HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-09/06/1994-Regular' September 6, 1994
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday,
September 6, 1994, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort
Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Apt,
Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, and Smith.
Councilmembers Absent: Horak.
Staff Members
Present: Burkett, Krajicek, Roy.
Citizen Participation
David Lipp, 626
Remington
Street, spoke of affordable housing concerns and
emphasized the
need to take
action to stop the high rental costs.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Janett thanked
Mr. Lipp for his concerns and reported Council and
the Affordable
Housing Board
are aware of the problem and are working on possible
'
solutions.
Agenda Review
City Manager
Steve Burkett
stated there were no changes to the Agenda as
published.
Councilmember Apt requested that Item #18, Resolution 94-137 Authorizing a Waiver
of the UGA Public Street Capacity Requirement to Construct Off -Site Street
Improvements for the Greyrock Commons PUD, be pulled from the Consent Agenda.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, requested that Item #25, Resolution 94-
144 Stating the City's Opposition to Amendment 12, the Election Reform Amendment,
be pulled from the Consent Agenda.
Consent Calendar
This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and energy
on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the
Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this calendar be "pulled" off
the Consent Calendar and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the
Consent Calendar will be considered separately under Agenda Item #30, Pulled
Consent Items.
7. Consideration adoption of the minutes of the regular meeting of July 5
1994.
114
99
a
10.
On May 10th, 1994, the City Council
Townhomes P.U.D. The Council upheld
28, 1994 approval of the project.
does not utilize the extension o
provided with the development of th
City has requested that the develo
the right-of-way so that the unusa
the Arapahoe Farm Townhomes P.0
maintenance burden to the City nor
September 6, 1994
heard the appeal of the Arapahoe Farm
the Planning and Zoning Board's March
The Arapahoe Farm Townhomes project
F Hilburn Drive that was originally
e Regency Park P.U.D. Therefore, the
)er remove the street stub and vacate
>le dead end public street created by
.D. development does not become a
to the general public.
Although the right-of-way vacation eliminates the potential vehicular
connection between the Arapahoe Farm Townhomes and the existing Regency
Park P.U.D., the developer has agreed to construct a sidewalk to provide
a pedestrian and bicycle connection between the two developments.
Therefore, the City will retain a portion of the right-of-way for a
pedestrian and bicycle access easement. In addition, the City has
requested that a portion of the right-of-way be retained for a utility
easement to accommodate the existing water line in Hilburn Drive. Staff
recommends postponing this item until October 4, 1994, due to pending
negotiations between the developers and the adjacent homeowners regarding
grading and landscaping concerns.
Ordinance No. 125, 1994, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on
August 16, appropriates funding to replace twenty traffic signal
controllers that are currently between twelve and fifteen years old. The
life of a controller is generally expected to be ten years.
The master traffic control computer (VMS 330 System) has
capability of controlling 128 intersections. Currently
operating 122 traffic signals on-line. In 1995, there will
added to the signal system.
the current
the City is
be 6 signals
Ordinance No. 126, 1994, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on
August 16, designates the Fort Collins High School, 1400 Remington Street
as a Historic Landmark.
1
115
September 6, 1994
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has issued a notice
to the City of Fort Collins announcing a formula allocation of $425,000 of
FY 1994 HOME Investment Partnerships Program funds. HOME Program
regulations require the City to establish a total program budget of
$500,000 and either provide the difference between the allocation amount
and the required program total, i.e., $75,000, or the State may provide
the shortfall from its HOME allocation. The Colorado Division of Housing
has agreed to provide the required $75,000 difference to bring the program
total to $500,000. Ordinance No. 127, 1994, which was unanimously adopted
on First Reading on August 16, 1994, appropriates the funds from the two
revenue sources.
12.
To accommodate our community's changing and future transportation needs,
it is recommended transportation functions be consolidated into a single
Service Area. This restructuring will improve coordination, integrate our
planning, and maximize the use of our resources to address a key component
' -- transportation -- of our City's policies and services. Ordinance No.
128, 1994 was unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 16.
13. First Readinq of Ordinance No. 129. 1994. Adootina and Determining the
14.
A regular city election is scheduled for April 4, 1995. At that election,
the Mayor and Council representatives for Districts 2, 4, and 6 will be
elected. Redistricting must take place at least six months prior to each
biennial regular election, and the deadline for completing the
redistricting process for the April election is October 6.
This ordinance adopts a District/Precinct map which sets the boundaries
for the six Council districts and for 83 municipal election precincts for
the April 4, 1995 regular city election and for any interim vacancies or
special municipal elections that might occur. Staff is recommending that
the District boundaries previously established for the 1993 city election
be modified by moving one precinct (Precinct #36) from District 3 to
District 2 to achieve greater equity in the number of registered voters
for each District.
This is a request to rezone approximately 167.1 acres located north of
County Road #52 and east of County Road #11, from the T-Transition Zone to
116
is.
16.
September 6, 1994
the R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential, District. The property is
presently undeveloped. At the current time there is no proposed
development plan for the property. The applicant anticipates the property
will eventually develop with residential land uses.
APPLICANT: James Postle
James Company
2919 Valmont Road
Bolder, CO 80301
OWNERS: William H. Allen, Testamentary Trust
Steven L. Allen, Trustee
Allen, Rogers, Metcalf, & Vahrenwald
125 South Howes Street
Suite 1100
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Joyce A. Lind and H.F. Lind and David Barry Cox, Kim
Marie Lind, Cherlyn Ann Cox, Justin Larry Lind, William
Derek Cox, Casey Kenneth Lind, and Adele Marene Lind
Trust % Lind, Lawrence, & Ottenhoff 1011 Eleventh Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
At the May 17 and June 7, 1994 City Council meetings, Council approved
housekeeping changes to the existing Cross -Connection Control Ordinance.
At that time, the rules and regulations required to fully implement the
program were being reviewed by Water Board.
The Water Board reviewed several drafts and revisions of the Rules and
Regulations during the past year. At the May 20, 1994 meeting, the Water
Board recommended the Cross -Connection Control Rules & Regulations for
approval by City Council. Many of the provisions in the proposed Rules
and Regulations are mandated by State law.
The City acquired Ridgeview Park near Clarendon Hills in 1991. This ten
acre undeveloped park site adjacent to McGraw Elementary School contains
an old farm with fourteen (14) small buildings on it. The property was
purchased from Poudre R-1 School District. In recent months a development
proposal has been initiated to build 100 housing units on the remaining 50
acres around the school and park. It is estimated that residential
development will begin this summer. Staff believes that the farm
buildings may attract trespassers once housing in the area becomes a '
reality. Council has authorized the City to convey the farm house
(Ordinance number 80, 1994) to the Fort Collins Housing Authority.
117
September 6, 1994
' On August 24, 1994, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 120, 1994
authorizing the sale of the buildings to Evan Gilmartin, Joe Hubert, and
Kenneth Lawrence. Mr Lawrence subsequently withdrew his offer to move or
salvage buildings C, D, and I and has forfeited his $137.50 deposit. The
Purchasing Agent contacted Mr. Gilmartin and Mr. Hubert who also submitted
proposals for moving or salvaging buildings C, D, and I. Mr. Gilmartin is
willing to salvage building C and Mr Hubert is willing to move buildings
D and I. The net difference to the City will be a reduction of $379.50
from $2,082 to $1,702.50.
17.
Section 2-238 of the Municipal Code defines the functions of the Golf
Board. Originally, these functions were written and incorporated into the
Code in 1970 when the City took over the operations and maintenance of
City Park Nine Golf Course from the Fort Collins Golf Association, and
when Collindale Golf Course was constructed. At that time, the City
Council agreed to accept the functions as recommended by the Golf
Association (that became the first Golf Board) in order for the Board to
retain a role in the operations of the golf courses. Currently some of
the Golf Board's functions include recommending personnel for employment
as Golf Professionals and/or Golf Course Superintendents, and making
' recommendations on the number of personnel to be employed on golf courses.
These functions are either in conflict with other City policies and
procedures, are outdated, or have proved to create poor management
outcomes.
This Ordinance amends the Code to update the functions of the Golf Board
and eliminates outdated provisions. The Board will now be able to advise
and make recommendations on the terms and conditions of agreements with
golf professionals and other golf concessionaires, or other management,
operations, maintenance, construction or acquisition agreements; and
participate in the review of said procurements for City golf courses by
the appointment of two (2) Boardmembers to serve on any review committee
established according to the purchasing code.
Commons PUD.
The request pertains to Greyrock Commons P.U.D., consisting of 30 dwelling
units 16.24 acres, located on the west side of North Taft Hill Road, north
of Liberty Drive, approximately one-half mile north of Vine Drive. The
proposal includes a clubhouse and open space tracts to be held in common.
Present zoning is FA, Farming in the County. Requested zoning, in the
County, is R, Residential.
' The request for a waiver from the public street capacity is justified
under the terms of the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins
Urban Growth Area. Greyrock Commons P.U.D. is located in the U.G.A.
between Saddleback and Solar Ridge Subdivisions on the north and Liberty
118
19.
September 6, 1994
Meadows Subdivision on the south. This P.U.D., qualifies as "in -fill" '
development, a key element in determining the appropriateness of the
waiver request. A major goal of many of the policies of the Urban Growth
Area Agreement is to encourage "in -fill" projects versus proposals in
essentially undeveloped portions of the U.G.A.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) advises airports receiving
federal funding to retain the services of an aviation -oriented engineering
firm for grant projects identified in the Airport's Capital Improvement
Plan. The vendor selection process and evaluation criteria are specified
by the FAA. The FAA further recommends that the contract with the
engineering consultant be for five years, and that grant projects be
identified separately in a five-year capital improvement plan.
20. Resolution 94-139 Approving the Acquisition of Goods and Services from
Insituform Plains. Inc., for the Repair of Existing Sewer Mains.
21.
This Resolution will authorize the City
to enter into a
sole source
contract with Insituform to procure up to
$190,000 of goods
and services
in 1994. This Resolution will also allow the 1994 contract to be extended
for the procurement of up to $175,000
of goods and services
from
'
Insituform in 1995. However, procurements from Insituform in 1995 will be
made only if research continues to show that Insituform continues to
provide the most advantageous relining method.
On August 5, 1994, the City received a proposal from Woodlands
Partnership, (the "Company") for the City to issue private activity bonds
for the purpose of constructing a multi -family housing project in Fort
Collins known as Woodlands Apartments (the "Project"). The Project is
located at the northeast corner of Shields and Harmony. It consists of
120 one- and two -bedroom units of which 48 will be designated as
affordable. The maximum rents of those units are calculated at 60% of
median income with 30% allocated to rent.
Passage of the Inducement Resolution would allow the City to issue
$7,000,000 in private activity bonds for the purpose of constructing the
Project. The proposal is consistent with the City's adopted policies
regarding issuance of these bonds. The Project is consistent with the
Council goal of increasing the quality and affordability of housing within
the City and would insure that the project would continue to be occupied '
by low- and moderate -income tenants for a period of fifteen years.
119
22.
23.
24.
September 6, 1994
When the City purchased Meadow Springs Ranch for the purpose of biosolids
(sludge) application, Council directed staff to develop a management plan.
The management plan is now complete. The plan summarizes the studies that
have been performed at the ranch to date and concludes that rangeland
application is a viable long-term option for biosolids management.
The management plan recommends commencing with larger scale demonstration
application of sludges at the ranch. This phase will involve
approximately 1,173 acres of the 25,680 acre ranch for 6 years.
Demonstration scale application is necessary to help determine the best
times of year to apply biosolids, application methods to minimize impacts
to the rangeland, the best kinds of application equipment and other
operational issues that cannot be assessed with the smaller scale
applications.
On August 20, 1991 the City Council adopted Resolution #91-113 authorizing
an intergovernmental agreement between the City and the Department of
Agronomy at Colorado State University for the purpose of studying the
effects of biosolids (sludge) application on soils and vegetation at
Meadow Springs Ranch for three years.
This Resolution would extend the research project at the Meadow Springs
Ranch until March 31, 1995, during which time the test plots established
in 1991 would continue to be monitored. The agreement proposes a cost -
sharing arrangement among the City, the Colorado Department of Health and
the Environmental Protection Agency.
The City and the County own the property located at 110 N. Howes Street,
which is attached to the Risk Management Office of the City. The
property is being used as a dentist office. Since 1986, the lease has
been with Dr. Tim Bourdon. Dr. Bourdon is selling his business and staff
has negotiated a one-year lease with the Dr. Andrew Sampson, who is buying
Dr. Bourdon's practice. Upon checking with both the City and County
Facilities Divisions, this one-year lease will not impact the projected
development of Block 31.
The rent for 110 N. Howes is $590 per month. In addition, Dr. Sampson
will be responsible for paying the property and personal taxes, gas and
electricity. The gross rent payment (including expenses listed above) for
this space will be $12.72 per square foot. Based on consultations with
commercial real estate brokers, the $12.72 per square foot lease rate for
120
September 6, 1994
110 N. Howes Street is on the upper end of the market range for
comparisons of this type of property.
25. Resolution 94-144 Stating the City's Opposition to Amendment 12, the
Election Reform Amendment.
26.
Amendment 12, the "Election Reform Amendment" has qualified for the
ballot, and will be presented to the voters on November 8th. This
proposed measure would create a new Section 2 in Article VII of the
Colorado Constitution.
The Legislative Review Committee (LRC) recommends that Council oppose
Amendment 12. This amendment would alter some of the fundamental
structures of representative democracy. In addition, this amendment is
complex and subject to interpretation to the extent that it is nearly
impossible to distribute accurate, concise summaries for voters.
In addition, there is a provision in this measure which would prevent
local ordinances from taking effect until 91 days after final publication
(except for up to six emergency ordinances per year). During this 91 day
waiting period, any citizen could take out petitions seeking to overturn
an ordinance. Five percent of the.registered electors in a jurisdiction
could cause the action to be placed on the ballot at the next biennial
local election, the state general election date or the consolidated
election in November of odd -numbered years. This could cause a delay of
up to a year and three months. The Legislative Review Committee believes '
that this provision alone would limit Council's ability to respond to the
needs of the community in a timely manner.
The Charter requires that the Council set a date for the public hearing on
the proposed 1995 City budget. This Resolution sets the hearing date for
the Council meeting of September 20, and, in an effort to receive further
public input, an additional hearing date for the October 4 Council
meeting.
27. Resolution 94-146 Supporting an Integrated Approach to the Abatement of
Graffiti.
Recently there has been a legitimate growing concern about the noticeable
increase in graffiti in Fort Collins. At the request of the City Council
Health and Safety Committee, staff recently reviewed the problem,
researched what other cities are doing, and worked with others in the
community to develop policies and procedures which deal with the graffiti
issue in Fort Collins.
The City's Youth Issues Team is currently coordinating with City
employees, community groups and other public agencies to implement an '
integrated approach for mitigating, reporting and cleaning up graffiti.
This Resolution articulates the City's policy towards the abatement of
121
September 6, 1994
' graffiti, including support of community -wide efforts and the role of the
City in setting an example in the prompt removal of graffiti.
A vacancy currently exists on the Golf Board due to the resignation of
Hank Hoesli. Vacancies also exist on the Human Relations Commission due
to the resignations of Arnold Gum and Harold Wallace.
Councilmembers McCluskey and Smith reviewed the applications on file and
are recommending Thomas DeGrand be appointed to fill the vacant term on
the Golf Board which expires July 1, 1995.
Councilmembers Azari and Kneeland reviewed the applications on file for
the Human Relations Commission and are recommending Richard Payne be
appointed to fill the vacant term which expires July 1, 1995 and Tim Dolan
be appointed to fill the vacant term which expires July 1, 1996.
29. Routine Easement.
A. Powerline Easement from Jill Brittain Reynolds and Anita Beth Olin,
117 S. Washington, needed to underground existing overhead electric
services and system. Monetary consideration: $10.
Items on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek.
a
10.
12.
Items on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek.
13.
' 14.
Rezoning.
122
September 6, 1994
15.
16.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 1994 Amending Section 2-238 of the
Code Relating to the Golf Board Functions.
33. Items Related to the Overland Trail Annexation and Zoning.
A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 1994, Annexing
Property Known as the Overland Trail Annexation to the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 1994, Amending the
Zoning District Map Contained in Chapter 29 of the Code of the City
Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property
Included in the Overland Trail Annexation to the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado.
34. First Rea(
to Enter
35.
Projects.
36.
38. First Rez
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember McCluskey, to
adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Agenda. Yeas:
Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, and Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
123
September 6, 1994
' Resolution 94-144
Stating the City's Opposition to Amendment 12,
the Election Reform Amendment, Adopted.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
Amendment 12, the "Election Reform Amendment" has qualified for the ballot, and
will be presented to the voters on November 8th. This proposed measure would
create a new Section 2 in Article VII of the Colorado Constitution.
This measure is exceedingly complex, and subject to varied and uncertain
interpretation. Some of the key components in the measure would expand
initiative and referendum procedures both at the state and local level; change
various campaign finance procedures; further limit what public entities and
public officials can say or do with respect to ballot issues; expand recall
procedures generally, to include members of the judiciary; limit the use of
"safety" clauses; and prohibit non -emergency local measures from taking effect
sooner than 91 days after final publication. Attached is a more detailed CML
summary of Amendment 12.
The Legislative Review Committee (LRC) recommends that Council oppose Amendment
12. This amendment would alter some of the fundamental structures of
representative democracy. In addition, this amendment is complex and subject to
interpretation to the extent that it is nearly impossible to distribute accurate,
concise summaries for voters.
In addition, there is a provision in this measure which would prevent local
ordinances from taking effect until 91 days after final publication (except for
up to six emergency ordinances per year). During this 91 day waiting period, any
citizen could take out petitions seeking to overturn an ordinance. Five percent
of the registered electors in a jurisdiction could cause the action to be placed
on the ballot at the next biennial local election, the state general election
date or the consolidated election in November of odd -numbered years. This could
cause a delay of up to a year and three months. The Legislative Review Committee
believes that this provision alone would limit Council's ability to respond to
the needs of the community in a timely manner.
BACKGROUND:
The Colorado Municipal League strongly opposes this Amendment. Colorado State
University may sponsor a debate on this amendment in September or October."
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, to adopt
Resolution 94-144.
Councilmember Kneeland spoke of the reasons the Legislative Review Committee
' opposes Amendment 12 and spoke of the complexity and uncertainty regarding the
amendment.
124
September 6, 1994
Assistant to the Director of Administrative Services Andrea Rieger
'
stated one
aspect of the amendment would be that the effective date of local ordinances
would be delayed until 91 days after final publication which would slow the
City's response time dealing with certain issues.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, stated many aspects of the amendment are
already in place in the Fort Collins City Charter. He stated this amendment
would stop the abuse of emergency ordinances, like the ones that are routinely
adopted in Boulder. He requested Council reconsider opposition to Amendment 12.
Ralph Bryant, 3501 Stover, spoke in support of the Resolution.
Councilmember Kneeland clarified the LRC believed the initative and referendum
process would be abused by the passage of Amendment 12.
The vote on Councilmember Kneeland's motion was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, and Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 94-137
Authorizing a Waiver of the UGA
Public Street Capacity Requirement
to Construct Off -Site Street Improvements
for the Greyrock Commons PUD. Adopted '
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"Financial Impact
The financial impact of waiving the requirement to construct or fully improve
off -site streets to the standards indicated on the City's Master Street Plan will
be mitigated by charging a fee of_$700 per single family home to be collected by
Larimer County at the time of building permit issuance.
Executive Summary
The request pertains to Greyrock Commons P.U.D., consisting of 30 dwelling units
16.24 acres, located on the west side of North Taft Hill Road, north of Liberty
Drive, approximately one-half mile north of Vine Drive. The proposal includes
a clubhouse and open space tracts to be held in common. Present zoning is FA,
Farming in the County. Requested zoning, in the County, is R, Residential.
The request for a waiver from the public street capacity is justified under the
terms of the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area.
Greyrock Commons P.U.D. is located in the U.G.A. between Saddleback and Solar
Ridge Subdivisions on the north and Liberty Meadows Subdivision on the south.
This P.U.D., qualifies as "in -fill" development, a key element in determining the
appropriateness of the waiver request. A major goal of many of the policies of I
the Urban Growth Area Agreement is to encourage "in-fi11" projects versus
proposals in essentially undeveloped portions of the U.G.A.
125
September 6, 1994
The waiver request is subject to the collection of $700 per single family home
to be collected by Larimer County at the time of building permit issuance. The
waiver request is also subject to the improvements stipulated in the Traffic
Impact Analysis. Staff believes that granting the request for a waiver from the
public street capacity will not jeopardize the public health, safety, and welfare
of the citizens in the City of Fort Collins and that the intent and purpose of
the Urban Growth Area Agreement will be maintained."
Chief Planner Ken Waido gave a brief presentation on this item.
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adopt
Resolution 94-137.
Waido clarified there would be approximately 2 units per acre which is consistent
with the Urban Growth Area Agreement policy. He gave examples of instances when
the City and County passed a special improvement district to improve existing
substandard roads.
Lisette Mill, representing the Limited Liability Company making the waiver
request, urged Council to adopt the Resolution.
Councilmember Apt stated he supported the resolution and would like to attach a
memo addressed to the County expressing the need to revise the UGA Agreement
' before additional waiver requests are received.
The vote on Councilmember Kneeland's motion was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, and Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Kneeland spoke of Item #12, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 128,
1994, Amending Chapter 2, Article IV, of the City Code to Establish an Office of
Transportation Services, stating that there was a great deal of staff work on
this item and she believed it to be a change for the better. She spoke of Item
#27, Resolution 94-146, Supporting an Integrated Approach to the Abatement of
Graffiti, and the need for graffiti abatement in the community. She spoke of
the different entities that are involved with this issue.
Councilmember Janett spoke of the appropriation of funds for the HOME program
and of the bond issuance for Woodlands Apartments which will be a multi -family
affordable housing project.
Mayor Azari offered a public apology to anyone who has been offended by Council
comments or behavior and encouraged citizens to express their concerns at
anytime.
126
September 6, 1994
Items Related to the Overland Trail '
Annexation and Zoning. Adopted.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
Resolution 94-148 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations
Regarding the Overland Trail Annexation.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 1994, Annexing Property
Known as the Overland Trail Annexation to the City of Fort Collins,
Colorado.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 1994, Amending the Zoning
District Map Contained in Chapter 29 of the Code of the City Fort Collins
and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Overland
Trail Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
This is a request to annex and zone approximately 282 acres located west of
Overland Trail and north of Prospect Road (extended). The applicant initially
requested a combination of the R-F, Foothills Residential, District and the R-L-
P, Low Density Planned Residential, District for the property. The applicant
now, however, feels comfortable with the R-F Zone for the entire property upon '
the condition that a pre -annexation agreement be executed with the City, whereby
the City promises that 282 dwelling units can be constructed on the property.
Staff feels uncomfortable recommending approval of a pre -annexation agreement
which guarantees the applicant 282 units on the property independent of a review
and approval of a site plan which satisfactorily addresses the review criteria
contained in the R-F Zone for a Cluster Development Plan. The property is
presently undeveloped. The property is currently zoned E-1, Estate, which allows
single-family residential development with a minimum lot size of 1 acre, and FA-
1, Farming, which allows single-family residential development with a minimum lot
size of 2.29 acres. This is a voluntary annexation of property located within
the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area.
APPLICANT: John M. Spillane, Esq.
Deutsch, Spillane & Reutzel, P.C.
7730 East Belleview Avenue
Suite 205 "
Englewood, CO 80111
OWNERS: Wallace R. Noel
900 Breakwater Drive
Ft. Collins, CO 80525
Ft. Collins -Loveland Water District
4700 S. College Ave.
Ft. Collins, CO 80525 '
127
September 6, 1994
Introduction:
On March 28, 1993, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing and
made recommendations to the City Council on Case #9-94, A, the Overland Trail
Annexation and Zoning request (meeting minutes attached). Several adjacent
property -owners claimed that they failed to receive proper notice of the Board's
hearing (see attached letter of April 22, 1994). Planning staff and the staff
of the City Attorney's office reviewed the notification process and determined
that the provisions of the City's Code had not been violated (see attached letter
of April 29, 1994). The applicant, however, believes the merits of the
annexation and zoning request deserve a focused consideration by the City
Council, rather than being diffused by a discussion on notification issues.
Thus, the applicant decided to reprocess the annexation and zoning request back
through the Board. The annexation was also required to be reprocessed because
the time limits established by State law to conduct a public hearing on a
proposed annexation expired. The Council passed another resolution on August 2,
1994, reinitiating the annexation process for the Overland Trail Annexation.
Also, at the Board's March 28 meeting, the applicant was unable to present, due
to a City Council directive, a proposed development plan for the property to be
annexed. The applicant has since developed such a plan, known as "Two Ponds at
Overland Trail" (preliminary sketch plan attached). Staff would like to remind
the Council that in establishing a zoning district, for the property, such action
does not approve any particular development plan. The review of annexation and
zoning requests and the review of development proposals are separate processes.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, John M. Spillane, on behalf of the owners, Wallace R. Noel (281.41
acres) and the Ft. Collins -Loveland Water District (.92 acres), has submitted a
written petition requesting annexation of approximately 282.33 acres located west
of Overland Trail and north of Prospect Road (extended). The applicant a
combination of the R-F, Foothills Residential District, and of the R-L-P, Low
Density Planned Residential District for the property. The applicant now,
however, feels comfortable with the R-F Zone for the entire property upon the
condition that a pre -annexation agreement be executed with the City, whereby, the
City promises that 282 units can be constructed on the property. The property
is presently undeveloped. The property is currently zoned E-1, Estate, which
allows single-family residential development with a minimum lot size of 1 acre,
and FA-1, Farming, which allows single-family residential development with a
minimum lot size of 2.29 acres. This is a voluntary annexation.
The property is located within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. According to
policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County
contained in the INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE FORT COLLINS URBAN GROWTH
AREA, the City will consider the annexation of property in the UGA when the
property is eligible for annexation according to State law. The property gains
the required 116 contiguity to existing city limits from common boundaries with
' the Ft. Collins -Loveland Water District Pump Station Annexation to the east, and
the Maxwell Open Space, Foothills Water Tank, Second Foothills, and Third
Foothills Annexations to the south.
128
September 6, 1994
The surrounding zoning and existing land uses are as follows: a,
N: FA-1, Farming, undeveloped
Not zoned, CSU Equine Center
E: R-L, Low Density Residential, single-family subdivisions
5: R-F, Foothills Residential, City -owned Maxwell Open Space
FA-1 Farming, large acreage residential units
Not zoned, the CSU football stadium
R-M, Medium Density Residential, multi -family residential units
W: FA-1, Farming, Horsetooth Reservoir
The recommended zoning for this annexation is the Foothills Residential,
District. The R-F District designation is for low density residential areas
located near the foothills. The western most portion of the property,
approximately 112 acres, will be preserved as natural open space since it is
above 5,250 feet in elevation, while the eastern portion will probably eventually
develop with a cluster development plan in the R-F Zone.
This property has been the subject of an annexation request in the past, known
as the Noel Annexation (Case #58-87, A). On March 24, 1989, the City Council
passed, on second readings, ordinances annexing and zoning the subject property.
The appropriate zoning designation, and subsequent development potential, of the
property were major issues during the review process of the annexation. The
annexation was declared void and not recorded when an annexation agreement
between the City and the property -owner was not signed by the owner. The
agreement would have limited the number of residential units which could i
potentially be built on the property to 287. The owner had initially requested
587 units, but later submitted a compromise figure of 430 units.
Not only has the property been the subject of a previous annexation request, but
potential development plans on the property have initiated several joint City -
County planning studies which led to the establishment and refinement of land use
policies for the foothills area located west of the city. Attached is an
"Historical Background Report" which was prepared as part of the background
information for the Noel Annexation in 1987. A summary of the Report traces
public policy changes for the area starting with the "Rural" designation in 1980,
limiting development to I unit/35 acres, to the development of the City's R-F,
Foothills Residential Zoning District in 1986, which allows an overall gross
density of 1 unit/1 acre provided the units are clustered to maximize open space.
The full report presents a public policy history of the area starting in 1962.
Also attached is another staff report, dated September 23, 1993, which repeats
some of the historical background information, but also adds a discussion of
important issues related to development in the foothills area including:
annexation, land use (residential densities), access/street improvements, utility
services, visual impact, natural areas, and environmental constraints. As the
annexation and zoning requests were being prepared for City Council's
consideration, several questions were asked and responses provided via the City's
electronic mail system. Copies of the questions and answers are attached as
additional background information. '
The applicant's initial justifications for the requested R-F and R-L-P zones are
contained in a March 8, 1994, letter from Frank Vaught of Vaught -Frye Architects.
129
September 6, 1994
The letter identifies the land use policies of the City which justify the
requested zones.
Three statements from the GOALS AND OBJECTIVES apply to this application:
Land Use, Page 16
Encourage urban Density residential development to occur within the
City, phase urban residential development in the urban service area,
and rural development beyond the urban service area.
Environmental Protection, Page 22
Give high priority to achieving the recommendations contained in the
Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Plan (1987), and to the completion
of the continuous trail system and land acquisition program
involving the Poudre River, Spring Creek, and the Foothills.
Environmental Protection, Page 22
Restrict growth which will encroach on designated open space areas
and/or will interfere with access to those areas.
The primary basis for determining appropriate zoning for a property are the
policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan, including, but not limited to the LAND
USE POLICIES PLAN and the policies and agreements of UGA AGREEMENT. As the
attached Historical Background Report indicates, public policy for the general
area of the foothills, and the subject property, has seen several changes since
1980. The most recent policies, adopted in 1988, indicate that generally the
foothills area is not appropriate for urban densities and suggests an overall
density of 1 unit/2 acres. Listed below are the sections of the UGA Agreement
which indicate the City should utilize the R-F zone when annexing properties in
the foothills area.
Policy 1.1, page 2:
That the City and County shall establish an urban growth area
surrounding the City of Fort Collins and mutually agree that said
area is appropriate for the location and development of urban land
uses and urban residential densities, except as limited otherwise by
agreement, such as the Foothills area, which due to the
environmental uniqueness of the area, is not appropriate for urban
densities.
Agreement 2.3, page 4:
The County and City agree to follow the policies included in the
Amendment to the Larimer County Comprehensive Plan for the Fort
' Collins Urban Growth Area.
Changes to the Larimer County Land Use Plan:
130
September 6, 1994
Section 1.0 Fort Collins Urban Growth Area, 1.2 Land Use Types, A.
Residential, 1., page 11:
Single family: Refers to single-family detached dwelling units.
Such use is appropriate in areas generally having a density in
excess of two (2) dwelling units per acre, except within the
specified "Foothills Area" wherein density shall be limited to one
(1) unit per 2.0 acres.
Section 2.0 Fort Collins Foothills Area, 2.4 Dens ity/Intensity/Locationa1,
A. Residential, 5., page 13:
Residential development will be allowed provided the gross density
does not exceed one unit per 2.0 acres and the development plan is
approved as part of a planned unit development.
The City has always reviewed annexation and zoning requests on a case -by -case
basis, including those within and/or near the designated Foothills area of the
UGA Agreement. Such reviews have enabled the City to consider any unique
circumstances or situations related to a proposed annexation rather than
automatically zoning all properties in the Foothills area into the City's R-F
Zone. For example, the Burns Ranch Annexation, west of Overland Trail and south
of Drake Road, was placed entirely into the R-F Zone because of its close
proximity to the actual foothills; while the Stewart Annexation, south of
Horsetooth Road, was placed into the R-F and R-L-P Zones, with the latter zone '
being* used on the eastern portion of the property which is relatively flat, away
from the foothills, and adjacent to urban density residential development. The
Quail Hollow Second Annexation, west of Overland Trail and south of Drake Road,
was placed into the R-F Zone even though the property was not in the designated
Foothills area of the UGA Agreement because of its close proximity to the actual
Foothills. Consistently, all properties annexed into the City and located west
of Overland Trail, or the proposed extension of Overland Trail south of Drake
Road, have been placed into the R-F Zone. Following that practice with regards
to the subject property would place the entire property into the R-F Zone, which
would limit development density to 1 unit/1 acre.
Staff's position is that the R-L-P Zone cannot be utilized on the property unless
there is an amendment to the UGA Agreement for the Foothills area moving the
current boundary line along Overland Trail to some point west of Overland Trail.
Findings
1. The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies of the City's
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN and agreements between Larimer County and the City of
Fort Collins contained in the INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE FORT
COLLINS URBAN GROWTH AREA.
2. The area meets all criteria included in State law to qualify for a I
voluntary annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
131
September 6, 1994
3. On August 2, 1994, the City Council approved a resolution which accepted
the annexation petition and determined that the petition is in compliance
with State law. The resolution also reinitiated the annexation process
for this property by establishing the date, time and place when a public
hearing will be held regarding the readings of the Ordinances annexing and
zoning the area scheduled to be considered by the Council on September 6,
1994.
4. The requested R-F Zone is in conformance with the policies of the City's
Comprehensive Plan. However, utilization of the R-L-P Zone on the
property would require an amendment to the UGA Agreement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the annexation request. Staff also recommends
approval of the R-F zone west of Overland Trail.
Staff feels uncomfortable recommending approval of a pre -annexation agreement
which guarantees the applicant 282 units on the property independent of a review
and approval of a site plan which satisfactorily addresses the review criteria
contained in the R-F Zone for a Cluster Development Plan.
The applicant may suggest, as an alternative to a pre -annexation agreement which
guarantees 282 units, that they be allowed to submit for Planning and Zoning
Board approval a Cluster Development Plan prior to completion of the annexation
process. Staff can not support this option in light of council's policy which
prohibits the submission of a development plan until completion of the annexation
process. City Attorney's Office has indicated that such an option is
questionable because of a state statute which, while authorizes cities, prior to
the completion of annexation, to consider subdivision proposals, does not
authorize final decisions on those proposals before the annexation ordinance is
passed on final reading.
The applicant may suggest a pre -annexation agreement authorizing disconnection
from the City without City objection,if they fail to obtain approval of a Cluster
Development Plan containing 282 units. Staff believes this is a viable option
provided it is clear the disconnection does not constitute a denial of annexation
by the City allowing the applicant the opportunity to seek development approval
by the County.
And, finally, staff's position is that in order for the R-L-P Zone to be utilized
an amendment to the UGA Agreement for the foothills area is necessary. If an
amendment to the UGA Agreement is made and a portion of the property is
eventually rezoned into the R-L-P Zone, staff recommends the portion of the
property placed into the R-L-P Zone have a PUD condition attached which would
require all development proposals for that portion of the property to be reviewed
against the criteria of the LAND DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE SYSTEM. Also, staff
recommends that if a zone is approved at some point in the future allowing multi-
family residential
development,
that such
development not be
allowed to extend
further west than
the existing
R-M Zoning
District boundary
to the south.
132
September 6, 1994
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MARCH 28, 1994 '
On March 28, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing on
the Overland Trail Annexation and Zoning request. The Board voted 4-0 to
recommend to the City Council approval of the annexation and approval of 70 acres
of R-L-P Zoning and 212 acres of R-F Zoning.
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING AUGUST 22, 1994
On August 22, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a second public
hearing on the Overland Trail Annexation and Zoning request. This second hearing
was required due to the passage of time required by State law to conduct a
hearing of a proposed annexation. The Board voted 5-1 to recommend to the City
Council approval of the annexation and approval of 282 acres of R-F Zoning."
Chief Planner Ken Waido gave a staff presentation on this item and outlined the
layout of the property. He spoke of the options for development within the R-F
zone. He clarified language in the Urban Growth Area Agreement states if the
City denies the annexation, the applicants could submit a development plan to the
County through its process. He outlined the pros and cons if the land were
annexed by the City or by the County and stated if the land were annexed by
Larimer County 80% of the Parkland Fees would be rebated.
City Attorney Steve Roy clarified to expedite the process it would acceptable to I
receive public input on the entire item. He noted the legal description had
changed and stated the ordinances would be amended before second reading
reflecting those changes.
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember McCluskey, to
adopt Resolution 94-148.
John Spillane, attorney representing the applicant, gave a history of the
proposed annexation and spoke of the support the applicant has received from the
neighbors. He requested a density bonus and that 282 units be allowed under the
Cluster Zone.
Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye Architects, stated 61% of the property would be open
space. He stated adoption of the proposal would allow the City to acquire 112
acres of open space that connects into the Maxwell open space for possible
trailhead and bicycle/pedestrian trailheads.
Richard Kykowski, 2821 Garrett Drive, opposed the project and stated development
of Overland Trail would create another major corridor into the City.
Bob Davidson, 2518 Yorkshire Drive, opposed the motion and spoke of density and
mixed -use concerns, and noted only one neighborhood meeting was held.
Marcy Landeruth, 2819 Virginia Dale Drive, stated she presented the Planning and
Zoning Board with a petition containing 667 signatures opposing the development. '
She spoke of pollution and drinking water concerns and requested the number of
units be kept to 170.
133
September 6, 1994
' Leon Heatherington, 4017 Spruce Drive, supported the motion and commended the
Planning and Zoning Board for its recommendation.
Dennis Stenson, 2820 West Elizabeth Street, opposed the proposed development and
spoke of wildlife concerns. He stated if Council were to annex the property he
hoped it would be annexed with the intention of not developing it.
Vicki Friedly, 1209 Pleasant Valley Court, urged Council to consider keeping the
proposed development to the recommended 170 units or not developing the property
at all. She expressed concerns regarding increased traffic problems.
John Gascoyne, 718 West Mountain, spoke of the potential increase in traffic flow
on Overland Trail and urged Council to oppose the annexation.
David Roy, 1039 West Mountain, supported annexation by the City but commented he
would like to see the property remain open sp"ace.
Glen Wemhoff, 4025 Spruce Drive, opposed the proposed 282 unit development.
Bear Gebhart, a Fort Collins resident, opposed development on the property.
John Smeltzer, 3015 West Lake, stated he did not oppose the annexation and
requested a definition of the term mixed -use. He expressed concerns regarding
' the already overcrowding of Bauder Elementary, bussing and traffic issues and
stated those issues need to be considered before a decision is made.
Waido reported the County has adopted a land -use plan but stated it has never
changed zoning on properties to be in conformance with the plan. He spoke of the
manner in which the County makes land -use decisions, and of the definition of
cluster developments.
City Attorney Steve Roy clarified the Code allows for the property to be annexed
with a condition.
Vaught clarified his definition of "mixed -use" for Mr. Smeltzer and stated he
meant the proposed development would not be all one type of housing product.
Mayor Azari support the motion stating she trusted the decision of the Planning
and Zoning Board.
The vote on Councilmember Kneeland's motion was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, and Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to adopt
Ordinance No. 134. 1994 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari,
Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, and Smith. Nays: None.
' THE MOTION CARRIED.
134
September 6, 1994
Councilmember McCluskey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to
adopt Ordinance No. 135, 1994 on First Reading.
Councilmember Apt supported the motion and spoke of the need for additional
neighborhood meetings to discuss the issues.
Councilmember Janett stated she supported the motion but expressed her concerns
regarding density issues and encouraged citizens to stay involved in the process.
The vote on Councilmember McCluskey's motion was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, and Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the
Mini -Library, Adopted.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"Financial Impact
The Library will be using annually budgeted funds for the building lease
payments. The total purchase price for the site development and the building
is $440,000. The financing arrangement would result in a $52,400 cost per year '
at an annual interest rate of 6.02Y. The City will pay 60Y and the College 40Y.
The College's intent is to lease or purchase the building from the City when a
permanent southeast Library location is secured.
Executive Summary
A. Resolution 94-149 Authorizing the City to Enter into a Ground Lease for
the Joint Library Site.
B. Resolution 94-150 Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into an Intergovernmental
Agreement with Front Range Community College, to Operate a Joint Community
College/Public Library.
First Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 1994 Authorizing the Purchasing Agent
to Enter into an Agreement for the Lease/Purchase of a Modular Building.
Staff is recommending the location of the Mini Library at the Front Range
Community College, Larimer Campus where it will be merged with the Campus
Library. The City's funding and the College's contribution allow this facility
to be 6500 square feet rather than the original 4000 square feet. The site is
adjacent to an existing parking lot with spaces designated for public library
use. There is a bus stop on campus which is a half block from the site. College
officials are working with Transfort to negotiate a second stop nearer the
Library. Bike access is from the Shields bike route. The building site is well '
lighted for safety and ease of access. The building ramp, restrooms and interior
will be handicap accessible. . Based on. the recommended 1995 budget staffing
135
September 6, 1994
' levels, the service hours can be expanded from the planned 40 hours a week to 52
hours a week: Monday -Thursday 10-7 p.m. and Friday/Saturday 10-6 p.m.
The College will bring 3200 volumes of reference, fiction and non fiction titles,
140 periodical titles, newspaper index, CD Rom station and databases. Its focus
supports the college curriculum. The City will bring a popular collection of
17,000 volumes for adults, young adults, and children. A book discussion room
will provide space for bibliographic instruction, storytimes and children's
programming, and college/library public programming.
The projected opening is March 17, 1995. The project is on an accelerated
schedule. An architect is developing the building layout, site plan, and modular
building bid documents so that the modular building can be bid expeditiously.
With First Reading approval and approval at the Second Reading on September 20,
the modular building contract can be finalized and the site work begun in early
October. The State Board for Colorado Community College and Occupational
Education is expected to make similar approvals on October 13. As work
progresses, library bookstacks and furnishings are being ordered and books for
the project processed, cataloged, and stored.
(1) The Resolution authorizing a ground lease with the College allows the
City and Front Range Community College to place a modular building on the
campus. The property is near the Administration Building and is 200 feet
by 200 feet in size. It is adjacent to an existing parking lot. The site
will allow a drive -by drop box for added customer convenience. The ground
lease rate is one dollar per year. The company providing the
lease/purchase may also be a party to the ground lease for purpose of
protecting its security interest in the building. The term of the lease
is 10 years.
(2) The Intergovernmental Agreement with the State on behalf of the Front
Range Community College, Larimer Campus provides for the operation of a
joint community college/public library for ten, one- year periods. Each
party will be allowed to terminate the agreement annually in order to
comply with the requirements of the State Constitution.
The City will end up owning the building if it makes all of its lease payments
or exercises its quarterly right to purchase under the lease -purchase. When a
permanent southeast Library location is secured, it is the College's intent to
lease or purchase the modular building from the City. The College continues to
experience growth and is currently seeking State appropriation to build a modular
village for Campus expansion. In the unlikely event that the College would not
purchase the modular building from the City, the City could sell it or relocate
it to another site for City use. If the City has entered into a lease
arrangement for the Mini Library, it would have paid $222,000 over five years and
not owned a building.
The City had budgeted to open 4000 square feet of space so the split of costs
' will be on a 60140 basis with the City paying 60Y of all costs. The building
will be maintained by the College. The agreement provides for an annual review
by the. Library Director and Campus Vice President to make budgetary and
operational adjustments based on use by the public and by the College's students,
136
September 6, 1994
faculty and staff. The City is on a calendar budget year and the College a July -
June fiscal year. The City will be responsible for the year round management of
the Mini Library; every effort is being made for consistent library policies with
the Main Library. When there are customers or student concerns, those relating
to Library service will go through the public library process and those relating
to the College will go through the College process. A77 fees and fines collected
at this Library will be deposited by the City and an equitable annual
distribution made based on percent of community college students served, volume
of community check-out of materials, and other use factors.
(3) Ordinance No. 137 allows the City to lease/purchase a modular building to
be placed on the Front Range Community College, Larimer Campus. The
projected cost will be $440,000 which included the site development work
required for building placement. The proceeds from the ]ease -purchase
will need to be appropriated by Council at a later date. Later
appropriation is necessary because the timing of the City's receipt of
these proceeds impacts the City's effective compliance with the revenue
limitation of TABOR, Article X, Section 20.
The benefits of this cooperative venture are many fold. The community will have
a Mini Library located in the southeast at a site that has been suggested as the
permanent location of a large full service Library facility. The building will
be convenient for college students as well as the general public. The College
Student Union presents opportunities for large Summer Reading Programs for
children. The merger allows expanded service hours and a six day service
schedule. The collection will be larger and of greater depth. Citizens will
have access to the college collection holdings through the City Library's online
catalog and can place holds on desired titles. The book discussion room provides
storytime space as well as general interest programs provided by the College
faculty and other speakers. It also can be used for group study. The facility
will have two enclosed study rooms for 1-2 persons for quiet study. The drive -by
drop box is more convenient and easy to use. This is a positive way to meld two
highly used community services to enable fuller service for the same taxpayers."
Library Director Linda Saferite gave a brief presentation on this item and spoke
of the benefits of the proposed mini library.
Eric Reno, Front Range Community College, stated he was hopeful that adoption of
this item would mean a long-term partnership between the City and Front Range
Community College.
Cultural, Library and Recreational Services Director Mike Powers clarified the
price reflects the costs of lease/purchase of the site and site improvements and
stated operation and maintenance costs are not included.
Director of Purchasing Jim O'Neill presented the details of the lease/purchase
agreement and stated the money spent would be paying for an asset.
Councilmember Kneeland
Resolution 94-149.
McCluskey, and Smith.
made a motion, seconded
Yeas: Councilmembers
Nays: None.
by Councilmember Smith, to adopt
Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland,
1
1
137
September 6, 1994
ITHE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to adopt
Resolution 94-150.
Councilmember Kneeland spoke in support of the Intergovernmental Agreement.
Councilmember McCluskey commended staff for its efforts and spoke of the benefits
Front Range would bring to the partnership.
The vote on Councilmember Smith's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, and Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember McCluskey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, to adopt
Ordinance No. 137, 1994 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari,
Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, and Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 138, 1994
of the Council of the City of Fort Collins
Amending Chapter 29 of the Code of the City of
Fort Collins to Establish a Development Review
Fee Schedule for Small Development Projects. Adopted on First Reading.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"Financial Impact
Currently, the Planning Department collects $250,000 per year in development
review fee revenue. If this ordinance is approved, projected revenue will be
$225,000 to $230,000 per year, or a 8-10% decrease. The actual amount is
dependent on the number and types of projects submitted. Reducing development
review fees reduces the percent of development review costs recovered by the fee.
Executive Summar
Earlier this Spring, City Council increased development review fees to recover
80% of the costs incurred for development review services by all City
departments, excluding those that recover such costs through other fees or rates.
As an exception, applications relating to the review of affordable housing
projects are totally or partially exempt from the fees.
While the current fee schedule recovers 80% of the development review costs, it
also imposes a financial burden on small projects which cannot readily absorb
higher review costs, and thus may be a disincentive for what otherwise would be
beneficial projects. Examples of small projects include:
'0 Nome -based child care centers must currently submit applications through
the PUD process to increase the number of children that can be cared for in the
home. The minimum development review fee for this project - if the application
September 6, 1994
is submitted as a combined preliminary and final plan - would be $1,404. The fee 1
may discourage this type of use in a location that is appropriate.
• A small business wanting to change the use of a building would pay minimum
fees of $1,404 under the current fee schedule.
• An existing multi -family dwelling wanting to redivide living units - for
example from four to five - currently requires a PUD. The development review
fees for such a project would be a minimum of $1,404.
A small infill parcel required a PUD for a eight unit townhouse, for which
all utilities and streets already existed. The cost per unit for development
review fees would be $710 per unit. 65 unit development would cost $87.38 per
unit for development review fees. A similar 218 unit development would cost
$23.55 per unit for development review fees.
The intent of the proposed Small Project Development Review Fee Schedule is to
reduce the financial burden on small projects by subsidizing a portion of the
development review fee. In other words, a portion of the development review
costs, for projects qualifying under this ordinance, will be paid for by the
General Fund rather than recovering SOY of the costs through a development review
fee. The purpose is to more closely ensure that smaller projects pay a similar
relative amount in development review fees as larger projects.
It is recommended that the proposed fee schedule apply to all developments that '
are eligible. It is anticipated that most of the eligible projects will include
infill, redevelopment, and those close or adjacent to existing development or
infrastructure. Recently, the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS) was
changed to include phasing criteria - the intent of which is to establish
criteria for where new development can/will occur. The institution of phasing
criteria necessarily limits development to areas deemed appropriate by the
community. Therefore, it makes sense to apply the proposed fee schedule to all
developments meeting the new phasing criteria of the LOGS if it is adopted by the
City Council.
The Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended approval of the proposed
development review fee schedule for small projects on the Consent Agenda of its
August 22, 1994 meeting.
BACKGROUND:
ISSUE: The current development review fee schedule has substantially higher per
unit financial impacts on those projects least likely to absorb the higher cost -
primarily smaller developments and redevelopments.
Ordinance No. 27, 1994, effective April 1, 1994, increased development review
fees for all development review applications. The intent of the review fee
increase is to recover 80Y of the costs incurred for development review services
by all City departments that provide such services, excluding those that recover '
such costs through other fees or rates (Parks and Recreation, Stormwater Utility,
Water and Wastewater Utility and Zoning). As an exception, applications relating
139
September 6, 1994
' to the review of affordable housing projects are totally or partially exempt from
the fees, as per specific guidelines.
The new development review fee policy imposes a financial burden on small
projects which cannot readily absorb higher review costs. Under the new fee
schedule, a project requiring an overall development plan, preliminary PUD and
final PUD would pay $5,680 in development review fees. In 1993, for commercial
projects this fee would range between $12.91 per square foot for a 440 square
foot project and $.04 per square foot for a 140,000 square foot project.
Similarly, development review fees for residential projects would range between
$1,136 per unit for a 5 unit project and $20.58 for a 276 unit project. Minor
subdivision projects - which by ordinance are six lots or less and pay $896 for
development review fees - pay $149 to $896 per lot.
The purpose of the proposed fee schedule is to more closely ensure that smaller
projects pay a similar relative amount in development review fees as larger
projects. For example, under 'the proposed fee schedule, residential developments
of 15 dwelling units or less - requiring a preliminary and final PUD review -
would pay development review fees of $200 for a one unit project to $3,000 for
a 15 unit project. Conversely, a similar project under the current fee schedule
would pay $4,280 regardless of size. Similarly, commercial developments of less
than $500,000 would pay $200 to $5,000 in development review fees under the
proposed schedule, rather than the current $5,680 - for an overall development
review, and preliminary and final PUD review - regardless of project size. The
proposed fee schedule for small projects applies to the development review fees
and not any other fee collected by the City.
PROCESS: A team of City staff and community members representing small
developers, the North College Business Association, Planning and Zoning Board,
Downtown Business Development Association, and small business owners developed
the Proposed Small Project Development Fee Schedule in response to Council's
direction to find a way to reduce the impact of development review fees for small
developments. While the team was responsible for developing a recommendation,
it received input and feedback throughout from various interests. Many of these
ideas were incorporated into the final recommendation. The team considered
holding public meetings to discuss the issue, however, it felt the impacted
interests could better be heard and served through individual and sma11 group
conversations. Also, the team believed the issue to be narrow enough in scope
that it would probably not hold the interest of the general community.
INTENT: The intent of the Proposed Small Project Development Review Fee Schedule
is to reduce the financial burden on small projects by subsidizing a portion of
the development review fee. In other words, a portion of the development review
costs, for projects qualifying under this ordinance, will be paid for by the
General Fund rather than recovering 80Y of the costs through the development
review fee. A single fee schedule imposes a financial burden on small projects
which cannot readily absorb higher review costs. The proposed fee schedule_
only applies to the development review fees and not any other fee collected by
' the City.
It has also been the intent to develop a recommended fee schedule that is easy
to understand and administer. Recognizing that there will be exceptions, the
140
September 6, 1994
recommended fee schedule tries to capture 80-90Y of the situations. It also '
recognizes that there may be instances in which projects that probably shouldn't
qualify, do. However, these instances should be the exception, and to account
for each circumstance would move away from a system that is easy to understand
and administer.
The proposed fee schedule is retroactive to April 1, 1994 - the date the fee
schedule adopted by Ordinance No. 27, 1994 was adopted. In other words, projects
submitted since April 1, 1994, and fitting the criteria established in the
proposed fee schedule will receive a refund as appropriate. Approximately, 8
projects submitted since April 1 fit the proposed criteria, totalling a refund
of approximately $10,000 - $12,000.
APPLICATION: It is recommended that the proposed fee. schedule apply to all
developments - not just in-fi11 projects for example. Recently, the Land
Development Guidance System was changed to include phasing criteria - the intent
of which is to establish criteria for where new development can/wi71 occur. The
institution of phasing criteria necessarily limits development to areas deemed
appropriate by the community. Therefore, it makes sense to apply the proposed
fee schedule to all developments meeting the new phasing criteria of the LOGS.
COLLECTION OF FEES: See comments in the remarks section of the proposed fee
schedule. The intent is for the developer/builder to assume much of the risk by
collecting fees up front. '
EXAMPLES OF APPLICATION OF PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE:
In 1993, less than 15% of the residential projects submitted would qualify
under the proposed Small Project Development Review Fee Schedule.
The commercial projects listed are samples, and are intended to provide
information on the types of projects that would have qualified under the proposed
Small Project Development Review Fee Schedule. Commercial projects vary greatly
in size, cost and complexity with much of the activity tending towards the small.
Therefore, staff anticipates a greater percentage of commercial projects
qualifying under the proposed Small Project Development Review Fee Schedule than
do residential projects."
Project Manager Jon Ruiz gave a brief background presentation. He reported the
Community Task Force and staff are requesting that Council adopt the Ordinance
on First Reading, subsidizing a portion of fees for projects fitting the criteria
and that the fee schedule be retroactive to April 1, 1994, the date the original
ordinance became effective.
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adopt
Ordinance No. 138, 1994 on First Reading.
Jeff Bridges, 725 Mathews, suggested considering more than housing developments
in the development review cycles and suggested exempting park developments under I
5 acres from paying the fees.
141
September 6, 1994
' Councilmember Kneeland supported the motion stating she did not look at the issue
as subsidy but stated it would support infill projects and local builders.
Councilmember Apt stated he believed this was a good way to give incentives for
infill projects and supported the motion.
The vote on Councilmember Kneeland's motion was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, and Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 139, 1994
Amending Ordinance No. 114, 1994,
for the Purpose of Modifying the "Density Chart"
Adopted Pursuant to Said Ordinance No. 114, 1994,
and for the Purpose of Describing the Meaning
of the Term "Existing Neighborhood or Community
Park or Community Facility" Used in Said
"Density Chart". Option A Adopted.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
' On August 2, 1994, the City Council approved revised phasing criteria in the Land
Development Guidance System. During the discussion, the City Council asked the
Growth Management Committee and City staff to look at two additional issues as
follows:
• Consider giving full credit (20 points) on the Density Chart for public
parks which are not fully developed but are programmed and funded for
development; and
• Consider giving public open space, for example, Cathy Fromme Prairie,
the same credit (20 points) on the Density Chart as would be given for
close proximity to developed public parks.
In addition, the Growth Management Committee discussed reinstating credit in the
Density Chart for proximity to "community facilities". In summary, the proposed
changes are as follows:
Section 1 - Reinstate credit for close proximity to "community
facilities". Two options are offered: Option A - Restore credit in
criterion "d" of the Density Chart for being in close proximity to
"community facilities", but distinguish credit for existing (20 points)
versus undeveloped (10 points) community facilities; or, Option 8 - the
same as Option A, except, distinguish public golf courses from other
community facilities, and allow 10 points for proximity to a golf course,
' whether developed or not.
Section 2 - Provide the same credit (20 points) on the Density Chart for
close proximity to a public park or community facility which is programmed
142
September 6, 1994
and funded for development as would be given to a public park or community
facility which is fully developed.
BACKGROUND:
On August 2, 1994, the City Council approved revised phasing criteria in the Land
Development Guidance System. During the discussion, the City Council asked the
Growth Management Committee and City staff to look at two additional issues as
follows:
• Consider giving full credit (20 points) on the Density Chart for public
parks which are not fully developed but are programmed and funded for
development; and
• Consider giving public open space, for example, Cathy Fromme Prairie,
the same credit (20 points) on the Density Chart as would be given for
close proximity to developed public parks.
In addition, the Growth Management Committee discussed reinstating credit in the
Density Chart for proximity to "community facilities"
1. Public park credit.
Both the Committee and staff agree that it makes sense to give the same credit
(20 points) on the Density Chart for close proximity to a public park or ,
community facility which is programmed and funded for development as would be
given to a public park or community facility which is fully developed.
In order for a park or community facility to receive full credit (20 points) it
would need to be included on an approved list of programmed and funded projects,
for instance, as part of the Annual Budget. At this time, there are no publicly
owned park sites which are currently programmed for development, although in the
next year or so, staff expects that one or two sites may be formally programmed
for development.
2. Open Space Credit
The LDGS has never given credit for proximity to the City's open space areas.
Both the Growth Management Committee and staff believe that giving credit for
proximity to the City's open space areas would not achieve the same objectives
as being in close proximity to the other public facilities and activities listed
in the Density Chart, and in fact might be counterproductive to the City's
objective of phased urban development. There are several reasons for this:
• Most of the City's open space areas are on the periphery of the Urban
Growth Area. Encouraging growth in these areas may be counter to the City
objective of encouraging growth on Will or close -in properties where
existing services and facilities are available.
• The goals of the City's open space and natural areas acquisition program '
are significantly different from the purchase of public park sites. The
City's recent purchases of open space have been to protect the few
143
September 6, 1994
remaining important natural
areas and wildlife habitats
in and adjacent to
the Urban Growth Area from
development. These areas
are not programmed
for, nor should they attract,
heavy human use. On the
other hand, the
purchase of public parks is
in direct response to the
recreational needs
and impacts of surrounding
residential neighborhoods.
• The locational criteria contained in the Density Chart are based upon
locational policies contained in the City's Land Use Policies Plan (LUPP).
The LUPP does not mention "open space areas" as a criterion for the
location of residential uses, although proximity to shopping, employment
centers, schools, parks, adequate streets and utilities, community
facilities, public transportation, and alternative modes of transportation
are mentioned.
Neither Option A or 8 includes a provision for giving credit on the Density Chart
for public open space areas.
3. Community Facility Credit
The Growth
Management Committee and City staff discussed restoring credit for
"community
facilities" in criterion "d" of the Density Chart. Developers had
previously been earning the same credit for proximity to "community facilities"
as for parks. However, in the recent change to the Density Chart, "community
facilities"
facilities
was deleted. The primary reason for deleting credit for community
was that the Committee believed that proximity to golf courses
(currently
defined as a "community facility") did not achieve the same City
objectives
as for proximity to other "community facilities", for example, the
library, EPIC and Lincoln Center. The decision was to delete "community
facilities"
from the Density Chart until further refinements of this policy were
completed as part of the update of the Comprehensive Plan. However, during the
discussions
on the revised phasing criteria, a few speakers suggested that
"community
facilities" be reinstated in some form.
Community facilities are defined in the LEGS as "a publicly owned building which
provides for the recreational, educational, cultural, or entertainment needs of
the community as a whole". Community facilities have been interpreted by staff
to include the Lincoln Center/Pool, City Park Pool and Facility, Library, Museum,
EPIC, Senior Center, Lee Martinez Farm, Northside Community Center, and the three
public golf courses.
The Committee discussed the merits of this suggestion and identified two options
for reinstating "community facilities" as part of the Density Chart. There was
no clear agreement by the Committee on which option to recommend. Instead, the
direction to Staff was to prepare two alternatives for Council consideration, as
follows:
Option A - Restore credit in criterion "d" of the Density Chart for being
in close proximity to "community facilities", but distinguish credit for
' existing versus undeveloped community facilities, as follows:
20 points = for being within 3500 feet of an existing community
facility; or
144
September 6, 1994
10 points = for being within 3500 feet of a publicly owned, but not
developed, community facility.
Full credit (20 points) would be earned for close proximity to community
facilities which are not developed but are programmed and funded for
development in accordance with the "parks" recommendation above.
Option 8 - The same as Option A, except, distinguish public golf courses
from other community facilities, and allow 10 points for proximity to a
golf course, whether developed or not. This option reflects the relative
importance of being in close proximity to golf courses vis a vis being in
close proximity to parks and other community facilities.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of either Option A or B."
Assistant Planning Director Joe Frank gave a brief explanation of the amendment
and clarified that the Growth Management Committee could not come to a consensus
regarding credit for public golf courses. He stated Option A allows for full
credit for proximity to public golf courses and Option B would only give partial
credit for existing or planned golf courses.
Councilmember Kneeland asked why golf course would not be considered as a '
community facility.
Frank stated golf courses are not as widely.used as other community facilities
and stated there was a question of whether the same objectives are being met by
including golf courses.
Councilmember Apt representing the Growth Management Committee spoke of reasons
why open space and natural areas would not receive credits, and how the Committee
determined which developments would be awarded points and receive credits.
Councilmember McCluskey stated this would be an incentive that would encourage
citizens to live near existing City facilities.
Councilmember Kneeland stated golf courses should be considered community
facilities.
Mayor Azari spoke of natural areas concerns.
Councilmember Apt stated development next to natural areas and open space areas
would qualify for points under different criteria.
Councilmember Janett stated developments locating near golf courses would receive
points because all golf courses are located next to city parks.
Councilmember Apt made a motion, seconded by Councilmember McCluskey, to adopt '
Ordinance No. 139, 1994, Option A, on First Reading.
145
September 6, 1994
' Tom re, Higley, resenting the Local Legislative Affairs Committee of the Chamber
9 Y P
of Commerce, urged adoption of Option A.
Councilmember McCloskey thanked staff and the Committee for its efforts and
stated he believed this was a positive addition to the ordinance.
Councilmember Janett clarified funding definitions and supported the motion.
The vote on Councilmember Apt's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, and Smith. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 94-151
Authorizing the City Clerk to
Request a Coordinated Special
Election and Certify Certain Ballot
Content to the County Clerk and Recorder. Adopted.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"Financial Impact
' The estimated cost for holding a special municipal election on November 8, 1994
in conjunction with the General Election is $18,000. If the City decides at a
later date not to proceed with the election, the City would be liable for any
costs incurred by the County prior'to the cancellation of the election.
Executive Summary
A citizen group is currently circulating a referendum petition requesting the
repeal of Ordinance No. 114, 1994 or the placement of the ordinance on an
election ballot. Ordinance No. 114, 1994 established interim phasing criteria
for the development of real property under the Land Development Guidance System.
The deadline for submission of the petition is September 12. Upon receipt of the
petition, the City Clerk must verify that the petition contains at least 969
signatures of registered City electors (at least 10% of the number of ballots
cast at the 1993 regular City election), sufficient signatures for formal
presentation of the referendum petition to the Council.
If the petition is verified as containing the requisite signatures, the City
Charter requires the Council to either repeal Ordinance No. 114, 1994 or submit
it to a vote at a Special Municipal Election called for another purpose, a
Special Municipal Election called for this specific purpose, or the next Regular
Municipal Election.
To request that a Special Municipal Election be held in conjunction with the
' November 8, 1994 General Election, the City must enter into an intergovernmental
agreement with Larimer County by September 9 for the conduct of the election and
certify the submission language to the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder by
September 13.
146
September 6, 1994
Adoption of this resolution would preserve the ability of the Council to call a
special election on November 8. The special election would proceed only if a
valid referendum petition is submitted by the September 12 deadline and certified
to Council at the September 20 meeting. The resolution would authorize the City
Clerk to request a coordinated special election and certify the ballot content
to the County Clerk by the September 13 deadline. Subsequently, if the
referendum petition is not submitted or is certified as containing insufficient
signatures, the City Clerk would be authorized to withdraw the request for the
November 8 election subject to the payment of any expenses incurred by the County
to that point.
An ordinance amending Ordinance No. 114, 1994 is scheduled for First Reading on
September 6 (agenda item 36, Ordinance No. 139, 1994). This Resolution states
that if Ordinance No. 114 is to be submitted to the voters as a result of a
referendum petition, Council intends to adopt a new version (Ordinance No. 145,
1994) containing the amendments set out in Ordinance No. 139, 1994, and refer the
new version (Ordinance No. 145, 1994) to the voters at a special election on
November 8. The ballot language to be submitted to the County Clerk reflects
placement of the new ordinance (Ordinance No. 145), rather than Ordinance No.
114, before the voters.
Costs for placing measures on a November election ballot will be derived using
a formula established by the County Clerk to equitably share the consolidated
election costs among all participating governmental entities. The variables in
the formula are: the number of registered electors for each entity, the number '
of ballot pages, and the number of entities participating. The estimated Fort
Collins cost for a November 8 special election is $18,000."
City Clerk Wanda Krajicek briefly outlined the item and spoke of the options
available when the certified petition is submitted. She stated Council could
repeal the ordinance, call a special election or to wait until the regular
election in April 1995.
Councilmember Janett stated she would prefer to see the issue on the November
ballot. J
Councilmember McCluskey opposed spending money on a special election and spoke
of the time involved to inform citizens. He stated he would support an April
election.
City Attorney Steve Roy clarified adoption of the Resolution would not decide
whether the initiative would be on a special election or a regular election.
Councilmember Janett made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adopt
Resolution 94-151. Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, and
Smith. Nays: Councilmember McCluskey.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
147
September 6, 1994
' Ordinance No. 140, 1994,
Authorizing a Mail Ballot
Election for the April 4, 1995
Regular City Election, Adopted on First Reading.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"Financial Impact
The cost for a mail ballot election for 1995 is estimated to be approximately
$77,659. The estimated cost for a 1995 polling place election is $59,612. Based
on the current figure of 60,376 registered electors, the cost per ballot cast for
a mail ballot election is estimated to be $3.67 assuming a 35Y voter turnout, and
the cost per registered voter would be approximately $1.28. The cost per ballot
cast for a polling place election would be about $4.94 with a voter turnout of
20Y, and the cost per registered voter would be about $.99. The 1995 recommended
budget includes $59,612 for a polling place election. Additional expenses for
a mail ballot election ($18,047) will be covered within appropriated funds.
Executive Summar
State law authorizes municipalities to hold mail ballot elections. Staff has
gathered information concerning the feasibility of holding a mail ballot election
' for the April 4, 1995 regular city election and has concluded that a mail ballot
election could be conducted in 1995 if that is Council's direction. The
Governance Committee has discussed mail ballot elections at a number of meetings
and on June 30 directed staff to bring forward for Council consideration, an
Ordinance authorizing a mail ballot election for 1995.
The Ordinance would authorize conducting the April 4, 1995 regular municipal
election by mail ballot, adopt the Uniform Election Code for the April election,
authorize the City Clerk to submit a mail ballot plan to the Secretary of State,
and establish the polling place for in -person voting for the April election.
In a mail ballot election, registered city voters would receive a ballot by mail
no later than 15 days before the election. Voters may then return the ballot by
mail after completing the information on the return envelope, may vote the ballot
in person at the City Clerk's Office, or may return the voted ballot to the
designated repository at the City Clerk's Office. Procedures also exist for
replacement of lost ballots. Returned ballots are verified, batched by precinct,
and prepared for tabulation during the five days before the election. Computer
tabulation takes place after 7:00 p.m. on election night.
Computer tracking of.mailed, returned, and voted ballots will be essential for
conducting the mail ballot election. Some election preparation activities will
need to be contracted out and others will be performed by existing staff, the
Election Board, and a temporary staff of 20 to 30 election judges needed
primarily during the five days before the election. Space for processing the
' ballots has been identified in City Hall East. Staff is working on plans for a
computer link between the City Clerk's Office, where on -site voting will be
conducted, and the ballot processing center, where returned ballots will be
148
September 6, 1994
processed for tabulation in accordance with procedures set out in rules
promulgated by the Secretary of State.
Standard procedures are in place to structure the ballot handling process to
preserve secrecy of the ballots. Briefly, a team of election judges processes
the ballots, with no one individual handling any ballot through all of the steps.
One judge will open the return envelope and remove the voted ballot, which
remains inside a secrecy envelope. The next judge removes the protruding ballot
stub containing the ballot card number, and the last judge removes the ballot
card from the secrecy envelope and it is batched for tabulation. Watchers
representing candidates and ballot issues may observe during the process.
A number of municipalities have conducted
However, only one municipality (Greeley) has
election, and that special election was for
Hospital conducted a mail ballot election
candidates but no ballot questions. A numl
ballot elections have been conducted as pa
election.
mail ballot elections in Colorado.
conducted a stand-alone mail ballot
single ballot issue. Poudre Valley
n May, 1994 for a ballot containing
er of other Colorado municipal mail
I of a County coordinated November
The statewide average voter turnout in mail ballot elections held in November,
1993 was approximately 50Y. However, in the case of the stand-alone Greeley mail
ballot election held in 1992 (one of the first mail ballot elections in
Colorado), the turnout was 28%. A number of larger municipalities held mail
ballot elections in November, 1993 as part of County coordinated elections. The
November voter turnout for these cities was: Englewood (38Y), Arvada (53Y), and
Aurora (36Y). Based on these statistics, Fort Collins could anticipate a mail
ballot turnout ranging from 35% to 509, compared with the current average of
about 20%.
A full scale polling place election in Fort Collins is expected to cost about
$59,612 in 1995. A mail ballot election could cost approximately $77,659 based
on 60,376 registered voters, although it is difficult to predict exact costs.
Actual mail ballot costs will be impacted by postage increases, contracting out
additional work, and adding additional temporary staffing beyond what is
projected.
As of August 1, there were 60,376 registered City electors. Based on this
current figure, following is a summary of estimated costs and turnout for a
polling place election compared with a mail ballot election.
Estimated Registered
Estimated Y Turnout
Estimated Turnout
Estimated 1995 Cost
Polling Place Election
60,376
20Y
12,075
$59,612
149
Mail Ballot Election
60,376
35Y-50Y
21,132 (35Y)
30,188 (50Y)
$77,659
September 6, 1994
Cost/Ba11ot Cast $4.937 $3.67 (35%)
$2.57 (50Y)
Cost/Registered Voter $ .987 $1.28"
City Clerk Wanda Krajicek provided background information on this item.
Councilmember McCluskey representing the Governance Committee stated he believed
there was potential for increased voter participation.
Mayor Azari spoke of secrecy issues and concurred with comments from
Councilmember McCluskey regarding increased voter turnout.
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to adopt
Ordinance'No. 140, 1994 on First Reading.
Ralph Waldo, representing the LLA Committee of the Fort Collins Chamber of
Commerce, thanked the Governance Committee for addressing the mail ballot issue,
and urged adoption of the Ordinance.
Councilmember Janett stated although the cost for a mail ballot election was
more, she hoped it would encourage more voter participation.
The vote on Councilmember Smith's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, and Smith. Nays: Councilmember Apt.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
OTHER BUSINESS
Councilmember Smith spoke of the upcoming Youth Forum.
Councilmember Kneeland requested a 2 page memo on median maintenance policies.
Councilmember Janett stated she recently visited the new Streets facility and
requested a 2 page memo regarding how the public is notified that the meeting
rooms are available at no cost.
Councilmember Apt reported he has received requests from several citizens who
suggested Transfort operate smaller busses more frequently.
150
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
ATTEST:
)LLA. ._
City Clerk
September 6, 1994
1
151