HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-09/23/1975-Special231
(I
September 23, 1975
COUNCIL OF CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COI,ORPM
Council -Manager Form of Covorimievt
Special Meeting 7:30 P.M.
CALL OF MF.FTING
The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council:
Pursuant to the request of the Mayor, .Tack E. L. Russell, of the City
of Fort Collins, a special meeting of the City Council of the City of
Fort Collins is hereby called for 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, September 23,
1975, in the Council Chamber of the City Nall, 300 Laporte Avenue,
Fort Collins, Colorado, for the purpose of: 1) hearing and first reading
of Ordinance No. 67, 1975, relating to the mill levy for the City of Fort
Collins, 2) official presentation of: the 1976 budget and to set the
official public hearing dates, 3) consider the contract with Johnson,
Johnson, Roy and F.DAW, and 8) such other business as may properly come —
before the Council.
Very
/ruly yours,
Verna Lewis
City Clerk
�J .
'e: � :��,
Present: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and
Wilkinson.
Staff Members Present: Brunton, Kaplan, Krempel and Hoffman.
Also: City Attorney Art March, .huiior
Proclamation
Mayor Russell read at length the Proclamation proclaiming September 27, 1975
as Hunting and Fishing Day in Fort Collins.
Bud'et Presentation
City Manager, Robert Brunton, officially presented the budget to the Council.
grid spoke at length to the following transmittal letter.
231
232
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Fort Collins
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
Dear Council Members:
Transmitted herewith is the Budget of the City of Fort Collins for. the �enr end-
inq December 31, 1976. After your review and approval, the Budget form: the
basis for the preparation of the Appropriation Ordinance.
MUNICIPAL FINANCE CALENDAR ,
Unifier the Charter of the City of Fort Collins, the City Manager is required to
submit a proposed budget prior to the first Monday in October. Within .en -days
after the City Manager submits the Budget, the City Council is required to set
the time and date for a public hearing or hearings. Prior to October 31.st, the
Budget must be approved by resolution. The annual Appropriation Ordinance has
to be adopted by November 30th. The major complication .is that the Sta ro
Statutes require the Tax Levy Ordinance to be adopted and certified to the
County Commissioners no later than October 16th.
The City Council had a series of pre -budget work sessions with department heads
and staff personnel as listed below:
Department
Police
General Administrative Services
Engineering Services
Planning
City Clerk
parks and Recreation
1'i nance
Electric utility
Water and Sewer Utilities -
Public Information Officer
Human Resources
Fire
Land Acquisition
Library
Date of City Council Work Session
April 29
May 13
May 27
June 10
June 10
Jane 17
Jmio 24
Junt• 24
Juno 24
July 1
July 1
July 1
July 3.5
July 15
Also a series of hudgpt work sessions were plannpd for September 17, 1R. 22, 23
and 24, 1975.
lt: is recommended that the City Council hold a Budget hearing on Tuesday artor-
noon, October 14th, and Wednesday evening, October 15th. At. the Oct.obvr 21st
reqular Council. meeting the Budget could be adopted by.rrro,lution. Tho Appro-
priation Ordinance should be adopted on first reading on Novpmb^r 4th aid on
second reading on November 18th.
232
1
233 1
WHAT IS A BUDCUT?
A budget, if viewed in ifs correct persp,:ctive, is not just: a muss of sial ist ir•t:
and dollar signs, but a picture in financial terms of the working proyr.un of the
City. The following questions concerning the Budget should be answered:
1. Does it meet the needs of the community adequately or as adequately a^:
available finances will permit?
2. Does it provide a proper balance between services, exe.ludinq thermo hat
are non -essential?
3. Does it indicate a work program which will assure adequate .results?
M
4. Is it honest and sound? Does it estimate realistically all expenditures
and possible contingencies?
5. Is it economical? Does the Budget give the greatest value -per dollar
expended?
G. Is the Budget consistent with the ability to support it?
7. is there a program for the .long-range development of the City?
It is only after these, and possibly other questions are answered that the nndget
becomes an effective tool for a better city.
BUDGET PREPARATION
The provisions of the City Charter place with the City Manager tho responsibility
of preparing the annual. Budget for consideration by the City Council... The Budget
is one of the most important documents developed by the. Administration. Purthec,
it is perhaps the most critical document approved by the Council. As -.uvh, the
Iludget then affects every citizen of the community because Lhe goalie Turd pri�,rit.it
are established and rissigned dollar values. The v.:ry oss,•vico of If,,- Hurhp•t in
that it rof:lort.s the real and philosophic values of the city in financial r,,.li-
Lies.. Actually, it i:: what: Cho taxpoyorr: ern goinq to clotfur their
Although the final printnd (lur:umonl: appoar:c to be only a colleclinn of numb•.•r:;,
its preparation involves a very compl.icatod and time-con::uminq process:. The pro-
coss now being utilized is perhaps the most comprehensive in the area. That is,
our system has been refined to utilize modern analytical schemes to evaluate
requests and requires requesting agencies to fully document and justify their
needs. The 1976 nudget development program, as have those in th o past, incor-
porates the team concept, with the City Manager a� the. quarterback. Thi:: year
for, the first time, howover, we are ntilizin•I the computer to gctrorat,. rho
financial reports.
233
7234
�L
13anic•al ]y, Ll'r prorodura• is fairly formali.zod in Ihal a unifiod of farms
are uO.lized inCludi.ny the rrI 1OW11rtl:
w
Form I Summary
Form 4 Porsonnol Action Request
Form 5 Rcclucst 'for Capital. Outlay
Form 7 Request. for Buildings and Croulvis Protects
Form £9 Tra i n i nq Roquclst.,1
form 9 Request for Work to be Porrarml,d by Olhtn"
f?opartncnts
Equipment Rental Pees
Each dl,partmont director i:; squired to :submit if fully fen- .•aoh
activity that needs an appropriation. Once Lhese .err completed, tl'loll al,- :wlt-
witted to th,� City tlanatior for review and subsequent di:;cu:;:;ion will' till die •elrn
I
fly utilizing Iho compel. r', till, 1310grL nreparafion l'a:; hl,crtt Ir;:: li'".• .". .,lI o,l.
'Phi.:: y!•nr caoh i:nrlclot func•Lion w,c; keypunrhtsl into Iln• cotn,allor anal !ir. Aor
was prov.idod with Appropriat.c printoul:t. The doll r-4,11::i:0c•d of 1ill,mci.. I r'inumr.
in various forms design,•d Lo orovidr director:; with fi•iur.^.: Ihnl w„nld , ill llama
Ili Ihr preparation of their Iludgetr.. Alro, f.iour'os fo, oor:lnnal -; of oi,•11,-1
throutll' 19'15 wero provi.dod. Each di.r•cctor was ro,{»irl,d to ,1 In. II rtl
197.5 Rudyot. Any line i.tont or category projeclod to oxcood OW 177; nIn ruvr,l fi,inr ':
re'luircd a detai loci explona.lAon to bo submi Lted to the City htann,l1n'. Tl or;v ti�inr••::
,•sere reviewed. by Il'a City Planagr.ran . d f irlurr. are•
.
l,•^,rvat ia.1. bocauvo: they de1.ormi on what add 1,i.onal CUr'ryovor t'anl' will b,- avc, II lr
.or 1976.
The 1976 requrats wrro ::ubmit.Lod to tho. City Man.ntr:r in booklol form. 'I hl, I in.•
items wore keypuntahed into the comput.or. For Hit, first limo over', till, I'ity itnun�p •r
war, able to have a comp leto Picture and understandinq of Ihr• local do lar t... qu,,:;l•:
prior to mouLing-with tho. directors. Further, he know how rrnrc:h Rhino r,•,p1o:;ts
exceed r.r:venuo project:ions. Cousequcntly, daliberate :and m,lrrrliugl'ul. rlirusa:::;inn
took pl,aco, ilnrinq each donar.'tmental discussion.
l'UND STRUCTURE
041.:• or t:hc peculiarit:ics of governmental finance .is till,, accotmll.inry ror opvral ion::
I "fund" bash;. The rntmbcr and nature of such fund, vary from ,jurisdivr ion to
j•Irir.diclion depr:ndinq upoo 00 nature of the part.i.eular ciovr:rnrnrnl:al operation,
flit, requirements and reMricti.ons imposod by Stal:o SI'aLul:es and local nnlin;uacos
and Lilo dictates of recoeinizod goveriunenial acccnnriing nrorednre:;. Whore :t ••ou-
fi.ic.t oxisLs amonrl stWeral of hose con:;ideraliot::, fhc rrgtiirvm,.,nl.:. of n law ara•
pa r, tmul In 1' .
I:aoh ftuul i:; cough ised of .1 "all-l.t.1kill:inn" not of ,u•counl:a iu,•ludiiri
I i.,bi I i I ir•.:, iwi :mrplu:; or fund halancl,. A rr•poral,• hrnln�•I i:: nt,•:�nn•,I fur ,•.I, i,
I nnd.
234
235,;
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED _B_UUi:ET
Dnri.nq 1976, it is proposod Lhat. I -he City :;l,nnd Si2,47R,147 from all In,«F _. '1'10•t
is an increase of $Ill, 7..t, 447 over 1r175 r•::I im.II rrl ,•x l++•Ill lil IIII Tlo• ;,r i.-ro : •,nr:•
of the increase is a $7,372,830 aucroa::o i.n tho Wator t`nlrilal Fend I{u•I,p•I :ra,l ,I
$.1 , 134,467 increase in I he I,ight. and Powor Capi till Fund
Basically, the most crH ical portion of the Rudget is the Fund. In this:
Fund, the recommendation is for expenditures of $7,590,243 in 1976 as c*tmparod to
a budgeted $7,162,705,and a revised estimate in 1975 of. $6,921,103 or an esti-
mated increase of $669,090. Exhibit 1 gives a comparison of t'so 1975 aid 1976
expenditures for all funds. The primary reasons for tho incrr.tse are (1) infla-
tion, (2) growth, (3) the increased operation and maintenance costs of :apical
yprograms, (4) the requirement of increased safety and environmental ccnrrol:;, and
(5) more services. With inflation and the added services, this is primtrily a
.r "hold -the -line" Budget.
The various departmental accounts in the general Fund shnw suh::Lant iol inc r,su:,
in 1976 as' compared to 1975. These increase:: are ptimati,ly hookkcophi(i in nnlurn•
and were a realignment of our accounting procedures to show more accura',•ly tho
true cost.
In 1975 it is estimated that we will have $231,632 of authorized, bot unexpended
funds. A budget and the corresponding appropriation is authorization, not liccarse,
' to spend. It is hoped that we can continually scrutinizo the 1976 Budg,•t whcfn it.
is approved and in execution work to have some additional unexpended funds at the
end of 1976.
MEANS OF BUDGE"r FINANCING
Pages III-2 through 111-8 of the Budget are a summary of the mrwns of financiu<I
the General Fund. The total means of financing in,J976 is; $7,296,594 a:: compared
to $6,795,287 in 1975 or an increase of $501.,307. However, the pro)(:)sed exp,ndi-
tures in 1976 are higher than the means of additional financing in 1.976. Tilt,
original Federal Revenue Sharinq commitment will termimtte at. the onrl of 1976.
It is anticipated that Congress will again authorizo this r-,venue, but it is not.
certain. The general Fund will receive $604,990 from this source in 1176. Also,
we can predict that the work done for other funds will nol. continue at. the 1976
projected amount of $4L0,891. It appears thatt we will h,..Ive proh.lems in future
years in obtaining enough revenue to finance our protected Gonaral Fund require-
ments. We have recommended that the various parks and recreation fees, comot.ory
fees, etc., be increased in 1976. We will have to look to moro and higher user
fees to finance many of our programs in 1977 and the years ahead.
The other funds operate on a self-supporting and thorcfore, on a rovenu,•-
cxp, nrliturc halancing hnsi.s. In 1973, we made r:uh::tall t'ial ch.nup in the (+Innl
invi!stmcnt fee: in the Wator and Sewer Ptnuis. Alao, a lor(le iuv:•n•oso was mph in
the sower servico chatrle in 1973. ')'hi:: invroro:o plu:: the )v,,I- ;:llr,onu,nitO in
fol•rnl and ::I ,I gl.nii•: ro,a•iv"d Ito!; I•I.,rr•I ear S,•w,•r lliurl in n '1,uld fin.nu•i.tl
t i, ill. A :!-::h, p in Lhc Wat,•r Ul i l i.ly war.
235
J,uutnry 1, 1'1'/•1, ,nnl 2',:, on J,inuary 1, 1975. 'fhrro aro Utility major cxl%-edit tint q;
la,-ing us in t.hc W,ltc-r Utility including Jot' Wright. Itonorvoir. Tit,- projvcl wan:
vs imaIed early in 1972 to cost $3,000,0DO with 50';, federal fnmlin,{. '1'ho I•Itetit
e:;I imated cost .is $8,00n,00o with no federal funding. It iv {>ro jotI ed Ihnt."wo
will have to increase water rates 5M; in 197E to finance ortr pen ier•1 ,•d u•i i.tt
program. After having years of electric: rate decroas,•s, wt• r.tnrtt-d nu, 1 it:;I or
many necessary rate increases in 1972. We will have a snri.os of suh•:taoti.tl
increases in the Electric utility rates, primarily dot• to projected it), t. t.:,•s in
purchased power costs.
.'LOOKING FOR M-14 SOURCES OP NON -LOCAL REVENUE -
The Administration is continually looking for financial assistance and grants
from federal, state., and other sources. Some recent revenues we received from
these sources are:
1. A total of $10,586,763 since 1973 in federal and state grants for seworage
plant expansion and .improvements and other sewer projects.
2. $79,475 in 701. Planning revenue from the Department of Ilousinq and Urban
Development (11I1D) in 1974 and 1975 on a direct funding hasis. In 1976 we
anticipate rocciving $20,000 indirectly through the Larimor-Weld Council of
Governments.
3. 10200,000 of discretionary funds from the Department of Ilousinq and Urban
Devclopmcnt (11110) for a housing redevelopment project against a substantial
amount of compel it.ion from other cities and counties in Colorado. It is
anticipated I.hnt we will. receive an additional $10n,000+ from the State of
Colorado for this project. j
4. $186,546 from the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation for park land acquisition
and dovelopment.
5. In 7975 we refinanced o+tr sower and water boric) issues. Thr; savinv; to the
City fair Ili" water i,;::;no war: $1'14;6g5 avid for th,• sewer "issue, was $6113,405.
f,. We received more than our share of urhan system money by having our ongineer-
inq staff work clo.,;oly on the projects. The total amount of urban system
rcvonuu received or committed to date is over $700,000.
7. We have liven and will continue to use other various federal and state programs
such es Law Enforcem,vtt Administrative Act (LP.AA), Comprehensive Employment
and Training Act (CETA), etc. In 1976 we are requesting four LEAA grants in
the amount of $75,94S.
B. We are applying for financing under the Small Reclamation Projects Act of
the Bureau of Reclamation for the Joe Wright Reservoir Project. It is esti-
mated that if this method of financing is approved, we will save over
$2,000,000 in interest cost over the 20-year life of the project.
236
1
11
237
COST Or CITY GOVLRNMT,:NT
The Lost of oporalinq thr City of fort col 1ins i•; increasinq at a rapid rato.
Sums• factors ronlril,uting to I:he incrra::-• ate (1) growl.h with a corre>Ixinding
and nocvs.sary '"catch-ul," period, (2) i.nl lnl.ion, (3) iucrvo::e of fvdorol: atxl
t:l ntc requirements in safely, health, and environmental art -as, (4) Oto Ci.ty's
doing into tho human resources' area, and (5) the latest cultural activities of
tho City.
Many projects that have been completed or are being completed are "coming on the
line" too fast to be absorbed in the present financial strurtures. Whwt yog
add the new projects to the aforementioned reasons for increasing cost, it means
that we will have to (1) cut back on some services, (2) eliminate some services,
-rr or (3) obtain new or increased sources of revenue.
rUnfortunately, we have not seen the impact as yet of thes%pew services. Listed
to below is a list of sumo projects, a target date for the lr;i 4 full impact year,
and the estimated added expenditure requirements (not covered by additional
-L� revenue).
Project Total Impact Year. Estimated Additional Cost
Indoor Swimming Pool 1975 $ 50,000 - 1100,000
Coloradoan Building 1976 25,000 - 35,000
Enlarged Library 1977 100,000 - 150,000
Museum 1978 30,000 - 40,000
' Auditorium 1978 50,000 - 100,000
The increases in park land acreage and additional open space acquisition will
add to oprrating costs.
It has been and is my philosophy that citizens should have the type and level of
services they want and are willing to pay for. All projects being constructed
or proposed are. worthwhile, but, they will cost more money.
A TRAGIC BY-PRODUCT Or INFLATION
We are continually concerned about the plight of senior citizens 0nd other low-
income groups. These are the major victims of growth and inflation. The City
has taken some steps to try to help:
1. Wo have a refund on tho City's portion of the property tax for eligi.ble
:senior citizens.'
2. We have a fund to pay for wager meters for eligible senior citizens.
3. Wo have a special assessment deferment fund for eligible senior citizens.
4. hopefully, the $80,000 in social service agency contracting of services will
indirectly help the low-income groups.
5. In 1975, the Council approved a flat water and sewer refund to be paid in
conjunction with the property tax refund..
237
�23e
ACKll0WL ,:Dcr,m1•INTs -
All department heads participated in the preparation of the 1976 Budget. Each
?submitted in writAncl his; concept of flit copitnl needs of his department. Through
discussions with I.he Ci.Ly Manaelcr, prtoril. vs, were c,tablis:hr.�d for capital outI -rys
,uul adequate funds allocated for opr_ruting expendit:uro-s. The fine services rendered
by all department: heads in this preparatory work as well as throughout 1975 have
been very gratifying. Michael DiTullio, Assistant City Manager, and Charlie D.
Cain, Finance Director, served on the staff Budget Committee, providing valuable
input and participating extensively in the preparation of the entire Budget.
.RECOMMENDATION
Fort Collins has made tremendous strides in recent years. our equipment is in
good condition with planned maintenance and replacement programs. Salaries have
increased to the. degree that we are how in a competitive position. From all.
studies we have made, our City is economically and efficiently operated. The
quc::tions about budgcti.ng in the first part of the Budget message should con-
tinually bt� discussed. lie should try each year to be as efficient and economical
as ix)ssible.
Reforc any expenditute is made, the revenue source has to be assured. All basic
decisions on tho afurorraroti.oned problems will come to the City Council. in terms
of reports and r-ecimmendations. The 1976 Budget is consistent with the action
Liken by thin. Council and the continuing needs of the City. It is my recommendation
that this Budget be adopted. After you have had an opportunity to review and
study the Budget in more detail, I will be happy to go over it with you.
Respectfully submitted, t
Y • � ttt..3
Robert L. Brunton
City Manager ,
Councilman Bloom made a motion to receive the 1976 budget from the City
Manager, seconded by Councilman Bowling. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom,
Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
Budget Hearing Date Set as October 14, 1975
Councilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilman Suinn, to set
the public hearing on the 1976 Budget for Tuesday, October 14, 1975, at
1:30 P.M. in the Council Chamber of City Hall. Yeas: Councilmembers
Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
Ordinance No. 67,-1975, Establishing Mill Levys
for the City; Passed on First Reading
238
239
Deputy City Clerk, LaVonne Hoffman, read Ordinance No. 67, 1975 at length.
Councilman Suinn made a motion, seconded by Councilman Wilkinson to approve
Ordinance No. 67, 1975 on first reading. Peas: Councilmembers Bloom,
Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
The Mayor asked for citizen participation at this .time. There was no one
in the audience who desired to speak at this time.
ResolutionAdoptedEstablishing the Northeast Area
Neighborhood Improvement. Association
Deputy City Clerk, LaVonne Hoffman, read the resolution at length.
r.
Council discussed atlength the proposed functions of the Association and its
membership.
Councilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilman Suinn to adopt
the resolution establishing the Northeast Area Neighborhood Improvement
Association. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling', Reeves, Russell, Suinn
and Wilkinson. Nays: Councilwoman Gray.
RESOLUTION 7S-54
' OF TIME COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ESTABLLSHING A NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT
ASSOCIATION AND DESIGNATING THE DU'1'I1',S AND
RESPONSIBILITIES OF SUCH ASSOCIATION
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins has received fund:. from
the Department of: !lousing and Urban Development to initir.te a
housing rehabilitation and neighborhood revitalization program
in the neighborhoods of Andersonville, Alta Vista, and
Buckingham; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Council to promote
a maxinium degree of participation by the residents of thy• project
area in the implementation of the program;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCTL OF TIII: CITY
OF FORT COLLINS:
Section 1. A Northenst Area Neighborhood Improvemcut
Association be esiabli.shed for the purpose of advising the
Council and the Ci.ty Adini.ni.stration in dirceting.the implementa-
tion of a housing, rehnhi.li.tati.on acid nei.p,hhorhood revitalization
program in the thru e project neighborhoods.
e
239
24®.
Section 2. The Association shall consist of nine (")
members with two (2) residents to he sel.ued rrom each of
the three neighborhoods (Andersonvi.l.le, Alta Vista, and Bucking-
ham) and one (1) representative from each of the followi.np
- boards: The fort Collins Housing; Authority, the Human Relations
Com-ni.ssion and the Designing Tomorrow Today Housing Tara: Force.
The City Administration shall arrange for elections within each
of the designated neighborhoods for the purpose of selecting
the two representatives from such neighborhoods. The three
boards shall each designate the representative from that board.
Section 3. The Association shall have the following duties
and responsibilities:
A. To advise the Council and City Administration on
all matters af.feci :i.ng the program.
B Par,i.cipnte with project staff in developing an
Action Plan for the project.
C. Assist in the selection of program personnel.
D. Review and make recommendations to the City Council
and/or the City Administ.rai_i.on can lh� following:
1) property relhabil,i.tat:ion standards;
2) income eligibility criteria for ;rant applicants;
'
3) priority of work to be accomplished;
4) nppli.cntion forms and procedures;
5) procedures and requirements for awarding,
relinbi.li.tati.on grants;
6) procedures and requirements for carr.yi.np out
self-help work.
E. participate with project sGaf.f in developing the
grant application for the second program year.
Section 4. Tt is the intent'of the Council to allow the
Association a broad discretionary function in implemelting the
program subject to the following, restrictions: '
A. Final determination on all program matters shall
rest with the City Council.
B. Final determination on all matters involving
project personnel shall be in the City Manager_.
240
241
C. All caork accomplished under the program must be
approved by the City Building Inspector or his designated
' representative under the applicable codes of the City.
Passed and
held this ? Y
adopted at a special meeting of the City Council
day of - A.D. 1975.
ATTEST:
Mayor
y' y city
ity clerk tee (1
� C .. t,
Contract with ERIK and Johnson, Johnson and Roy
for Downtot,n Redevelopment approved
City Attorney, Art March, Jr. advised the Council that he has reviewed the
contract and it is legally sufficient for the purposes intended.
Mrs. Esther Bradley Steinman spoke in support of the contract and encouraged
the Council to move ahead. Mrs. Steinman owns 75 front feet in the 100 block
' on South 'College Avenue where the So -Fro Fabrics, Alpert's Mens Wear, Hallmark
Card Shop and Roger's Jewelers are located.
Mrs. Mildred Davis Robbins spoke to the Council as an interested individual
in the project.
Councilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilman Suinn to approve
the contract with.EDAW and Johnson, .Johnson and Roy, and authorize the City
Manager and City Clerk to sign the contract on behalf of the City of Fort Collins.
Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and
Wilkinson. Nays: None.
Report on Proposed Land Use Planning for
Pri.nge Area to Pori: Collins
Les Kaplan, Planning Director spoke at length to the following memo.
On September 2, 1975 a meeting was called by the City Council of Port
Collins in order: to begin direct discussions with the (hoard of: County
Commissioners which might eventually lead to a new procedure for regulating
and reviewing devel.olvent in the County which is at and adjacent to the
periphery of Port Collins. At this meeting the discussion centered around
conflicts and differences of opinion on the matter of land use planning in
the area just outsi_dc of city limits. A suggestion was made that the City
and County planning staffs again meet to consider a way of technically reconciling
1 the conflict between County and City perspectives on development at municipal
borders.
241
42
Since this September 2 meeting the planning staffs have met and herein
present their shared opinions and recommendations to both the City Council
and Board of County Commissioners.
The debate over urban density development in the County at or near Fort
Collins' municipal limits has been replayed for many years. This debate has
roached the point where stereotypes have evolved in terms of the review comments
of the planners, the concerns of developersandprivate water and sewer district
representatives, the vantage points of City and County planning reviewing
bodies, and the commitments of elected City and County officials.
The most repeated theme is that the City opposes an extension of its
urban character and subsequent use of its parks and other facilities without
opportunity for the application of municipal development standards and the
levying of local f". ; ,n.l taxoc, on the pth�r hand, the County emphasizes
the development rights of property owners, the availability of necessary
utilities, and indefinite municipal growth objectives as a basis for approving
large scale residential development. Private water and sewer districts .are
dependent upon expansion of their systems in order to survive and look toward
the City and County for a comprehensive growth program around which to design
their expansion programs. Developers and other land holders are sensitive to
how public policies might undermine the wisdom behind land investments and
possibly restrain their "rights" as property owners to control the use of
their .land. The planners, in turn, find that they have inherited the momentum
of already -initiated development proposals, have limited growth management tools
which are technically feasible, and are asked for professional recommendations
for solutions to problems which are cast in the political and legal arenas.
In our opinion, a potentially viable solution to the conflicts between
City and County on the issue of land use would be the establishment of. an "urban
service area" outside and adjacent to the corporate limits of Fort Collin,. This
approach is advocated in the county's proposed land use policy plan which has
been reviewed by the County Commissioners and which has considerable supp.)rt
by members of the City planning staff. Under the urban service area concept,
service boundary lines (set and agreed to jointly by the City, County and
pecial districts] would be established around the City. within these bosndaries,
the City would agree to provide urban -type services in an orderly and reasonable
fashion. In return for the City agreeing to provide certain urban services to
a specified area outside its corporate limits, the County and City would
collaborate to jointly determine an appropriate future land use pattern for
this area. Concurrently, the County would consider alternative areas suitable
for development outside the urban service area, so that the water and sewer
districts would have some guide for future expansion. The urban service area
approach establishes a basis for both governmental jurisdictions to be supportive
of each other and, at the same time, to provide a more consistent and reasonable
basis for developers, landowners, and private utility districts to make decisions.
11e cannot make the above recommendation without commenting on a critical
development proposal which, if approved as presently proposed, would seriously
undermine the "urban services" approach to rational land use planning within
this urban fringe. This pending proposal is the master plan for Park South P.U.D.
which is scheduled to be heard by the Board of County Commissioners on Wednesday,
October 1.
242
11
1
1
243
The site of the 81 acre residential P.U.U. w:;s rozoned within the County
from agricultural to residential use on April 11, 1974 and the County Planning
1. Commission approved the Park South master plan in August, 1975. The City was'
petitioned for annexation in August, 1973; however there were conflicts between
the City and the developer prompting the above -mentioned action in the County.
Consistent and vociferous argumentation against the rezoning and then against
the County Planning Commission's approval of the master plan has been
presented both by the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board as well as the
Fort Collins City Council. City Council opposition to the Park South
proposal was reiterated at the September 2 meeting between the County
Commissioners and Council, and Council suggested that the two bodies confer
again prior to official County Commissioner review.
To the County planners the proposed Park South development is viewed
jur.isdicti.onally and considered a direct extension of the Fort Collins urban
environment. A County staff recommendation has consistently been that the
development be within the City and, therefore, under City jurisdiction. To
y the City planners the proposal for development within the County has been
strongly criticized for this same reason; however, the'Fort Collins planners
have elaborated on how such development within the City would further promote the
existing pattern of developnent which is tending to join together Fort Collins
and Loveland. For both planning staffs, the profound importance of any large
scale development at the borders of Fort Collins centers on the necessary
accompanying northward extension of the South Fort Collins sanitation District
sewer system. Such an extension would undermine the individual and cooperative
efforts of both planning staffs to pursue an "urban services area" approach
to growth at the edges of Fort Collins, particularly south of lorsetooth Road.
i
The master plan for Park South P.U.D., as a master plan, is based oil many
good design concepts and has considerable merit. However, the fact that the
petitioner proposes to develop without prior annexation and intends to utilize
the services of South Fort Collins Sanitation District poses severe problems
in terms of any cooperative City -County effort to properly plan for growth in
the southern fringe of Fort Collins. Water mains from the Fort Collins -Loveland
Water District already extend to the City's borders at llor.setooth Road; while
in the sewer district, the sewer lines are not presently extended as far north
as Horsetooth. Were development within the County at Horsetooth to occur, a
lift station at Fossil Ridge would be required and the sewer mains then extended.
With both sewer and water provided privately at the City's borders, the initial
and necessary preconditions for establishing an urban service area are substantially
removed. Construction of this lift station would also set a precedent for
additional rezonings for urban density development in the surrounding unannexed
area. Extension of the district's sewer line would make such development feasible.
Additionally, part of the initial County rezoning included 1.6 acres of
commercial use to the east of and adjacent to the proposed Park South development.
Were this commercial area to be developed outside the City, it too would require
the northward extention of SFCSD sewer lines.
243
244
In light:of the fact that necessary lift_ station to support a fr
.t
illy
approved Park South P.U.U. master plan and adjacent commercial dive.lopmenL
Could have disastrous effects on the City -County joint effort of establishing
an urban service area at and adjacent to the periphery of the City, the planning
staffs of L•ar.imer County and F-rt Collins concur in the following recommendations:
Development .inunechateiy alon,i I he Port Collins border. at Horsetooth should he
uniformly tabled by the County until such time as an urban service area or other
growth management method acceptable to both the City Council and the Board of
County Commissioners is adopted, If this policy is impracticaL relative to
the October 1 Board of. County Commissioners review of. Park South, we recommend
that, first, the City Council move to encourage the developer to re-p,ti.t.ion
the. City for annemati.on with Council guarantee that zoning comparable to that
presently prescribed in the County would be continued, second, the Board of
County Commissioners defer final consideration of the Park South master plan,
pending City action of the re -petition for annexation of both the commercial
and residential areas, third, that the Board of County Commissioners request
the developer to petition the entire 97 acre site out of the South fort Collins
Sanitation District so that the development- may be more economically served
by City sewer, and fourth, that the Board of County Commissioners and City
Council encourage the SFCSD to allow the developer out of the district
commensurate with a policy commitment by the Board of County Commissioners that
additional development he permitted farther south where district sewer lines
are airea.dy in place or can be provided more economically.
Council. discussed at :Length the problems of utility services, compatible zoning,
etc. , at the Urban fringe area.
Councili;an Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Gray to adopt the '
concepts set Eorth in the above memorandum. Yeas: Councilmembers Bowling,
Cray, Reeves, Russell, Sturm and M lUlson. 'lays: None. (Bloom out of room.)
Council. directeu Mr. Brunton to set up a meeting to discuss the urban service
concept as just adopted by the Council.
Other Business
1. Actuarial Study for the Pension Funds. Mr. Brunton spoke to 'Clio proposal
submitLed by Thomas 2M. M1cCo;nb to perform the Actuarial Study for the City
Lnployec's Retirement Fund. Mr. McComb's proposal. has already beon accepted
by both the Police and Firemen for their respective- funds.
Councilman Bowling made a. motion, seconded by Councilwoman Gray that
i�ir. 1,1cComb be a,fpoa.nte-d to coo the antuaHal study for tho-. J-�Ilplo`ic-c Retire-
ment Fund. Yeas: Colncilmembers Bloom, Howling, Gray, Reeves, Russell.,
and &iinh. Nays: Nolle. (COuiic"'Imall l''lill'inscn out O!: the room.)
2, Councilwciiin Cray advised the Council that she had been contacted by
Mr. ivill Brumley regarding the railroad going througgh t:oi^rn and the a71tl-
cipated increase in traffic.
244
245
t Uowicilman >u inn nc.cie a
Yeas: Cotulcilmembers Bi
Wilkinson. Nays: None.
c?+
v�
=y ��rrLsrr:
v
City Clot . Deputy ' !J
i
L4 Irnment
motion, seconded by Cotulcilman Bowling to adjourn.
oori, Boiling, Gray, Reevos, Russcll, Shinn and
a or
245