. 27. First Reading of Ordinance No. 115,2006, Amending Section 4.21(b)(2)© of the Land Use Code to Add Two Permitted Uses to the H-C, Harmony Corridor Zone District. 132 July 18, 2006 28. First Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 2006, Vacating an Alley Right-of-way on Block 33 Established as Part of the 1873 Map of the Town of Fort Collins. 29. Items Relating to Block 33, Fort Collins, Colorado. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 117, 2006, Authorizing the Sale of City -owned Property Consisting of the Vacated Alley Right -of -Way on Block 33, Fort Collins, Colorado to Penny Flats, LLC. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 118, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non - Exclusive Public Access, Drainage, Utility and Maintenance Easement to Penny Flats, LLC. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 119, 2006, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Temporary Construction Easement over Portions of Block 33 to Penny Flats, LLC. 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 Mayor Hutchinson commented regarding item #34 Resolution 2006-074 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter Into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Colorado Department of Transportation for the Provision of Transportation Services for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities. Councilmember Ohlson commented on item #21 First Reading of Ordinance No. 109, 2006, Amending Various Provisions of the Fort Collins Traffic Code and asked for information on how many tickets for violations had been issued in the last decade. He also commented on item #20 First Reading of Ordinance No.108, 2006, A uthorizingA mendments to the Intergovernmental Agreements Between the City and Poudre School District and Thompson School District Pertaining to the Land Dedication and In -Lieu Fee Requirements Contained in Such Agreements, which had been pulled from the agenda. He stated Council had made it clear that fee adjustments should be considered more frequently than had been the practice. Staff Reports City Manager Atteberryasked that Council consider item #35 Resolution 2006-075 Authorizing the City's Participation in the Proposed Fort Collins Regional Library District prior to the scheduled discussion items. 133 July 18, 2006 Councilmember Ohlson stated he had a perceived conflict of interest on the matter because his spouse was going to be working on the ballot measure. Mayor Hutchinson stated item #35 would be considered next. Resolution 2006-075 Authorizing the City's Participation In the Proposed Fort Collins Regional Library District, Adopted. The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "FINANCIAL IMPACT The 2007 library budget has a direct impact on the General Fund, projected at $3, 851, 000. These funds are primarily used to provide staff to run the library operations, as well as for books and materials. Internal services such as legal, finance, human resources,.facilities maintenance, etc., provided by other City departments, but not currently billed to the library, cost the City about $371, 000 annually based on projections from the departments providing these services. The Countyprojects thatLibrary District revenue will become available after April, 2007. Funding to operate the libraries from January through April will be needed, even if the voters approve the formation ofthe new Library District. It is recommended the City loan the Library District sufficient funds to operate until the District's.funds are collected. The District would then reimburse the City. It is also recommended that the City provide support services for the District without charge for 2007 to help make the transition from a City -run library to a Library District as seamless for the community and the staff as possible. The District Board of Trustees can then determine if the District will purchase some or all of these services from the Cityfor 2008 and thereafter. These and other issues will be addressed in a Council -approved intergovernmental agreement between the District, the City and the County once the District is formed. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A citizen group has petitioned for creation of Library District that would include the City in its service area. Voters will be asked to form and fund the District in November. State law requires the City, as operator of an existing public library within the boundaries of the proposed District, to decide whether or not to participate in the District [C.R.S. §24-90-106(l)], and to consent to the Countypaying the costs of the election, rather than requiring the petitioners to post a bond to cover those costs [C.R.S. §24-90-107(3)(c)(11)J. This Resolution approves the City's participation, in the event the District is formed, and consents to the County paying the costs of the election. BACKGROUND City library services have been declining since 2002 due to budget cuts. Districts typically enjoy a higher level oflocal support than other types ofpublic libraries since they are property tax based and the revenue remains relatively stable over long periods. Library Districts also capture revenue 134 July 18, 2006 from growth outside of the City so that all who benefit pay the cost of library services. This allows the library to grow as the number ofpatrons using the library expands, withoutpenalizing those who already pay for library services. A Library District will mean a higher level of service for the residents of Fort Collins and the surrounding area. A Library District will allow for such things as restoration of hours of operation, restoration of former levels of reference services, interlibrary loaning and borrowing services, youth outreach efforts, local history access and reinstatement and increase in community bookdrops. It will also be possible to increase programs and story times and the number of books available.for the community to borrow. The District will also be able to build and operate a new branch library in southeast Fort Collins. " ("Secretary's Note: Councilmember Ohlson withdrew from participation on this item due to a perceived conflict of interest.) City Manager Atteberry stated staff was available to answer any questions. Mayor Hutchinson stated "participation" meant the City was willing to be part of a Library District if one was formed. Councilmember Kastein noted this Resolution did not voice a position on the Library District and asked if the Council could choose to consider another Resolution taking a position on the ballot measure. City Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Resolution 2006-075. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. (Councilmember Ohlson withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED ("Secretary's Note: Councilmember Ohlson returned to the meeting at this point.) Ordinance No. 092, 2006 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves Designated for Fire Services in the Fire Protection Capital Improvement Expansion Fund for Payment to the Poudre Fire Authority to be Used for Headquarters Building Expansion, Adopted on Second Reading. The following is staffs memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Poudre Fire Authority plans to expand the Headquarters Building, located at 102 Remington, as there is a shortage ofspace for current and,future needs. This Ordinance appropriates prior year reserves collectedfrom theftre protection capital expansionfee in the amount of$1,400,176, and transfers that amount to the Authority capital budget to payfor the expansion. Ordinance No. 092, 135 July 18, 2006 2006 was adopted on First Reading on June 6, 2006 with a vote of 6-1 (Nays: Ohlson). " City Manager Atteberry stated this item was on the discussion agenda because there was a 6-1 vote on First Reading. He stated staff was available to answer any questions. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance No. 092, 2006 on Second Reading. Councilmember Ohlson stated he opposed removing the pocket park for a new building. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Ohlson. THE MOTION CARRIED Ordinance No. 104, 2006 Making Various Amendments to the Land Use Code, Adopted on Second Reading. The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, adopted on First Reading on June 6, 2006, by a vote of 6-1 (Nays: Ohlson), makes amendments to the Land Use Code to resolve implementation issues and to improve both the overall gualiry and "user friendliness" of the Code. One section concerning downtown building height standards was removed at First Reading for consideration at another date." City Manager Atteberry stated staff was available to answer any questions. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adopt Ordinance No. 104, 2006 on Second Reading. Councilmember Ohlson stated he would vote against the motion and that he supported 12,000 square feet next to the low density zone. This would set a "higher bar" for design, structure and location. Yeas Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Ohlson. THE MOTION CARRIED 136 July 18, 2006 Items Relating to the Southwest Annexation, Adopted. The following is staffs memorandum on this item "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Resolution 2006-077 Stating the Intent of the City ofFort Collins toAnnex Certain Property and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for Such Property to be Known as the Southwest Enclave Annexation. This is a request to initiate annexation of a County enclave that is completely surrounded by properties that have been annexed into the City. The proposed annexation area is composed ofapproximately 2. 748square miles (1, 748 acres) ofproperty generally bordered on the north by Harmony Road, the south by Trilby Road, South Taft Hill Road on the west and 114 mile east of College Avenue to the east. B. Resolution 2006-078 Creating a Southwest Enclave Annexation Transition Committee. This Resolution would create an Annexation Transition Committee. Transition committees will be required by law for large enclave annexations initiated after September 1, 2006. Even though the resolution initiating this particular annexation is being considered by the Council before September 1, creation of such a committee shows a continued City commitment to communicate effectively with enclave property owners. The annexation transition committee will serve as an information conduit between the City and enclave residents. The Committee will be comprised of two City staff employees, two Larimer County staff employees and five citizens who reside, own property or operate a business within the enclave area. The resolution gives the City Manager the authority to appoint the City staff members and the citizen members of the Committee. BACKGROUND Compliance with State Statues This area is eligibleforannexation according to the Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.) §31-12-106, whichpermitan unincorporated area to be annexed ifsuch area has been surrounded by land within the City's jurisdiction for a period of not less than three years. This annexation request complies with this standard since the enclave was created upon approval of the Coyote Ridge Annexations more than three years ago (November 30, 2001). Consistency with Intergovernmental Agreement The area is located within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA) except for 40 acres lying within the Wildflower GMA Expansion Area. Under the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County pertaining to the City's Growth Management Area, the City has agreed to pursue the annexation of enclaves in the GMA as those 137 July 18, 2006 areas become eligible for annexation according to state law. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan The requested zoning districts for this annexation are Urban Estate (UE), Low Density Residential (RL), Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood (LMN), Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood (MMN), Rural Lands (RUL), Commercial © and Public Open Lands (POL). The City's adopted Structure Plan, a part of City Plan, designates the corresponding portions of the annexation area as Urban Estate, Low Density Residential, Low Density Mixed -Use Residential, Medium Density Mixed -Use Residential, Rural Open Lands, Commercial Corridor, and Open Lands, Parks, Stream Corridors. Some portions of the annexation designated "Open Lands, Parks, Stream Corridors" are held under private ownership, but are undevelopable due to their location within FEMA and City -regulated floodways. Therefore, the proposed zoning district designations are considered consistent with the Structure Plan designations. Policy Basis The requested enclave annexation is consistent with policy affirmed by the City Council at work sessions held on August 28 and September 25, 2001 which concluded that: The City agrees to consider annexation ofland located within the Growth ManagementArea (GMA) which are eligible for voluntary annexation (per the Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County); The City agrees to pursue annexation any parcel eligible for involuntary annexation (per the Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County); and A detailed fiscal impact analysis for involuntary enclave annexations must be completed. Such analysis must be created just prior to Council consideration so that the numbers are considered "up to date". Emphasis on Reducing Impacts Further, the present City Council affirmed its intent to annex the Southwest Enclave area in work sessions held on November 8, 2005 and on June 27, 2006. At the work session, the Council discussed the fact that there is strong opposition to the proposed annexation on the part of many property owners within the Enclave. Substantial outreach efforts have been conducted by the City over an extended period of time in order to better understand the concerns of the property owners and develop ways to address these concerns. In addition, the cost of providing services to the Enclave after annexation has been a significant concern to the City, especially in view of recent budget constraints. To deal with these concerns, staff has presented two concepts to the Council: • mitigation measures directed toward some of the property owners' primary concerns • a phasing approach to the annexation. 138 July 18, 2006 Mitigation Measures In order to reduce thefznancial burden on area property owners and residents and make a smoother transition to the City, the staff is proposing a series of mitigation measures. In some instances, implementation of the measures will require specific amendments to the City Code, Land Use Code, and/or elements added to the annexation resolution or ordinance. • Use Utility reserve funds to cover all except 5% of the 25% mandated service rights fee for Poudre Valley Rural Electric Authority (PVREA) customers in the enclave area. As a result, PVREA customers will pay the same or less for City electric service than they do currently under PVREA. Xcel customers will see a 35-40% decline in electric rates. State law mandates that the City pay an additional 25% of each customer's monthly fee to PVREA for a period of 10 years. In the past, the City has chosen to pass this fee along to customers. Enclave residents have voiced strong opposition to thispractice, and many small business owners have expressed concern that it will not only harm their business but, in some cases, the 25% coupled with the City's demand rate could cause them to go out of business. By reducing the fee to 5%, PVREA customers in the southwest enclave will pay the same or less for City electric service than they do currently under PVREA. These calculations take the value of the PVREA "rebate" into account as well, even factoring this in, PVREA customers will pay the same or less with the City. Excel users, who are not impacted by the service rights fee, will see a 35-40% reduction in rates under City service. The remaining 20%fee would be covered using Utility reserve./ands, costing approximately $2.3 million over 10 years. (Absorbing the entire 25%fee would cost $2.9 million over 10 years.) As of December 31, 2005 Light and Power fund reserves totaled $48 million, $8 million of which is non -cash, such as accounts receivable and inventory supplies. This measure would apply only to the southwest enclave area. Any future requests of this nature will be considered on a case -by -case basis. • Underground electric utilities at no cost to property owners. • Phase in monthly stormwater utilityfees over a five-year period, charging 20% of the total fee the first year, then 40, 60, 80 and 100% respectively. Enclave residents do not currently pay utility,fees for stormwater. By phasing in the new stormwater fees, residents and property owners will be able to factor the cost into their budgets. This replicates the experience of other City residents, who have seen gradual increases in stormwater fees as rates have changed over the years. Once all property owners reach 100%, the total fee collected for stormwater is estimated at $24,100 per month. • Allow barbed wire fences and electrically charged fences used for livestock and pasture management in UE and RUL zones. 139 July 18, 2006 Current regulations have not accounted for the types of agricultural uses found in the new Rural Lands zone district. Additionally, new technologies allow safe and practical electrically charged fences that were not possible in the past. This Code change will apply city-wide and allows electrically charged, fences as long as they do not exceed a maximum amperage, are used within permanent fencing, and contain signs identifying them as being electrically charged if located along any public right of way. 5. Change the amortization period from 5 years to 7 years for nonconformingpermanentsigns located on properties annexed into the City. The City began working with Larimer County about 10 years ago on a project to amend the County Sign Code so that the County's regulations would conform to the City's regulations, at least for the properties in the urban growth area. However, the County placed the project on hold until lastyear when consistent sign regulations were finally adopted. Had the Code been amended 10 years ago, the number of potentially nonconforming signs that could be annexed would be substantially less and the economic impact to county property owners might not be as great. Replacement or remodeling of nonconforming signs that are currently in the county can cost thousands ofdollars and business owners have noted that this additional cost is especially burdensome when added to other potential costs they might be subjected to. Staff is recommending this Code revision apply city wide and include future annexations. Other regulations that pertain to nonconforming permanent signs will remain. Additionally, it is recommended that no changes be made to the provision that requires "temporary" signs such as portable signs, vehicle -mounted signs, banners, and flashing or animated signs to be removed within 60 days of the date of annexation. 6. Change the licensing requirements for secondhand dealers/flea markets so that the owner of the flea market is the licensed second hand dealer rather than the individual booth operators. The majority of booth operators rent a small space from the property owner or dealer, in some cases a small cubicle, and primarily sell goods that do not fall under the definition of second hand articles subject to the licensing and record keeping requirements of the City ordinance. Booth operators have expressed concern that current licensing requirement could put them out of business, especially in those cases where one booth owner sells merchandise from several locations. A Code change would exempt individual booth operatorsfrom the license requirements and background checks; however, shop owners would still be required to obtain a license, pay the requisite fee and comply with the reporting and record keeping requirements of the Ordinance and state law. An additional provision requires the licensee to keep an up to date list identifying the name, date of birth and address of each person renting a booth at the business. 140 July 18, 2006 Specify record keeping requirements for flea market operators so as not to put an undue burden on individual booth operators, while still addressing and satisfying the intent of the record requirements of identification ofstolen property. Current regulations addressing the sale of second hand property are in many ways intended to prevent people from trafficking in stolen property, and detailed information on the original seller is required on many items. Recommended Code changes could differentiate items acquired by a second hand dealer at the premises.from those obtained at garage sales or similar events. 8. Exempt animal shelters and bird rescue and education centers from restrictions on the possession and feeding of wild animals. Current Code prohibits the possession and feeding of wild animals. This change would allow the Larimer County Humane Society (located in the enclave) and other such entities to continue their services. 9. Pursue actions to address specif c concerns regarding road funding and neighborhood road connections. Some local roads in the area are deteriorating and in the South College commercial area some are failing. Business and property owners want them repaired. Work will need to be done to determine ifadjacent property owners are willing to pursue a Special Improvement District to fund the street repairs. Staff can work with property owners to customize the design of the streets. In the future, property owners could also consider whether or not to form an Urban Renewal Authority to help fund infrastructure improvements. Phased Annexation Primarily because the resources needed to serve the entire enclave are limited at this point in time, staff believes that it would be in the best interests of the City if the annexation of the Enclave were to take effect over a period of several years. This recommendation is reinforced by the fact that certain `outlying" portions of the enclave, especially those adjacent to or near the City's natural areas, are still more rural in character than otherportions ofthe Enclave, such as the South College frontage areas. Staffs recommendation is that the annexation of the South College frontage area should take effect immediately, not only because that portion of the Enclave is the most urban in its character, but also because: a. It forms the southernmost entrance to the City, which makes it imperative that the City begin to apply its land use standards, including design standards, to the area in order to create an attractive gateway to the City and to promote the economic development of the City, b. It generates significantly more tax revenues than the rest of the Enclave because development in the area is primarily commercial, which means that the revenues 141 July 18, 2006 jirom the area will make it more feasible.for the City to fund and provide critical services to the area, such as police services; C. It generally has a higher crime rate than the rest of the Enclave, which makes the provision of urban level law enforcement services in the area more time sensitive than in the rest of the Enclave; and d. It requires fewer city funded amenities such as recreational and cultural facilities because of its non-residential nature. Under this approach, the annexation resolution and ordinance will describe the entire Enclave. Since state law provides that annexations do not take effect until the annexation map is filed with the County Clerk and Recorder, the annexation maps will be recorded over a period ofyears so as to phase in the annexation. The annexation ordinance will authorize and direct the City Manager to immediately record only that portion of the Enclave that consists of the South College frontage areas. It would further authorize and direct the City Manager to bring back as many as three additional phases of the Enclave, separately described on subsequent maps, in orderfor Council to approve the recording of the maps for those phases at such time as the City Manager believes that those additional portions of the Enclave should be annexed, taking into consideration the factors that will be set forth in the annexation ordinance. " Mayor Hutchinson stated the two Resolutions would be discussed together and there would be separate motions and votes on the Resolutions. Cameron Gloss, Current Planning Director, stated the Council would be considering an initiating Resolution for the Southwest Enclave Annexation. The Resolution would direct the City Clerk to publish notice of the City's intent to annex. This was not the public hearing on the annexation and the public hearing was scheduled for September 5, 2006. He presented visual information showing the area of the annexation, which was completely surrounded by land within the City limits. The Enclave was created over a period of time since the 1970s and the encirclement was completed in the last decade. There had been City Council discussion and media coverage about the creation of the Enclave which occurred due to other annexations in 2001. The Enclave annexation was permitted under the State statutes (Section 31-12-106) without the consent of property owners and the State Constitution also permitted enclave annexations. State law permitted the City to initiate an annexation after the property had been surrounded for three years. The vision for the City was embodied in City Plan (the City's Comprehensive Plan) and acknowledged through the intergovernmental agreement with Larimer County. The agreement gave the City the opportunity to pursue annexations as they became available. The Structure Plan Map in City Plan showed a serious of land uses and designations within this area that roughly corresponded to the existing development pattern. This area was largely developed and corresponding zoning was being proposed. The City went through an extensive outreach process over the last two years (19 meetings) and developed a series ofninemitigation measures, which had been discussed at a Council work session. The mitigation measures included a monthly phasing of stormwater fees, a partial subsidy of the surface rights fee to Poudre Valley REA, and City-wide changes to some land use restrictions. One mitigation measure related to street connections. The fiscal impact of the 142 July 18, 2006 annexation had been discussed at length in work sessions. Without the mitigation measures, the projected expenditures and revenues would roughly match in the first year. The majority of the revenues would be non -General Fund and many of the expenditures, such as police services, must come from the General Fund. He noted much of the revenue would come from part of the Enclave area (the Kel-Mar strip and several subdivisions). Staff was proposing that the Council consider phased annexations of up to four phases and the first phase would be along College Avenue. The reasons to proceed with the first phase were financial benefit to the City; enhancement of the southern gateway into the City; a higher level of law enforcement; the fair and equitable capture of fees for needed infrastructure improvements such as storm drainage, streets, etc.; and this is the area with the most urban character. The phasing plan included the identification of a specific time frame and giving the City Manager discretion to delay or expedite future annexation phases depending on circumstances such as the financial impact to the City, proposed developments, etc. The ultimate authority would be with the City Council to decide whether the phasing would change. The next steps included a transition committee and the presentation of an agenda item to Council on September 5 composed of an annexation ordinance and a zoning ordinance. Mitigation measures would be addressed in separate Code amendments or in the annexation ordinance. Staff was recommending that the annexation be initiated. Mark Radtke, Legislative Affairs Coordinator, stated the second Resolution created a Transition Committee. This was being brought forward because of the passage of HB 1159 at the last session of the Legislature. The City supported that bill and, although the measure would not take effect until September 1, wanted to create a Transition Committee to continue to work with the City. There had been extensive community meetings and two-way communications with the residents and business owners in the Enclave area. The work of the Transition Committee would be an extension of that effort. Mayor Hutchinson noted the two Resolutions would initiate the annexation and create the Transition Committee. Council would address the zoning, annexation and mitigation measures on September 5. City Manager Atteberry stated there were a number of citizens who had signed up to speak on the issue and one group had a PowerPoint presentation to make. He noted that this group had asked to speak first. Mayor Hutchinson stated each audience participant would have three minutes to speak. Joe Collins, 839 Langdale Drive, Kel-Mar strip business owner, stated he was a member of the Citizens Against Forced Annexation and opposed the proposed annexation. The annexation would be the largest forced annexation in Colorado, encompassing 18 distinct neighborhoods and 3,100 residents. There were over 60 small businesses in the area. The people in this area did not want to be part of the City and over 97% of the people attending the City -sponsored meetings were against the forced annexation. There were no benefits identified that would compensate the citizens for "usurping their property rights." The City staff had acknowledged that a subarea plan was necessary but it would be done after the annexation. Forced annexation was not required to control nonconforming development. The two primary reasons given for proceeding with this annexation 143 July 18, 2006 werethe need to uphold the intergovernmental agreement with the County —which the City had done — and equality and equity issues. He presented visual information showing open space and the targeted annexation area and stated the area was not surrounded by urban service recipients. Sandra Robbins, 5801 South Shields Street, property owner and resident of the Enclave area, addressed the equity issue. The Enclave residents had been told that, because they drive into Fort Collins and use its services, they should be part of Fort Collins. She stated this argument would logically apply to all Larimer County residents as well as those residing in other communities who shop or work in Fort Collins. The definition of "equity" was "the state of being just, impartial and fair." This City action did not meet that definition. It was pointed out at the last Council work session that the homes in the Enclave would be annexed without having to pay impact fees but a large percentage of homes in Fort Collins never paid impact fees because they were built before the imposition of such fees. She stated homeowners, business owners and property owners in the Enclave bought or signed leases without any disclosure that they were in an area designated to be annexed. The majority in the Enclave wanted to live or do business in the County with fewer regulations and less expense. She questioned whether the City had examined the policies of other Colorado cities and pointed out some of the enclave policies of Colorado Springs, Florence, Lakewood and Boulder. She stated a plan had never been shown to those in the Enclave. Paul McGinty, 5739 Bueno Drive, resident and business owner in the Enclave, stated the City was claiming the area would receive lower electrical rates, installation of underground electrical lines without charge and "only" a 5% additional charge above the rates paid by current City residents to help pay back the REA. Anyone who "runs anything other than light bulbs" would pay more for City power than they pay for REA power because the break-even was around 1,200 kilowatts. At the City's posted rates his business would pay 24% or more for City power and his two smaller meters would pay 38-59% more due to the City's added demand charge. His actual June bill for REA was $1,656 and the equivalent City bill would be $2,053. REA had worked with him to reduce his cost on a "time of use" basis and this would not be possible on the City demand rates. He would be required to pay at least 70% of the highest demand of the past 11 months because the City determined the peak after it occurs. His monthly electricity bill could increase to over $4,000 per month if the forced annexation takes place. He and other small businesses could not afford City electricity. Many of the subdivisions in the Enclave already had underground electric lines and those in the City did not pay for undergrounding, which meant this was not a "better deal" to the Enclave. No time line for providing underground lines had been provided. Charging the y%additional charge had been presented as a "grand offer." This was "just plain wrong." Joann Malara, 2701 Blackstone Court, small business owner on the Kel-Mar strip, spoke regarding estimated General Fund shortfalls and the possibility of more fees to address the shortfalls. Those "targeted" to help pay those fees have not received information on such fees. It appeared the businesses were expected to pay 64% of the transportation fees collected. City estimates for costs and revenues associated with this annexation have ranged from losing $15 million to making a few hundred thousand. Information presented earlier this year showed a break even point in 2019. She questioned how much the City would lose before that point. Other information showed the City would break even in 2011 if the City started with phase 1. She questioned how much the City would lose over the next 5 1/2 years for just the phase 1 annexation. She also questioned whether this 144 July 18, 2006 information would be presented before or after annexation. The City had not shown its current residents how it would handle revenue and expenses within the current City limits. It was "irresponsible" to annex more land at this time. Randy Fresh, 1300 LaEda Lane, Enclave resident, stated County residents did not pay any stormwater fees and the City was offering a graduated increase, starting with 20% and increasing 20% per year thereafter, to those in the forced annexation area. He questioned who was making up the balance. Staff had indicated it would be "absorbed" and there were no plans for any stormwater projects in the southwest area. When Enclave residents asked why they would have to pay when they would not receive any benefit they were told "because you drive on the City streets." There would be no change or benefit to the area if they had to pay the stormwater fee and questioned where the money would go. County property owners paid a mill levy directly to the Poudre Fire Authority operations and maintenance, while City property owners were assessed a higher mill levy that goes directly into the General Fund. The City had canceled its payment formula arrangement with PFA and PEA was now receiving less than expected from the City for facilities and personnel. The newspaper had indicated that, due to the budget shortfall, PFA may be required to reduce its budget by 10%, cut 13 positions in the next 18 months and close Fire Station #10. If the southwest area was forcibly annexed, PEA may have to reduce services even more since mill levies will go into the General Fund instead of directly to PEA. Response times will increase if the Fire Station is closed and this will increase homeowners' insurance. He questioned whether funds would be transferred to PFA on a timely basis to ensure adequate fire protection in the Enclave area and to ensure that insurance rates would not increase. Jeff Alley, 2751 Silver Fox Road, downtown restaurant owner, expressed concerns about the financial impact of the annexation on his business and the services provided to his business. He noted the Police Chief had stated if this annexation was approved there would be an increased need for 10 full-time police officers and two full-time staff members. The Police Chief indicated those annexed would demand a higher level of service from law enforcement officers. If the annexation was approved there would be increased demands on the Fort Collins Police Department that would "cause a crisis" that could only be solved by decreasing police services across Fort Collins or increasing revenues in the form of taxes. The City would probably choose the latter option to cover budget shortfalls. The citizens of Fort Collins did not want to suffer decreased police services to support this annexation and the small business owners did not want tax increases to support the annexation. He asked Council to stop the annexation now. Karen Rose, 318 Saturn Drive, homeowner in the annexation area, stated the City annexed open space outside of the Growth Management Area in spite of the language of the intergovernmental agreement with the County. The City did not own a lot of that open space because it was not paid for yet or because it was still partially owned by the County. The petitioners for the Coyote Ridge annexation (the City Manager and the Chair of the County Commissioners) alleged "the area to be annexed is urban or will be urbanized in the near future." This area was not an enclosed enclave even with the annexation of the natural areas. Trades were made with the County and with Loveland for two strips of land connected to, and parallel to, Taft Hill Road. One 30-foot-wide strip was connected to the landfill and was deeded to the City as public highway. This was known as the Coyote Ridge 1 st Annexation of Open Space amounting to .54 acres. The second strip was also 145 July 18, 2006 deeded as public highway and it was 150 feet wide and amounted to an acre. Together they created a continuous strip of land from the intersection of South Taft Hill Road and Trilby Road to the Cathy Fromme Prairie Open Space. The minutes for the officials showed no mention that these small narrow strips were needed and would be used to enclose the Southwest Enclave. The Resolution indicated annexation maps would be recorded over a period of years to phase in the annexation. Citizens Against Forced Annexation believed there should be a vote on this annexation. This annexation would not benefit the Enclave or the City. Neil Hurst, 5221 Griffith Drive, Fossil Creek Meadows, stated it was not "justice" to force City government upon this area against their will. He asked the Council to "serve justice" by not forcing this annexation. There would be "consequences of redevelopment' on this Enclave i.e., small businesses would be driven out due to taxes, fees and regulations and something bigger would be built. Bruce Kirk, 5740A South College Avenue, owner of Active Arms Gun Shop in the Enclave, stated he did a lot of the maintenance and reconditioning of firearms for the Fort Collins Police Department. If this annexation went through he would like to arrange a meeting with the Police Chief and the Mayor to discuss the subject. Mindy Cooper, 428 West Skyway Drive, Enclave resident, stated residents had been told they would have better law enforcement and response time if the property was annexed. The national average was two police officers for every 1,000 residents and that Fort Collins had 1.2 police officers for every 1,000 residents two years ago and was now down to 1.1. The ratio would continue to decline as more people were annexed. She asked how much the City had spent to do this forced annexation during this deficit situation. She also expressed concern that there would be a slower response time for the Fire Department. She stated the "Choice City' should allow choice about whether to be in the City. Tim Kinney, 5711 White Willow Drive, business owner in the South 13 Subdivision, stated the oppositionhad organized the "New Boston Tea Party" to oppose the annexation and taxation without representation. The group would continue to "fight this attempt to annex in any and all ways available to us and in relation to any and all of your City functions and responsibilities." The Council had a choice to make: (1) to lead "negatively' by ignoring the rights of property owners and voters by using the annexation of open space to "entrap" residents into the City and by using newly "entrapped" property owners to "try to shore up your past and future deficits," or (2) to lead "positively" by "creating fiscally responsible plans and analysis marketing the benefits of being within a City" and by "creating true incentives" to bring people into the jurisdiction. A] Baccili, 520 Galaxy Court, spoke in opposition to the Enclave Annexation. He questioned how additional police officers and fire protection could be provided for this area. Councilm ember Ohl son asked staff to provide answers to some of the questions posed by the citizens in as timely a manner as possible. He also asked if staff wanted to present any clarifications to anything that had been said and he requested clarification regarding the mill levy. City Manager Attebeny stated staff would respond to each of the questions and noted that many of the questions MU July 18, 2006 asked had already received a response. This was a situation in which people did not accept the response. Staff had done its best to respond with "integrity" and "consistency." From staffs viewpoint this was a long term land use policy decision. He had numerous conversations with the County about this issue and County representatives at the work session supported this annexation. The mitigation efforts that were part of this process, and the process itself, were "unprecedented." The City had tried to "listen" to concerns and respond. This was an "orderly progression of urban - level development" that was consistent with City Master Plans and the City's long term regional partnership and agreement with Larimer County. It was the City's intent to recommend, as revenues came in for this first phase, the "reinvestment" of those revenues into the Police Department to provide an "appropriate level of policing services in that area." The Police Chief had expressed concerns about the period of time between the effective date of the annexation and collection of a full years worth of tax revenues. The City would cover those costs through overtime or shifting of resources. The revenues that would come in from the first phase would adequately cover policing services in the area. New officers would be hired as a result of the annexation. The national standard for police officers referenced by one speaker was the standard from Connecticut to California and was not a standard the City had ever tried to follow. There were currently 1.14 police officers per 1,000 residents. The City was working to increase the ratio of police officers. Policing levels would be increased in this area above the level provided by the Sheriff s Office. Councilmember Ohlson asked if the City's mill levy was last increased about 24 years ago. City Manager Atteber y stated he believed the mill levy was last increased in 1981 or 1984 but he would confirm the correct date. Councilmember Ohlson stated the natural areas purchases had nothing to do with the potential annexation and arguments about the City buying the natural areas to surround the Enclave did not help the position expressed by the annexation opponents. Prior to the consideration of the annexation ordinance he would like further information on the annexation of the two strips of property referenced by one of the speakers. The open space purchases had nothing to do with encircling an enclave. He opposed the annexation of the open spaces into the City at the time they were acquired. City Manager Atteberry stated staff would respond under separate cover to the question about the annexation of the two strips of property. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she was a member of the Planning and Zoning Board at the time of the Coyote Ridge Annexation and that the biggest issue was Cityregulation and enforcement over the open space. She stated there were undoubtedly Board minutes on file that would cover that discussion. She stated encircling the enclave was neverpart of the discussion. She stated the records on the Coyote Ridge Annexation should be detailed and extensive. Mayor Hutchinson supported Councilmember Ohlson's suggestion to have staff answer the questions that were brought up during citizen participation on this agenda item. He noted there was time to have the questions answered under separate cover prior to the hearing on the annexation and zoning ordinances. He expressed concern that one of the speakers implied that the Council would divert Poudre Fire Authority tax levies to the General Fund. Councilmember Kastein asked if it was true that the boundary between City and County law 147 July 18, 2006 enforcement was somewhat "fuzzy" because both agencies could respond to calls in either jurisdiction. City Manager Atteberry stated that was true since the two agencies offered mutual aid to each other. Councilmember Kastein asked what would change regarding law enforcement if the area was annexed. City Manager Atteberry stated the City was working with the Sheriffs Office on the "logical transition of services." The City would have primary jurisdiction over the area and the Sheriff would continue to provide mutual aid if needed in the area. It would take about a year to hire and train a police officer and, until new officers were on the street, the City would fill the gap with overtime officers or redeployed officers. Councilmember Kastein noted the "need" would not change when the area was annexed and the service levels would continue at the current level until revenues could be collected to boost those levels of service to City levels. City Manager Atteberry stated that was correct. Councilmember Kastein stated the agenda material indicated that annexation would "enhance the southernmost gateway to the City." He asked for clarification since "nothing would change on Day 1." He noted this really meant that, over time, when redevelopment occurs, it will occur to City standards. Gloss stated as redevelopment occurred it would be done to higher City standards for site design, landscape design, and other urban design elements. This would have a positive impact on the southern gateway to the community. Councilmember Kastein pointed out there appeared to be a fear the City would force redevelopment and this would not happen. The City could not "cause" redevelopment to occur. When redevelopment occurs it should be done to City standards. City Manager Atteberry stated redevelopment was always a private property owner's decision. The gateway could be enhanced in other ways i.e., something like the Building on Basics projects being done with capital dollars on North College Avenue. Councilmember Kastein asked for clarification regarding the statement in the agenda material which indicated the City would underground utilities at no cost. Gloss stated there would be no cost to the Enclave residents and businesses that would benefit from the service. City Manager Atteberry stated it was expensive to underground City utilities. He noted that past Councils decided to underground the electric utilities and the ratepayers in general paid for such undergrounding throughout the entire City. Councilmember Kastein stated the estimated cost for undergrounding was $2.5 million for the Enclave. He asked how this would affect everyone's utility bills overtime. City Manager Atteberry stated staff would provide that information under separate cover. Councilmember Kastein noted the firearms shop owner could arrange a meeting with the Mayor and staff at any time. Council had asked questions about the ability of a firearms dealer to test weapons in the City. City Manager Atteberry stated staff had concerns about allowing this for one individual business and he would be happy to meet with the firearms shop owner. 148 July 18, 2006 Councilmember Kastein stated all of the information he had seen indicated that every use would get a discount when they were served by the City utilities. He wanted more information relating to the bill one speaker had indicated would go up from $2,400 to $4,000. He wanted to make sure that particular question was covered in the staff responses to citizen questions. Councilmember Kastein asked what the General Fund impact would be to the City in the first year after annexation. City Manager Atteberry stated information would be provided in writing. The predominant impacts would be to Police Services and that was why he was suggesting earmarking those dollars for that service area. The service area directors felt other costs could be absorbed with little impact. Mayor Hutchinson stated the issue was initiation of the annexation. The mitigation issues were presented to remind everyone that the City had made an "extraordinary good faith effort" to hear concerns and to mitigate any problems. This unusual action was justified because this was an "unusual situation" due to the size of the Enclave. The mitigation items were not directly relevant at this time. Councilmember Manvel stated it was true that many houses in Fort Collins, including his, had never paid impact fees. It was true the City was interested in collecting impact fees from new housing. It was not true the City was doing this annexation for "financial gain." The Council knew that initially this would be a "financial burden" for the City. The first phase was not a financial burden and could be "close to a wash." The City would "lose money" during future annexation phases. Residential areas generally were not "moneymakers" for the City but City wanted to go forward with the annexation because of the agreement with Larimer County to annex areas on a timely basis after they became eligible for annexation. The other factor was that much of the Enclave was in the midst of City development. He believed Council did not want to defer this issue to a future Council. This was a "problem -solving Council" and the southwest area was a "problem" because it was an "urban - type area" inside an urban -type area and the County did not want to service this type of area. This annexation would happen at some point if it was not done now and that it would not "get easier." Councilmember Brown stated several speakers referred to a Library District and how they would be paying more taxes if the measure was passed by the voters. He asked for clarification that everyone living in the Poudre School District would be voting on the Library District whether they lived in or out of the City. City Manager Atteberry stated that was correct. Councilmember Ohlson asked for clarification that a map showing the phases of the annexation would be presented when the first phase of the annexation was considered. City Manager Atteberry stated staff would be clear about when each phase would occur and under what conditions the City would not move forward or would expedite a phase. Councilmember Manvel asked for clarification that future phases would not be in the City until those annexations occurred i.e., when the areas were annexed the residents would be able to vote. City Manager Atteberry stated was correct. ("Secretary's Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point.) 149 July 18, 2006 Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Resolution 2006-077. Councilmember Weitkunat stated this would direct the City Clerk to publish notice and to begin the process. She stated the actual annexation would not be considered until September. Mayor Hutchinson stated First Reading of the annexation ordinance would be on September 5 and that Second Reading would be two to four meetings after that. Councilmember Manvel stated this process should move forward. Councilmember Ohlson stated cities annex property for various reasons. Pockets of areas that had not been annexed did not work well in metropolitan areas. There were also fairness issues relating to sharing payments for various facilities. Good land use planning was also a reason to annex. The County was creating "pockets of urban development" that had environmental and agricultural impacts. He would be voting to move forward with this Resolution to start the process and his vote on the annexation itself could change depending on the answers to the questions that had been expressed. He was interested in information on the reason for the City's purchase of the two strips of property that had been discussed. Councilmember Roy stated the Resolution was to initiate the annexation and the intergovernmental agreement with Larimer County required the City to pursue annexation of any parcel eligible for involuntary annexation. The City was working to understand the concerns of the residents of the enclave. He would support the Resolution. Councilmember Kastein stated he would support the Resolution to initiate annexation proceedings and he would look forward to hearing the answers to the questions that had been asked. The Council had a responsibility to annex the open lands owned by the City to allow police protection to be provided. The City had a responsibility to comply with the agreement with the County. The agreement was made for "efficiency of government." The City was set up to deal with urban level development and the County was not. It was important that development in the area take place to City standards. It was important for this area to become part of the City. Councilmember Brown stated he would vote in favor of the motion. He had concerns about the actual costs to the people in the Enclave and he would like to hear the staff response to the questions that had been asked. Mayor Hutchinson stated this issue related to "community building." The County did not collect taxes to provide the level of services provided by the City. He would support the motion. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. 150 July 18, 2006 Councilmember Ohlson asked how Southwest Enclave Annexation Transition Committee members would be selected. City Manager Atteberry stated the Resolution would authorize him to appoint five citizen positions and two staff positions. Councilmember Ohlson asked if there could be a process to ensure that everyone could apply. Radtke stated the purpose of the Committee, according to the statute, was to provide a communications conduit between the Enclave citizens and the City. Staff would continue to work with everyone on the issue to ensure that two-way communication would continue. City Manager Atteberry stated he would welcome Council 's thoughts on how to accomplish a balanced Committee. He could get back to Council on how appointments will be made. Councilmember Ohlson believed that some of the "leaders" should be appointed whether or not they were "contentious." Councilmember Weitkunat stated this Committee was being created to ensure a dialogue on the annexation. It was important to have a "diverse" group on the Committee to help the City work through some of the remaining questions. Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adopt Resolution 2006-078. Councilmember Kastein stated he would like to see a "balanced" Committee. Mayor Hutchinson stated the City was responding to an "extraordinary situation" in "extraordinary" ways. The City was committed to communicating effectively. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 2006-079 Approving the 2006 Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport Master Plan, Adopted. The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport Master Plan is a policy document that assesses needs and proposes physical improvements to accommodatefuture aviation needs at the airport. The Fort Collins -Loveland Airport has been in continuous operation since its construction in 1964. Overall Master Planning had been completed for the airport, but hasn't been updated since 1993. The Federal Aviation Administration requires periodic updates to the master plan as a condition of eligibility for Federal grants. Theplan represents a compendium ofpotential improvements based 151 July 18, 2006 on assumptions about the ongoing and, future uses. The document does not commit the Citv to find or underzal e any of the listed items. Those decisions maybe made $v the Council in the.fature. Terms of the agreement between Loveland and Fort Collins to jointly operate and improve the airport state that the two cities have joint policy making authority on airport matters. The Master Plan Update has been conducted under the direction ofthe Cities olFort Collins and Loveland, Kith financial assistance from the Federal Aviation .Administration (FAA) and the Colorado Department of ransportationDivisiono/Aeronautics. BACKGROUND Introduction As a general aviation and commercial service airport, Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport serves as an important niche as a transportation infrastructure component for the two cities and the northern Colorado region. An overall master planning study of Airport facilities has not been completed since 1993. During that time, aviation issues on a local, regional and national level have changed. The re-evaluation of these issues in the Master Plan Update involved an understanding ofexisting and likelyfuture aviation needs. The Master Plan Update is intended to address a variety of concerns with the formulation of a long-range physical development plan for the Airport; the primary goal is the continued improvement of the Airport in a manner that is financially realistic and that is appropriate in consideration of its surroundings. The Master Plan Update has been conducted under the direction of the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland, with financial assistance from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Colorado Department of Transportation Division ofAeronautics. It has been prepared to assess and direct improvements that will likely be necessary to accommodate future aviation needs. Like a long-term plan for any major institutional campus (e.g., a hospital or university), the long-term development plan for an airport should reserve room for potentially needed facilities. However, those potential future facilities for which a site has been reserved are only constructed when actual demand occurs. Thus, the Airport Master Plan Update is not a decision document on whether or not an improvement will be built; it is a planning tool that indicates how the land at the Airport might best be used in consideration of anticipated future demand. The long-term development program for Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport is intended to establish a strategy to fund airport improvements and maximize the potential to receive federal and state matching funds, while also establishing a financially prudent plan for improvement funding on a local level. This programming effort is a critical component of the Master Plan Update.for the FAA, the Colorado Division ofAeronautics, and the local sponsors (the City ofFort Collins and the City of Loveland). From the FAA's perspective (keeping in mind that the FAA funded over 90% of the cost to prepare the Master Plan), the needs assessment or Capital Improvement Program (CIP) provides a detailed listing of projects and costs that are critical for their use in establishing priorities and budgeting expenditures at this Airport when compared with the needs of other airports. From the local sponsor's perspective, the needs assessment identifies improvement needs and allows budgeting/financial decisions to be made with a comprehensive understanding of 152 July 18, 2006 financial implications. All capital expenditures will require local budgeting approval. The overall concept is to maximize the opportunities to receive federal and state matching,funds, within the context of, and in recognition of, the amount of local funds that are available for capital needs. Although the needs assessment will be used for programming by the FAA, there is no.financial commitment for the federal government or the sponsor to provide funding for the CIP. If federal matching_ funds are unavailablefor a certain project during the specified time frame, the project will almost certainly be unaffordable using only local money and the improvement project will not go forward until appropriate funding is available. The long-term development plan for the Airport is described in the, following paragraphs and is graphically depicted in the attachment entitled CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. Public Process The masterplanningprocess has made use ofa Study Committee to provide input concerning airport development issues. Five Study Advisory Committee meetings have been held, along with four Public Information meetings. The purpose of the Study Committee meetings and the Public Information meetings was to gather input on the Airport and establish a concept.for future development at the Airport from a broad range of interested parties. In addition, the development of theAirport Master Plan Update has been coordinated with Airport staff the Cities ofForz Collins and Loveland staffs, the State of Colorado Division of Aeronautics, and the Federal Aviation Administration. In January 2006, a meeting to review the Master Plan Update's recommended plan was held with the Study Committee, and Public Information meetings were held to review the Master Plan Update's recommended plan. Concerns expressed at these meetings primarily related to potential for increased noise due to the increased aviation activity that is forecast at the Airport. Several citizens at the Public Information meetings expressed concerns about the proposed extension of the main runway. Development Considerations and Assumptions Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport will continue to be a busy general aviation airport with some commercial passenger service. The Airport is an important transportation facility— a center for aviation -related business which supports regional economic health. The aircraft types projected to be used at Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport, during the next 20 years, are the same types that use the Airport presently. These types include small single and twin engine prop -aircraft, larger business -use jet aircraft, and narrow body commercial passenger service jet aircraft. The number ofannual aircraft operations (landings and takeoffs) at the Airport is forecast to increase modestly during the next 20 years. The total number ofaircraft operations is forecast to increase from just over 100,000, currently, to approximately 150,000 at the end ofthe 20 year planning period covered by the Master Plan Update. The number of based aircraft at the Airport is expected to increase, from the current number of approximately 200, to 280 in twenty years. 153 July 18, 2006 Several basic assumptions were established in the Master Plan Update that are intended to direct the development of the Airport in the,future. These include: Assumption One. The Airport will be developed and operated in a manner that is consistent with local ordinances and codes, federal and state statutes, federal grant assurances, and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. Assumption Two. This assumption recognizes the role ofthe Airport. The Airport will continue to serve as a facility that accommodates primarily general aviation activity, along with limited commercial passenger service and a small amount of military activity. Assumption Three. This assumption relates to the size and type ofaircraft that utilize the Airport and the resulting setback and safety criteria used as the basis for the layout of airport facilities. Runway 15133. It has been determined that the "Design Aircraft "for this runway is the MD-83. The MD-83 is currently utilized by Allegiant Air to provide scheduled passenger service at the Airport. The MD-83 has an approach speed of 135 knots and a wingspan of 107.8 feet. This indicates that, for Runway 15133, the ARC C-III criteria will continue to be used to determine appropriate design criteria. The C-I11 designation is also appropriate because the Airport is heavily utilized by the business jet fleet, many of which have " C " or "D" approach speeds, and, the new, larger business jets (i.e., the Gulfstream G-V, Canadair Global Express, and the Boeing Business Jet) have category III wingspans. Runway 6124. Only smaller general aviation aircraft (under 12,500 pounds) use this runway. The "Design Aircraft" fleetfor this runway is made up of the single engine piston -driven general aviation aircraft (e.g., the Beech Bonanza, Cessna 172, etc). The approach speeds for these aircraft are less than 121 knots and wingspans of less than 49 feet. This indicates that this runway should be designed usingARC B-I (small aircraft only) dimensional criteria. Assumption Four. The fourth assumption relates to the need for the Airport to accommodate aircraft operations with great reliability and safety. This indicates that the Airport's runway system should be developed with instrument approach guidance capabilities and adequate runway length to accommodate the forecast operations as safely as possible under most weather conditions. Assumption Five. Landside development area at an airport is always at a premium; therefore, the fifth assumption is that the plan for future airport development should strive to make most efficient use of the available area for aviation -related activities. 154 July 18, 2006 Assumption Six The sixth assumptionfocuses on the relationship oftheAirport to off -airport land uses and the compatible and complimentary development of each. To the maximum extentpossible, future. facilities will be designed to enhance the compatibility of the operation of the Airport with the environs. Assumption Seven. A crosswind runway will be maintained at the Airport. Improvements to a crosswind runway will be identified in the capital improvementproject listing section of the document; however, it is realized that the funding for crosswind runway improvements is a low priority with the FAA for Airport Improvement Program funds. This runway will continue to serve and be improved as a taxiway. Development Recommendations Following an examination ofseveral alternatives, along with input from the Study Committee, the public, City staff, the FAA and the State of Colorado, a recommended development plan was identified. The recommended plan has the following major features: SS Main Runway. Extend the main runway (Runway 15133) I,000feet to the south; however, to minimize the extension of the southern Runway Protection Zone onto non -airport property, the extended pavement will not be used.for landings to the north. The planning justification for the extension of the runway], 000 feet to the south is to better accommodate the existing users of the Airport (the corporate jet users and Allegiant Airlines). The extended runway will allow these aircraft to operate during hot summer months with less significant weight restrictions. The types ofaircraft operating at theAirport will not change with the proposed extended runway. These improvements will only be constructed when, and if, appropriate federal matching funds are available and an extensive environmental study is completed and approved. § Crosswind Runway. Maintain the crosswind runway (Runway 6124) in its present configuration, while recognizing the needfor improvements (increased width and the potentialforparallel taxiways). These improvements will only be constructed when, and if, appropriatefederal matchingfunds are available. The crosswind runway will continue to function as a taxiway, serving the aviation use sites just east of airport property. § New Parallel Runway. Reserve the room.for the construction of new Runway 15RI33L approximately 700 feet to the west of Runway 15133. The new parallel runway would significantly increase the capacity of the airport's airside facilities and will only be constructed if actual demand occurs. The new parallel runway would be developed to accommodate regular use by small general aviation aircraft (up to the size ofsmall/medium business jets). 155 July 18, 2006 § Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT). One of the special tasks programmed as a part of this master planning effort is to identify potential sites for a new air traffic control tower (ATCT). The siting requirements for an ATCTfacility are stringent with regard to sight lines to the aircraft operating surfaces, height ofstructure, and direction of view. Because of this, there are only a limited number of appropriate sites available. From a preliminary planning analysis perspective, the best site for thefuture ATCTfacility appears to be in the southwest quadrant ofairport property. § Passenger Terminal Facilities. The existing passenger terminal facilities at the Airport are appropriately located to provide easy landside access and it is recommended that they remain in this location for the future. The area to the north and east of the existing terminal building and parking should be reserved for future passenger terminal development. From a long-term planning perspective, the passenger terminal building at the Airport could need to be as large as 15,000 square feet in thefuture. Additionally, an automobile parking area to accommodate as many as 600 automobiles should be set aside (the existing parking area accommodates 362 automobiles). Aviation -Use Facilities. Aviation -use facilities required,for aircraft operation, storage, maintenance, and safety will occupy the majority of airport property. Aviation forecasts indicate that areas should be reserved for the storage of approximately 100 additional general aviation based aircraft. Initially, future facilities should be developed in the existing general aviation development area (southeast quadrant of airport property). As demand increases, the area north of Earhart Road, east of the passenger terminal building, will be utilized for General Aviation facilities. Also, the area east ofthe main runway and north ofthe crosswind runway is availablefor aviation use structures, including general aviationfacilities. In addition to general aviation storage facilities, space must also be reserved for business activity serving general aviation. These business activities include aircraft modification facilities, fixed based operations facilities, aircraft maintenance/repair facilities, etc. Due to the nature of these commercial activities, their location should be adjacent to the main apron and they must be provided with good landside access. Development Program In overview, the Development Program for Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport calls for the retention ofexisting layout offacilities as described in previous planning documents. As described above, major airside improvements are related to a new air traffic control tower, the extension of the main runway to the south and construction ofa parallel runway. Other major improvements are related to aviation use facility development areas. During the initial development phase (the first five years of the 20 year planning period), when detailed CIP project needs can best be identired, specific improvements will include: 156 July 18, 2006 • Construction and rehabilitation of aircraft parking aprons • Runway and taxiway pavement rehabilitation and improvements • Airfield lighting and electrical improvements • General aviation hangar, access taxiway, and parking apron construction • Security fencing and gate improvements • Land acquisition • Drainage improvements • On -airport roadway, parking, and access improvements • Prepare environmental assessment for the extension ofRunway 15133 (the decision document on the construction of the runway extension) • Runway 15133 - extension, runway improvements, taxiway improvements, etc. As identified above, before the runway extension can be constructed (i.e., before the federal government can allocate matchingfunds,for the project), an Environmental Assessment must be prepared. From a federal, state and local perspective, this is the decision document on whether or not the extension should be constructed. The EnvironmentalAssessment will contain documentation on the purpose and need for the proposed improvement. Ifthe justiftcation.for the runway extension increases or decreases, from the information provided in the Master Plan, it will be reflected in the Environmental Assessment. In anticipation of the potential to construct the runway extension in Federal Fiscal Year 2011, the preparation of the Environmental Assessment for the runway extension is programmed for Federal Fiscal Year 2009. During latter stages of the planning period, the need for projects will, for the most part, be driven by demand. Likely, latter stage improvements will include pavement rehabilitation, new technology instrument approach capabilities, aircraft storage, and aircraft maintenance facilities. Summary The development plan for the Airport is a comprehensive proposal. If aviation demands continue to indicate that improvements are needed, and if the proposed improvements prove to be environmentally acceptable, the capital improvement financial implications discussed in the Master Plan Update are likely to be acceptable for the FAA and the Cities. However, it must be recognized that this is only a programming analysis and not a commitment on thepart of the Sponsors (Cities) or the FAA. If the cost of an improvement project is not.financially.feasible, it will not be initiated. On May 17, 2006 the Fort Collins Transportation Board passed a motion 8— 0 recommending that the City Council adopt the Draft Airport Master Plan document. On May 18, 2006 the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board passed a motion 7-0 recommending that the City Council adopt the Draft Airport Master Plan document. The Master Plan update was previously distributed to Council on compact disc. A copy is on file at the City Clerk's office." City Manager Atteberry introduced the agenda item. 157 July 18, 2006 Don Bachman, Interim Transportation Services Director, stated the Resolution would adopt the 2006 update to the Fort Collins -Loveland Airport Master Plan. The Plan was developed in collaboration with the City of Loveland in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration standards. Dave Gordon, Airport Manager, stated the purpose of the study was to update the 13 year -old Master Plan. He stated the study would provide a guide and forecast for the next 20 years. He stated the FAA provided 90% of the cost to do the study and half of the remaining 10% was funded by a grant from the State of Colorado. He stated the study process included four public meetings and five study advisory committee meetings. He stated the scope of project work included a 20 year forecast of activities, a site study for a control tower, a hangar development plan, an airport master drainage study, development of airport minimum standards, revisions to the Airport's current rules and regulations, land use compatibility analysis, recommendations for compatible land use revisions, and capital improvement needs. The FAA would review the Master Plan and comment on the Airport layout plan documents once the Master Plan was approved by the Cities. Mark McFarland, consultant, presented an overview of the study's findings. The Master Plan was a long term physical development plan for the Airport and was not a decision document on whether any particular facility would be built. He stated the Master Plan was also a development strategy that maximized the City's potential to receive State and federal funds and established a financially prudent capital improvement plan for the import. There was no local, state or federal financial commitment implied through adoption of the Master Plan. Facility construction would take place when an actual (rather than forecasted) demand occurred, when there was a favorable environmental determination of the impacts that might be caused by a certain improvement, and only if the improvement was financially feasible. The basis for the recommendations were anticipation of moderate growth in activity of the Airport; an assumption that the role of the Airport as a general aviation airport with some commercial service activity is not going to change; and an expectation that there would be no changes in the fleet of aircraft operating at the Airport. There were no "extraordinary" changes in the new Master Plan compared to the existing Master Plan. The main differences in the two plans was a proposal for 1,000 foot runway extension on the south end of the runway, site identification for an air traffic control tower, and a layout update for the general aviation and commercial passenger service landside facilities. The focus of the short term improvements identified in the plan was maintenance and rehabilitation of existing facilities. There were land use planning recommendations for areas around the Airport based on where noise and overflights were likely to occur. The Master Plan presented a set of physical improvement recommendations to complement the Airport's existing business model. Gordon stated the Loveland City Council had adopted the Master Plan. Mayor Hutchinson stated each audience participant would have three minutes to speak. David May, Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce, stated the Chamber of Commerce supported the adoption of this Resolution because the Airport was an important part of the transportation infrastructure. He noted there would be opportunities to debate and decide on individual improvements at the local government level. 158 July 18, 2006 J. J. Johnston, President of the Northern Colorado Economic Development Corporation, spoke in support of the Resolution. He stated the Airport provided critical support to the ability to attract and retain primary employers to theregional community and the abilityto develop the regional economy. He spoke in support of the runway extension and control tower improvements and supported adoption of a formal business plan for the Airport. The NCEDC was offering its research partnership with CSU to provide customized sampling of candidate general aviation and corporate business. NCEDC would also like to help organize a task force of business leaders to provide input regarding the Airport. Will Geiger, 8226 Golden Eagle Road, Steering Committee of Airport Neighbors member, stated his group was formed to ensure that the Master Plan reflected the concerns of the residents of the area. Residents were worried about unintended consequences of building facilities to support commercial traffic. Increased flights would impact the quality of life in the area. Residents would like to keep the Airport as it has been in the past. Fort Collins and Loveland had allowed many residential developments around the Airport and residents made their decisions to live there based on the types of planes that have been flying there (small private aircraft and a few corporate jets). Expansion of the Airport for "noisy commercial traffic' should be prevented and the Airport should remain a small, general aviation airport. If the runway was extended Allegiant Air would put more people and fuel on the plane and the safety margin would be no different than it is today. A longer runway was not necessarily a safer runway. His group would like to know how the details of the plan would come before the Council in the future. Stephen Hayne, 1411 Red Oak Court, stated his neighborhood was in the flight path of many aircraft landing at the Airport. He understood the Airport was an "economic driver" for the region and he supported adoption of the Master Plan. It was needed to allow the Airport to go after federal funding to improve the Airport infrastructure as needed. Dan Olson, 3281 Rookery Road, Fossil Lake Ranch, spoke in support of adoption of the Master Plan. He stated the "target market" for this airport was corporate aviation. The runway extension was important for corporate aviation. Noise was an issue in his neighborhood and the runway extension to the south as a displace threshold would improve the noise situation on the Fort Collins side for departures. The plan was a vision for the future and Council would be able to study each choice fully as improvements were proposed. Chuck Carpenter, 848 Sandy Cove Lane, spoke in support of the Master Plan. He stated the Airport was needed for general and corporate aviation and that it was a primary economic driver for the City. He urged the Council to adopt the Resolution. Colleen Drysdale, 3609 Wild View Drive, spoke in opposition to the Master Plan due to quality of life issues. She stated the runway extension would compromise quality of life for residents in the southeast part of the City. She was concerned that noisy flights would be allowed 24 hours a day if the runway was extended. 159 July 18, 2006 Jennifer Carpenter, 848 Sandy Cove Lane, supported the Master Plan. She stated the Airport was economically important to the City. Planning for the future does not cause growth and instead provides a way to manage growth within a framework for decision -making. Don Morris, 4309 Wellington Drive, spoke regarding the usefulness of the Airport and spoke in support of the Master Plan. He stated the plan would satisfy the needs of many people. The noise impact of the Airport had been declining every year as the jets continued to get quieter. He asked the Council to support the Master Plan. Tom Barlow, 5631 Red Willow Court, supported adoption of the Master Plan to move forward with management of the Airport. Dennis Spencer, 8226 Golden Eagle Drive, Airport Neighbors member, stated the Airport influence area had been increased slightly since the 1998 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. In the new plan noise would not be determined by a "single -event noise" level but would be determined by an "annualized noise" level. More than twenty 100 decibel events each lasting one minute everyday of the year would not raise the decibel level by one decibel. The Master Plan would mean citizens would have no protection whatsoever against any noise level generated by the Airport. He requested that the measure be changed back to a "single -event noise limit." Steve McClintock, 3201 Sumac Street, founding member of the Friends of F&L Pilot Association, asked the Council to support the Master Plan. He stated the "noise footprint" would get smaller with new technology. The 1,000 foot runway extension would mean a quieter noise footprint. Lisa McKeag, President of the Fort Collins -Loveland Jet Center, expressed support for all aspects of the Master Plan. She also spoke in support of the runway extension to meet corporate aviation needs. Don Skaggs, 7213 Streamside Drive, opposed the Master Plan due to noise concerns. He stated the Airport affected the quality of life for most of the southeast part of town. Lee Bradford, 3240 Sagewater Court, Fossil Lake Ranch, stated he purchased his home because it was outside of the Airport area of influence. He stated Airport growth had negative impacts on his home and expressed concerns about aircraft violating FAA flight rules by flying too low over populated areas. Aircraft also constantly violated the published Fort Collins -Loveland Airport flight paths. This Airport had never been profitable and it would continue to be an "economic burden" until it gets to 200,000 to 250,000 enplanements. He stated the runway extension would be to allow Allegiant Airlines to fly 14 more people to Las Vegas during the summer months only. He questioned spending $6 - $10 million in public funds for a runway extension. Gil Kiefer, 6232 Westchase Road, expressed concern regarding the quality of the Master Plan. He stated the consulting team did "due diligence" to put in up-to-date maps of the region showing schools and hospitals in the flight zone. The plan indicated there were over 260 operations per day in and out of the Airport and this number was off by a factor of about 300. The forecast numbers differed from the actual numbers for previous years. The Airport would never be financially feasible 160 July 18, 2006 because the number of enplanements required to do that would never be reached. There were a number of unknowns and the known information was misstated or misrepresented. The plan was based on "very old data" and questioned how a good decision could be made. Mayor Hutchinson asked how much the City of Fort Collins put into the Airport each year. City Manager Atteberry stated the figure was $60,000 per year and this was matched by the City of Loveland. Councilmember Ohlson stated he would like to understand how so many different developments were built in the influence zone or in areas that were impacted by the Airport. He asked if there was any staff response to the comments from Mr. Kiefer about data discrepancies. City Manager Atteberry stated he would ask Greg Byrne to provide information relating to land use decision - making in the Airport area. He was aware the City was notified of land use applications in the area. Gordon stated a thorough analysis was done of the land use element and he would ask the consultant to address both questions. McFarland stated the maps in the plan came from a 2004 map and it was intended to be "generalized" rather than detailed. Aerial data and photography were used for the majority of the maps included in the plan. The oldest photographs used were from 2003 and the newest photography was done by the County last year. He stated there was a comment early in the process that the topography map used as the base for air space drawings was outdated but this map was only intended to show topography. The FAA specified that USGS quadrangle maps should be used and the desired information was gross topography at 10-foot contour intervals. The study started out with 2003 historical data from Airport counts. The 2004 data was the last year of historical data. The numbers were close for employment data for 2004, 2005 and 2006. Councilmember Ohlson stated he would like to see "simple maps" showing the developments that had been allowed in areas impacted by the Airport "contrary to adopted policies." Gordon stated the City of Loveland Land Use Planning Office produced a document showing the existing land use plan influence area compared with the new influence area. The two were "very similar" in size and boundaries. Councilmember Brown stated the presentation indicated this was not a "decision document." He asked about the process to bring individual improvement projects forward at a future time. City Manager Atteberry stated the adoption of the Master Plan did not speak to the adoption of various items in the plan. If an improvement project was brought forward at a fixture time the Councils of both Cities would be asked to appropriate dollars for the project. Adoption of the Master Plan did not guarantee anything included in the plan. Gordon stated Airport capital projects would have to be approved by both Councils as part of their budget processes and any acceptance of FAA or state grant money must be approved by both City Councils. This Master Plan did not grant any blanket approval for any projects. City Manager Atteberry asked if an environmental assessment would be required for the runway extension or the tower. Gordon stated the runway extension and parallel runway would require a complete environmental assessment study. The tower would probably would also require such a study. City Manager Atteberry stated the Council would be the decision - making body on any project. 161 July 18, 2006 Councilmember Brown asked if the 1,000 feet for the runway extension was an arbitrary number. McFarland stated the 1,000 feet came from the benefit that would be provided to the aircraft fleet (corporate and commercial service) operating at the Airport. He stated 1,000 feet would allow aircraft to take off under most conditions with a full load of passengers and fuel. Councilmember Brown asked if fewer feet would allow corporate jets to fly more efficiently while limiting the commercial flights. McFarland stated a needs assessment would be done as part of the environmental study to justify the project and the needs assessment might show that a shorter extension would be sufficient. The Master Plan was indicating that 1,000 feet was the maximum proper length to "reserve." Councilmember Brown asked if the determining factor for the runway was the weight of the aircraft it would handle. Gordon stated the pavement strength would limit the weight of the aircraft using the Airport. The Master Plan did not forecast overlaying the runway to increase the weight capacity. The Cities could say no to an aircraft that was too heavy for the pavement. Councilmember Brown asked if the increased length of the runway would change the noise footprint. McFarland stated it would change where the aircraft noise would occur to some degree. It would have some "positive effect" on the noise to the north. Councilmember Brown asked if tower would help control the flight paths. Gordon stated the tower would provide positive control within a radius of the Airport and would help the flight path problems. It would not provide a guarantee that planes would not fly over homes. It would provide a "safer environment.." Councilmember Brown asked if there was a way to limit the commercial flights out of the Airport. Gordon stated it was a public airport subsidized by federal funds. The grant agreements provided that the Airport would not discriminate against people wanting to use the Airport. The Airport had a certificate allowing commercial service activity. If another airline wanted to come in, provided there were facilities for that, it would be discrimination to deny access, assuming the aircraft was not too heavy. The Airport was not required to build facilities to allow the airline to use the Airport. City Manager Atteberry stated the runway would allow additional commercial use but the small landside facilities would limit the additional commercial carriers. He stated for the record that he had never heard anyone say the intent was to add additional commercial carriers at the Airport. There would be an opportunity for the Council to make a decision if there ever was a proposal to add additional landside facilities. Councilmember Manvel asked if the City could prevent a carrier from building its own landside facilities. Gordon replied in the negative based on the FAA policies and grant assurances. Councilmember Manvel stated the corporate jets were important to the economy and that major increases in passenger traffic were not favored. He stated the only differential he could see was the weight factor i.e., the corporate jets were lighter than the commercial jets. McFarland stated the big corporate jets and commercial aircraft had similar requirements for runway length. 162 July 18, 2006 Councilmember Manvel asked ifbig corporate jets would be lighter than the typical commercial jet. McFarland stated the big corporate jets were actually small commercial passenger jets. Councilmember Manvel asked if reducing the thickness of the runway would be allowed at this point. Gordon stated that was not considered as an option. Councilmember Manvel asked if that could be considered. Councilmember Ohlson stated he supported the plan overall but he would not support the plan as stated because of the runway extension. He understood there were Airports that built the weight and the length so that it would accommodate corporate jets but not necessarily commercial service. He would like clarification on whether that would be possible. He was not interested in "enabling Allegiant with public money" to go to Las Vegas or other places and his concern was a functioning airport for the other uses such as corporate clients. He asked why the runway could not be built at a thickness to handle corporate jets but not thick enough to enable more flights for commercial uses. Gordon asked if Councilmember Ohlson was referring to the runway extension or the entire runway. Councilmember Ohlson replied that he was talking about the runway extension. McFarland stated the runway extension was planned to be the same weight bearing capacity as the existing runway. Councilmember Ohlson stated that was the "problem" and he was looking for something to accommodate the corporate clients and not more commercial flights. Mayor Hutchinson asked if Councilmember Ohlson's intent was to make it so that Allegiant could not operate out of the Airport. Councilmember Ohlson stated he did not want to enable Allegiant to go to Orlando or other places but to enable them to continue to operate as they were now operating. He was more concerned about the Fort Collins residents than he was about Allegiant. He supported accommodating corporate jets without enabling more Allegiant flights. Gordon stated the decision on the runway extension did not have to be made at this time because there would be a full environmental study if the project came forward. The study would look at costs and benefits and it could find that it did not have to be a weight to accommodate Allegiant. He stated adoption of the Master Plan would allow for an opportunity to study the project in a lot more detail at a future time. Councilmember Ohlson stated a majority of the Council could make that decision today. City Manager Atteberry suggested it may be more appropriate to make that kind of decision when the Council was actually considering the runway improvement project. He asked if the vision of the Master Plan could be accomplished without building the thicker runway extension. It could be "premature" to make that decision at this time. Council could adopt the Master Plan and make a statement about the thickness of the runway extension pavement. A lot more information and planning was needed before the final decision could be made. Mayor Hutchinson stated this was a plan showing the Council's intentions with regard to the Airport but this was not a "budget" or a project implementation plan. The specific issues would come back 163 July 18, 2006 to both Councils for consideration along with the results of the environmental study. He questioned making a decision about the pavement thickness at this time. Councilmember Kastein asked about the single -event noise issue brought up by one of the speakers. McFarland stated there was a question about the methodology used in the past. For this analysis the consultant used the standard methodology used by the federal government which was an annualized noise metric. Councilmember Kastein asked about the noise influence area in the old Plan and the new Plan. McFarland stated the two noise contours were similar in shape and the new noise contour was actually a bit smaller than what was in the last study. The critical areas off the ends of the runways were exactly the same in both studies and the flight paths around the runways were updated in accordance with the current methodologies and were a little bit bigger than they were in the past. People outside of the influence area had legitimate concerns about noise. Regardless of how the influence area was defined people outside of the influence area would be impacted by single -event noise. Councilmember Kastein asked if it was a good return on investment for the City to spend money on the Airport i.e., how much economic benefit was generated by the Airport. Gordon stated the State of Colorado did a study of the whole aviation transportation system in Colorado and determined there was a $33 million annual direct and indirect benefit to the communities as a result of this Airport. He stated the Airport helped to attract business. Councilmember Manvel stated a complaint was heard about violation of FAA rules regarding flight paths and staff indicated a tower might give better control of flight paths. He understood the Airport could not dictate where airplanes would fly. He asked for comment on whether there were regular violations of FAA flight path rules and if the City had any more control over airplanes than it did over railroads. Gordon stated most noise complaints resulted from aircraft overflights in southeast Fort Collins and that area was in what the FAA would consider to be the normal taking off and landing flight mode. FAA rules provided that aircraft could not fly below 1,000 feet above the ground over a populated area except in a transition phase of landing and taking off. Councilmember Roy asked staff to explain what sorts of curfews could be imposed on airline operations. Gordon stated local governments currently did not have the ability to impose curfews or noise restrictions or restrict the type of aircraft using the Airport. Some airports had "grandfathered" curfews predating the 1992 federal law. Councilmember Roy asked if the City could impose flight paths for airlines. Gordon replied in the negative and stated federal law preempted local government from controlling aircraft in flight. He stated the City could ask pilots to fly within a noise abatement program and this had been developed with Allegiant Airlines. He stated the new flight track being flown voluntarily by Allegiant minimized aircraft noise over the southeast part of Fort Collins. City Manager Atteberry asked if the City would have a greater influence if there was a tower. Gordon stated air traffic controllers would be able to direct traffic better and more safely. City Manager Atteberry stated he believed it 164 July 18, 2006 was in the best interest of the two Cities to pursue a control tower as soon as possible to address safety and noise issues as much as possible. Councilmember Manvel asked if the extended runway could be something other than a displace threshold at some point. McFarland stated the basis was FAA guidelines. He noted this would mean not extending some protected areas off the end of the runway onto lands not controlled by the Airport. Councilmember Manvel asked if it would be locked into being a displace threshold as areas around the Airport continued to develop. McFarland stated this may already have happened. Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt Resolution 2006-079. Councilmember Manvel stated the Plan was impressive and was not a great change from the old Plan. He did not want to see anything in the Plan the City did not want to do. He viewed the Plan as an "upper bound to the possible airport" that could exist in the future i.e., the Airport would not go beyond what was in the Plan. The City was "reserving the possibility" of doing the things set forth in the Plan. There would be future decision points to do things like "preclude major passenger service." He did not believe that Airport expansion would be "rapid." He hoped the first improvement projects would be for maintenance needed for quality and safety. He would support the motion. Councilmember Kastein stated the Master Plan would preserve options, including an option for a 1,000 foot runway extension. Giving direction to limit the length or pavement thickness at this point would not be a good idea at this point because there was not enough data. He would not favor preserving a "marginal" option that might work in some cases but not in others. This was a 20-year plan and that technology could mean quieter jets in the future. This was the right time to preserve the full option. Councilmember Roy stated the decision was adoption of the Master Plan and also how the quality of life in the community would continue to "evolve and develop." The Airport was one of the pieces of the City's success and this was being done in away that "has not harmed Fort Collins at all." The study had "serious problems" with accuracy, numbers and facts and would have "serious impacts" on quality of life. The Airport was already serving the purpose of an "economic engine" and it was already a "high functioning" general aviation airport. This Master Plan would not assure quality of life for citizens and was "vague and pie -in -the -sky." He would not support the Resolution. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would support the Master Plan. It was a "best guess" of what was needed and wanted. The Airport had economic value and she stated for the record that Allegiant Airline was a "real asset" to the Airport and the residents because of the recreational value of its services. Commercial air service was an asset to the residents and she was not willing to "write that out" of the Plan. The Plan represented potential improvements and possibilities and a "forward direction." There would be specifics when specific improvements came forward for a decision. 165 July 18, 2006 Councilmember Ohlson stated he could not support the Plan and noted that data was important to him. Too much of the data was "suspect." His primary concern was the 1,000 foot runway extension. He would not support the Resolution. Councilmember Brown stated the Master Plan was not a "decision document" and each item in it would be voted on when the time comes. He supported a control tower for safety reasons and to control the noise. There would be a discussion on the runway when that improvement came forward due to quality of life concerns. He would vote for the Resolution. Councilmember Kastein complimented staff and the consultants on the "high quality' Plan. He stated the Airport had economic importance to the region that far outweighed the $60,000 the City puts into the Airport. Quality of life began with jobs and it was a "sound economic investment" to make a plan for the Airport. He hoped the key elements of the Plan would be implemented. The improvements would be "incremental" and "possible." Mayor Hutchinson stated he would support the Resolution. There was a "good process" to bring specific decisions forward at a later time. This "well-done" plan would provide "vision and context." The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Ohlson and Roy. THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Councilmember Ohlson stated the City Manager had asked for approval to go ahead with staff work on the issue of ensuring that City contractors and subcontractors were making every effort to ensure they were employing only legally documented workers. He stated the staff work would be preparation of an ordinance setting forth how City contractors would comply, how the City would have access to the appropriate records, and what the consequences would be for noncompliance. He stated illegal immigration was the number one issue in Colorado. He was asking for Council direction to staff to prepare for Council consideration an ordinance dealing with City contractors and their subcontractors on City projects. He noted there were already federal rules the federal government was not enforcing. An ordinance would be a "strong statement' that the Council believed that the jobs for City contracts should go to "legal residents." Mayor Hutchinson stated he believed Council had asked the City Manager to present some ideas on the procedures to take such an action. City Manager Attebeny stated he provided a memo to Council outlining the City's procedures and how they related to state and federal law. He was not asked to bring forward a proposed ordinance for Council consideration. Councilmember Ohlson stated this was not "reinventing the wheel" and he would like clear language on how to comply and the City's right to check. 166 July 18, 2006 Councilmember Kastein stated his reservation was that the same principle should apply to organizations receiving dollars from the City to provide certain services. He would like to know how much illegal immigration was costing the City government. This could be a policy item for the next Council. He was concerned about both issues. Councilmember Ohlson stated most illegal immigration was driven by the availability of jobs and this affected wage rates. He would not object to studying both issues at the same time but he did not want to do the services analysis first. He wanted strict rules and enforcement to ensure that City contractors and subcontractors would not be allowed to hire illegal workers for City projects. Councilmember Weitkunat stated if policies and procedures were in place, she did not see a need for an ordinance to address this issue. She would prefer to see the City address the matter through its internal mechanisms and administration. Councilmember Ohlson stated he would like the Council to "go on the record" on this issue because the City policies were a "joke' because of the lack of federal enforcement. The City did "nothing to ensure that people comply." There was "no enforcement and no clarity." He wanted enforcement, clarity and penalties for City contractors and subcontractors who knowingly hired illegal workers. Councilmember Kastein stated he supported having staff bring back some ideas on how that could be accomplished. City Attorney Roy requested an opportunity for staff to present some information to the Council about current practices and the new State law on the subject before drafting of an ordinance. He stated this information would include what staff believed the implications to be with regard to going beyond that law to verify the legal status of contractors, subcontractors, etc., and those receiving certain kinds of benefits or financial assistance from the City. He stated it was important to understand the context before an ordinance was drafted. Mayor Hutchinson stated there were many unanswered questions and asked how staff would like to present the information. City Attorney Roy stated staff would provide the information in a memo. Councilmember Ohlson spoke regarding HB 1018, which was defeated, and the "joke bill' that was passed by the legislature. It would not be "complicated" to have Purchasing inspect documents to determine compliance and to spell out the consequences of noncompliance. He asked if the new State law would prohibit the City from being "stricter." City Attorney Roy stated there needed to be a "clearer understanding" of what the State had passed with regard to verifying the status of persons to whom City contracts were awarded. There was a lot of confusion around the State about what that new law meant for municipalities. He noted the State Attorney General would be issuing some guidelines for State offices. It would be "premature' to bring forward local legislation on that same subject until there was more understanding about what the State law required. Councilmember Ohlson stated he was referring to HB 1017 which made it almost impossible to prove noncompliance. City Attorney Roy stated staff was working on HB 1023. 167 July 18, 2006 Councilmember Manvel stated he supported asking staff to investigate the State situation and look at whether this should be done by City procedures or as an ordinance. He stated he would welcome a preliminary memo on the issue. City Manager Atteberry stated staff could look at different options and weigh the need for staffing resources for different options. He stated staff would present some additional information and the various options to the Council within the next few weeks. Adjournment Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to cancel the August 1, 2006 regular City Council meeting because of National Neighborhood Night Out. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk \. .: