Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-04/03/2012-RegularApril 3, 2012 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council -Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m. A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, April 3, 2012, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Horak, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell and Weikunat. Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Harris, Roy, Daggett. Agenda Review City Manager Atteberry stated there were no changes to the published agenda. Citizen Participation Rick Price, 1925 Wallenberg Drive, expressed concern regarding the lack of a strategic plan for the City's bicycle program and encouraged budgeting for outcomes offers supporting the Bike Safety Plan and Bicycle Ambassador Program. Anne Lance, Teaching Tree Early Childhood Learning Center Executive Director, announced April as the "Month of the Young Child" and discussed the need for affordable early childhood education in the community. Leah Grossman, Teaching Tree Early Childhood Learning Center Infant Teacher, discussed the need for affordable early childhood education in the community. Bev Thurber, Early Childhood Council of Larimer County Executive Director, thanked Council for declaring the Month of the Young Child and discussed the need for affordable early childhood education in the community. Vicky Hays, Poudre River Public Library District Early Literacy Librarian, discussed the need for affordable early childhood education in the community. Bob Overbeck, Fort Collins resident, opposed the proposed on -campus stadium at Colorado State University and presented an informal petition he had circulated in his neighborhood. Per Hogestad, 1601 Sheely Dr, expressed concern regarding development in and around the Sheely Historic District and supported an overlay zoning district. 304 April3, 2012 Sarah'Bumett, 714 Gilgalad Way, expressed concern regarding three new student housing developments near her neighborhood and stated the West Central Neighborhood Plan includes protections for neighborhoods, but needs to be revised. She expressed concern that two promised parks were not constructed. Deb Applin, 1608 Sheely, expressed concern regarding the density of developments proposed near the Sheely Historic District. Colleen Hoffinan, 1804 Wallenberg Drive, expressed concern regarding the density and intensity of student housing developments on the south side of Colorado State University. Frank Johnson, Sheely Addition resident, opposed the proposed on -campus stadium and asked how the massive traffic impact on Prospect between College and Shields will be addressed; how the stadium would affect the City sewer system; and how security for surrounding neighborhoods will be addressed during games. Citizen Participation Follow-up Councilmember Poppaw requested responses to Mr. Johnson's questions regarding the traffic, utility, and security impacts from CSU and asked if the Transportation Master Plan has prepared for the stadium. City Manager Atteberry replied he would present the questions to CSU and stated the Transportation Master Plan did not anticipate a new stadium. Councilmember Poppaw thanked the speakers who discussed the Month of the Young Child and early childhood education. Councilmember Troxell requested an examination of the impacts of student housing on surrounding neighborhoods. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson thanked the speakers who discussed early childhood education. He stated City staff presented some questions to CSU regarding the stadium and asked if those questions can be publically divulged. He asked if CSU is proposing any kind of environmental impact study regarding the proposed stadium or if the City would be requesting such a study. He requested an analysis of the West Central Neighborhood Plan and a report relating to whether the Plan has been honored and how it will be honored in the future, and requested information regarding planned parks. City Manager Atteberry replied he could not speak to whether CSU is planning impact studies and stated Deputy City Manager did provide a public list of questions to CSU regarding the stadium. He stated he would follow up on the questions relating to the West Central Neighborhood Plan. Councilmember Kottwitz thanked the speakers who discussed early childhood education. Councilmember Troxell stated he submitted questions regarding the stadium and has yet to receive a response. He asked if citizen questions submitted to City"officials have been passed on to CSU. City Manager Atteberry replied questions have been passed on to appropriate CSU officials. 305 April3, 2012 Councilmember Horak requested that Council receive regular updates regarding adopted Plans and Policies and how they interconnect. City Manager Atteberry replied he will look at the master database regarding review periods for adopted Plans. Councilmember Horak suggested the list of questions proposed to CSU be placed on the City's webpage. City Manager Atteberry stated that will be completed. CONSENT CALENDAR Second Reading of Ordinance No. 023, 2012, Amending Chapter 7 of the Cites Relating to Redistricting, The City Charter requires the method used to adjust City Council district boundaries be based upon the number of people residing in each district. The City Code requires the City Clerk to recommend any district boundary changes necessary to ensure there is no more than a ten percent deviation between the most populous and least populous District no less than one year after the official decennial publication of the United States Census concerning the population of Fort Collins. The timing of the City Clerk's recommendation has proved problematic as City staff has recently received information evidencing significant revisions to county voting precincts so that some City Council districts no longer consist of contiguous, undivided general election precincts as required by the City Charter. The City Clerk's office and other City staff have found it difficult to meet the one year time frame, due to these revisions to county precincts. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 20, 2012, will amend the redistricting provisions to require the City Clerk to begin the process to determine if District boundary adjustments may be needed, rather than to make a recommendation to Council, within eighteen months following publication of the census data. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 024, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non - Exclusive Easement on Portions of Archery Range Natural Area to Boxelder Sanitation District. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 20, 2012, authorizes conveyance of a non-exclusive permanent easement to Boxelder Sanitation District to install rock rip rap armoring along the north bank of the Cache la Poudre River within the Archery Range Natural Area. The river bank armoring is being installed to protect the Boxelder Wastewater Treatment Facility from further flood damage. 8. First Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves. City Council authorized expenditures in 2011 for various purposes. The authorized expenditures were not spent or could not be encumbered in 2011 because: there was not sufficient time to complete bidding in 2011 and therefore, there was no known vendor or binding contract as required to expend or encumber the monies 306 April3, 2012 the project for which the dollars were originally appropriated by Council could not be completed during 2011 and reappropriation of those dollars is necessary for completion of the project in 2012 • to carry on programs, services, and facility improvements in 2012 with unspent dollars previously appropriated in 2011 In the above circumstances, the unexpended and/or unencumbered monies lapsed into individual fund balances at the end of 2011 and reflect no change in Council policies. 9. First Reading of Ordinance No. 026, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Natural Areas Fund for the Purpose of Providing Natural Areas Programming Not Included in the 2012 Adopted City Budget. Prior to 2004, the Natural Areas Program was housed within the Capital Projects Fund; therefore, funds did not lapse from year to year. During 2004, in order to comply with the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, Natural Areas appropriations and the dedicated funding sources were moved into the Natural Areas Fund, a lapsing fund. Any unspent funds and excess revenue lapses into fund reserves at year-end. These reserves then need to be appropriated into the following year's budget to use the funds for their intended purpose. The purpose of these appropriations is land conservation, construction of public improvements, restoration of wildlife habitat and other natural area program needs to benefit the citizens of Fort Collins. 10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 027, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Exhibits Project. This Ordinance appropriates Non -Profit Partner revenue of $225,000 into -the Museum Exhibit Capital Project. 11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 028, 2012, Appropriating General Fund Reserves for the Purpose of Rebating Use Tax to Hewlett Packard Company in Support of the Building 6 Annex Expansion in Accordance with Resolution 2010-029. This Ordinance appropriates $241,193 of General Revenue Funds for a Use Tax rebate approved by City Council on May 18, 2010 (Resolution 2010-029; Vote: 4-1; Nays: Ohlson; Abstain: Poppaw; Absent: Kottwitz). The Resolution approved an agreement between the City and Hewlett Packard Company to provide Business Investment Assistance for the Building 6 Annex Expansion. The additional operations created approximately 100 jobs with an annual average wage of $90,000. The City's assistance included both a one time use tax rebate and a personal property tax rebate on lab equipment for a total value of $1.6 million. This Ordinance appropriates $241,193 in use tax rebate, which is substantially less that the maximum rebate approved of $600,000. 307 April3, 2012 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 029, 2012, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Agreement for the Financing by Lease -Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment and Appropriating the Amount Needed for Such Purpose. The cost of the items to be lease -purchased is $1,579,444. Payments at the 2.15% interest rate will not exceed $167,010 in 2012. Money for 2012 lease -purchase payments is included in the 2012 budget. The effect of the debt position for the purpose of financial rating of the City will be to raise the total City debt by 1.03%." A competitive process was used to select Pinnacle Public Finance for this lease. Staff believes acceptance of this lease rate is in the City's best interest. 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 030, 2012, Amending Chapters 2 Through 27 of the City Code to Update Terminology and Titles Used in Various Code Provisions and to Eliminate Outdated References. Over the years, portions of the City Code have not kept pace with the changing City organizational titles and department names that are included in the Code. Changes in the titles of individuals who have responsibilities outlined in the Code, as well as various department names have changed, but not been reflected in relevant Code sections. This Ordinance makes these housekeeping changes. No substantive changes are included in the Ordinance. In addition, certain terminology used in the Code, such as the term "boarding house," is no longer consistent with corresponding references in other portions of the Code. These terms are updated in the Ordinance. 14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 031, 2012, Authorizing Amendments to a Conservation Easement Held by the City on the Hansen Property. In July 2011, the First National Bank of Omaha foreclosed on Parcel II (south parcel) of the Hansen Ranch property, on which the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department (NAD) holds a conservation easement (CE). NAD also holds a conservation easement on Parcel I (north parcel). Once the Bank took possession of Parcel II, Ric and Myrna Hansen, who reside on Parcel I, denied the Bank access through the existing driveway that bisects their parcel and serves as the only access to Parcel II. This amendment to the easement grants permission for a driveway to be constructed to access Parcel II, while allowing the NAD to make needed corrections and updates to the easement deed. In return, the development right for a secondary residence on the Parcel II will be extinguished. The City will also take this opportunity to amend language in the CE to increase its oversight and enforcement capability on the CE and update some of the terms of the CE. 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 032, 2012, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in Connection with the North College Avenue Roadway Improvement Project - Vine to Conifer. The North College Avenue Improvement Project — Vine to Conifer (the "Project") is a road improvement project that extends from Vine Drive on the south to the intersection of Hickory Street on the north. In 2010, City Council passed Ordinance No. 085, 2010, April3, 2012 authorizing the use of eminent domain proceedings to acquire the necessary property interests for the Project. All property interests were secured for construction to move forward. While relocating existing utilities for the upcoming road work, City staff determined that additional right of way area containing approximately .011 acres is needed on one parcel to accommodate a realignment of a planned pedestrian bridge. City staff has contacted the affected property owner who is open to working with the City on the new acquisition. Since the Project is located on a Colorado Department of Transportation ("CDOT") facility (State Highway 287) and the Project is partially funded by CDOT, this acquisition . must follow the same eminent domain procedures used in the previous acquisitions for the Project. It is required that City staff obtain authorization to use eminent domain proceedings for this additional acquisition since it was not included in Ordinance No. 085, 2010. 16. Items Relating to State Grants for the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport. A. Resolution 2012-021 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Grant Agreement (CDAG #12-FNL-01) with the Colorado Department of Transportation (Colorado Aeronautical Board) for the Funding of Equipment and Improvements Pertaining to the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport. . B. Resolution 2012-022 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Grant Agreement (CDAG # 12-FNL-I01) with the Colorado Department of Transportation (Colorado Aeronautical Board) for the Funding of an Intern Position Pertaining to the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport. Resolution 2012-021 authorizes the City Manager to execute a grant agreement from the State of Colorado, Division of Aeronautics for funds in the amount of $400,000. This State Aviation Discretionary Grant will be used to match the FAA 2012 Entitlement Grant for Design Services for the capital construction project that will be completed in 2013 and an additional Snow Removal Equipment, a Utilities Master Plan, a Runway Weather Instrument System and an Airport Service Vehicle. Resolution 2012-022 authorizes the City Manager to execute a grant agreement from the State of Colorado, Division of Aeronautics for funds in the amount of $14,560. This second State grant will fund 50% of the Airport's Intern Program for 12 months. 17. Routine Easement. Easement Deed and Agreement for Sanitary Sewer Line from Hyde Living Trust, to grant a sanitary sewer easement at no cost to the City for the purpose of a new City -owned sanitary sewer line that will serve three nearby residences, located at 2500 North Overland Trail. . ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Interim City Clerk Harris. 6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 023, 2012, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code Relating to Redistricting. 309 April3, 2012 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 024, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non - Exclusive Easement on Portions of Archery Range Natural Area to Boxelder Sanitation District. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Interim City Clerk Harris. 8. First Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves. 9. First Reading of Ordinance No. 026, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Natural Areas Fund for the Purpose of Providing Natural Areas Programming Not Included in the 2012 Adopted City Budget. 10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 027, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Exhibits Proj ect. 11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 028, 2012, Appropriating General Fund Reserves for the Purpose of Rebating Use Tax to Hewlett Packard Company in Support of the Building 6 Annex Expansion in Accordance with Resolution 2010-029. 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 029, 2012, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Agreement for the Financing by Lease -Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment and Appropriating the Amount Needed for Such Purpose. 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 030, 2012, Amending Chapters 2 Through 27 of the City .Code to Update Terminology and Titles Used in Various Code Provisions and to Eliminate Outdated References. 14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 031, 2012, Authorizing Amendments to a Conservation Easement Held by the City on the Hansen Property. 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 032, 2012, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in Connection with the North College Avenue Roadway Improvement Project - Vine to Conifer. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson withdrew Item No. 11, First Reading of Ordinance No. 028, 2012, Appropriating General Fund Reserves for the Purpose of Rebating Use Tax to Hewlett Packard Company in Support of the Building 6 Annex Expansion in Accordance with Resolution 2010-029. Councilmember Horak withdrew Item No. 8, First Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt and approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 310 April3, 2012 Staff Reports Bob Glancy, National Weather Service, presented Mike Gavin, Office of Emergency Management, and the City with a Storm Ready recognition award. . Police Chief John Hutto discussed his goal of creating community forums and announced the first forum to be held April 19, 2012 at Dunn Elementary School. Councilmember Reports Councilmember Manvel discussed a presentation by Blair Levin from the Aspen Institute. Councilmember Troxell encouraged City Manager Atteberry to pursue the concepts presented by Mr. Levin. Councilmember Horak reported a search firm has been hired for a new. Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) General Manager and announced wholesale rates will increase approximately 10% to its member cities, partly due to the increase in coal costs. He reported on a Poudre River Trail tour and discussed the future of the Poudre River Trail connections and a GOCO grant request. Councilmember Poppaw asked why PRPA has an interest in the Windy Gap project if it is selling water. Councilmember Horak replied PRPA is selling water due to requests; it is not marketing the water. He stated he would request additional information regarding the Windy Gap issue. Mayor Weitkunat reported on the Poudre River Trail tour and discussed the Airport Steering Committee meeting. Ordinance No. 025, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves, Adopted on First Reading The following is staff s memorandum for this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City Council authorized expenditures in 2011 for various purposes. The authorized expenditures were not spent or could not be encumbered in 2011 because: there was not sufficient time to complete bidding in 2011 and therefore, there was no known vendor or binding contract as required to expend or encumber the monies the project for which the dollars were originally appropriated by Council could not be completed during 2011 and reappropriation of those dollars is necessaryfor completion of the project in 2012 to carry on programs, services, and facility improvements in 2012 with unspent dollars previously appropriated in 2011 311 April3, 2012 In the above circumstances, the unexpended and/or unencumbered monies lapsed into individual fund balances at the end of 2011 and reflect no change in Council policies. Monies reappropriated for each Cityfund by this Ordinance are as follows: General Fund $1, 083, 767 Keep Fort Collins Great Fund $ 349,719 Cultural Services & Facilities Fund $ 106,102 Recreation Fund $ 51,000 Cemetery Fund $ 50,000 Transportation Services Fund $ 44,000 Light and Power Fund $ 49,366 Water Fund $ 143,340 Storm Water Fund $ 21,228 BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION GENERAL FUND Community Development & Neighborhood Services 1. Historic Preservation Grant Support - $50,500 General Fund, $25,000 Keep Fort Collins Great Fund This request is for reappropriation of 2011 dollars in the amount of $75,500 for Historic Preservation grant matching funds,' and for hourly staff support for grant management and development project review. City matching funds provide a significant source of preservation monies; for every $1 of Cityfunds, the City typically receives $4 in grant funding. In addition to assisting with development project review, in 2011 one part-time hourly staff assisted the 0.8 Historic Preservation Planner in managing seven different grant projects totaling $1,123,100 in direct funding. Due to the grant.funding cycle for State Historic Fund and Certified Local Government grants, these grant monies were not fully expended in 2011. Monies requested for reappropriation comprise the matchingfunds for these 2012 grants and are needed to continue these projects. Economic Development 2 Transportation UtilityAnalysis - $145,500 During the development of the 2011-2012 budget and through the discussions regarding Keep Fort Collins Great, the community requested that the City consider developing a Transportation Utility to fund basic transportation related programs and services. This funding will be used to bring in outside resources to help in the development of the Transportation Utility concept, the financial model, identification of programs to be funded, and more. Funds were not expended in 2011 because other operational priorities delayed the start of this project and the issuance of an RFP for outside consulting services to complete the project. Given the 2010 voter approval of the new sales tax, the urgency of this project was somewhat diminished from its original schedule. 312 April3, 2012 Environmental Services 3. Air Quality Monitoring Equipment - $4.500 This funding was approved in 2011 for continuing operation of the City's fine particle air pollution monitor. The monitor provides hourly fine particle readings (particulate matter smaller than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, or PM2.5). Operation, maintenance, and data quality assurance and reporting are efficiently provided through a partnership with Colorado Air Pollution Control Division and Larimer County Health Department. Full funding for services was not billed in 2011. The final invoice was received in January 2012. These funds are needed to fund that final invoice for 2011 services. 4. Radon Mitigation Behavioral Study - $9,874 This project was approved in the 2011-2012 budget to reduce lung -cancer risks by increasing the rate ofradon mitigation among homeowners with high radon test results. CSUresearchers in social marketing and epidemiology will carry out the Study, to determine the mitigation rate and barriers, and to scientifically test interventions to increase the mitigation rate. City Council approved $10, 000 for the Study, or 23%, with the balance to be secured from outside grants. The State Indoor Radon Grant program has since contributed $21,525, or 50%, leaving an unfunded balance of $11,525. This reappropriation request is for $9,874 to substantially complete the project budget, making the overall project funded nearly half-and-half by Colorado and Fort Collins. 5. Zero Interest Loan for Air Oualitv - $8,197 Each year, $30,000 is appropriated for zero interest loans for citizens to remove or upgrade old wood stoves or install radon mitigation systems. For most of 2011, loan, applications were halted while the City developed a way to address newfederal restrictions on loan processing. This prevented usage of the majority of the funds in 2011. This request is to carry over $8,197 of 2011 funding to support zero interest loans for air quality. 6. Environmental Services Copier Maintenance - $4, 700 In 2011, the copier maintenance costs for Natural Resources work group located at 215 North Mason were shared between General Fund and the Natural Areas Fund in order to serve stafffrom both divisions. With the separation of Natural Areas into a new department and new location, the Environmental Services Department will need to fund all of the copier maintenance costs in 2012. This request is to allocate a portion of the unspent 2011 funding to cover the gap in copier maintenance costs for Environmental Services. 7. Sustainability Strategic Plan - $6, 600 General Fund, $3, 300 Keep Fort Collins Great Fund A multi -day sustainability strategic planning charrette was conducted in February 2012 with approximately 40 City staff participating. The goal was to develop a preliminary Sustainable Strategic Plan that would identify priority project areas„ potential collaborations, and integrated BFO offer ideas. These preliminary goals were accomplished but additional resources are needed to flesh out a more comprehensive Strategic Plan. Unspent resources from several program areas 313 April 3, 2012 are being requested to support continued work on a Sustainability Strategic Plan for the remainder of 2012. 8. Waste Reduction and Recycling - $18, 709 This funding was approved to help the community make progress in meeting the adopted goal of diverting 50% of the waste stream from landfill disposal. Communitywide education and outreach projects are implemented through this program to encourage involvement in recycling and composting, re -use, and source reduction and contribute to less trash being generated. In 2011, $55, 000 was dedicated to a Waste Stream Study that was awarded to a consultingfirm in September, 2011 and $39,468 was ear -marked for conducting two Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Collection Events for the public. These funds will be used to conduct advertising and public involvement activities that raise awareness of recycling and reduction opportunities in Fort Collins, complete the Waste Stream Study in 2012, and help pay for the HHW event scheduled for June 2, 2012. 9. Waste Innovations Program - $100,987 The money comes from landfill tipping fees paid by City departments, and is intended to pay for innovative waste diversion projects. These projects are solicited from the Utilities, Streets, Parks Maintenance, and Forestry Departments to be applied to the City's streetsweeping, debris clearing, and excavation work that generate specific types of "industrial" waste. During 2011, only limited expenditures were made, including large -diameter tree trunk and limb grinding by the Forestry Department, and to investigate establishing a compost site for departments' use. Departments that initiated waste diversion investigations in 2011, such as drying/screening soil that gets excavated during water main break occurrences, and small-scale composting approaches, are still working to finalize proposals to the Waste Innovation Program for money to purchase more permanent, larger -scale equipment in 2012 that will enable the City to divert more of its own waste stream from landfill disposal. Human Resources 10. Performance Based Pay - $18, 000 The City implemented a uniform employee performance assessment process in 2007 and tied 2008 employee pay increases to overall job performance. Each year, staff has evaluated the process and made changes based on the previous year's experience and the availability of budget dollars to fund employee pay increases. Financial limitations have created challenges in implementing performance based pay as it was originally designed. These funds will be used to hire a consultant to evaluate the current performance based pay process. The desire to utilize external experts to assist with this project was expressed late in 2011. This request is to use the unspent 2011 budget, . originally allocated for performance management, to be reappropriated for 2012. 11. Learning/Organizational Development - $40, 000 During the 2011-2012 BFO cycle, finding was approved for design and,implementation of several employee programs, such as on -boarding, supervisory summit and supervisory development. When the Leadership Development Programs (Lead 1.0 and Lead 4.0) were subsequently funded with 314 April 3, 2012 Keep Fort Collins Great dollars, deployment of those leadership programs became the higher priority. Both of theseprograms were newly designed and a collaborative effort with Poudre School District and Larimer County, which presented a variety of challenges to overcome. As the priorities for the Learning Division shifted, design and implementation of the other employee programs stopped due to resource constraints regarding staff and time. This request is for the reappropriation of $40, 000 for consultative services and resources to redesign and implement supervisory summit and on -boarding processes for the organization. Parks 12. Fourth of July - $5, 000 In 2011, $30,000 was donated by Poudre Valley Health Systems for the 4th of July celebration. Only $25, 000 was spent. Therefore, $5, 000 is requested for reappropriation in 2012 for this year's celebration. 13. Storm Clean Up - $4, 000 In 2011, the Parks Division received $19, 000 for storm cleanup. Only $7, 051 was spent in 2011. In 2012, $4, 000 is requested for reappropriation to cover chipper rental costs to complete the clean UP. 14. Lifeycle Funding - $9,206 General Fund, $18,584 Keep Fort Collins Great Fund In 2011, lifecycle funding of $27,790 was anticipated to be spent on replacement of the Rolland Moore playground restroom. Due to the need for additional funding, this project will now be completed in 2012. Planning, Development, and Transportation Administration 15. PDT Administration - $10,000 PDTAdministration identified funds in the 2011 budgetfor service area reorganization facilitation. A scope of work could not be finalized prior to year end to select a vendor and encumber these funds. The need for facilitation is crucial to address the service unit's key vacancies and reorganization issues, and there are not funds available in the 2012 budget. PDT Administration is requesting $10,000 be reappropriated from the unspent 2011 budget for organizational facilitation and training in 2012. Advance Planning 16. Homebuyer Assistance Program - $119, 948 Affordable Housingfunds for the Homebuyer Assistance Program could not be encumbered without a contract and the funds cannot be contracted until all monies are available to issue an Homebuyer Assistance loan. These funds are requested for reappropriation for the Homebuyer Assistance Program. kJW April3, 2012 The following three requests (17, 18, & 19) were approved in 2011; Affordable Housing funds lapsed as no contracts were signed. Contracts are now ready and the funds are requested for reappropriation to complete the programs. 17. Habitat for Humanity - $82,500 Funds for Habitat for Humanity were approved in November 2011 by City Council. These funds need to be reappropriated for the purchase of land. 18. Fort Collins Housing Authority - $97,524 The Fort Collins Housing Authority - Legacy Senior Apartments were approved by City Council in November 2011. The amount could not be encumbered without a contract. This project is in Development Review and in order to proceed with theproject these funds need to be reappropriated. 19. Fort Collins Housing Authority of Loveland - $120, 000 Fundingfor Housing Authority of Loveland was approved by City Council in November 2011. Staff is waiting for contracts to be signed so they can proceed with this program. This is a countywide program administered by the City of Loveland. All monies from Fort Collins are used for Fort Collins projects. Police Services 20. Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) - $21,878 The Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) collects a monthly fee from all county telephone users. This fee is used to purchase and maintain equipment and train users to process E911 phone calls and dispatch appropriate emergency services providers for the Poudre Emergency Communications Center/Fort Collins Police Services. LETA uses a formula to determine the annual budget for each emergency services dispatch center based on its number of dispatchers and the number of E911 phone calls received in the center. The formula takes into consideration any unspent balance from the prior year allotment and these.funds were unspent due to staffing shortages, training needs and equipment replacement schedules, etc. Any funds remaining from the 2011 allocation must be used for LETA specified purchases during 2012. The amount from the 20l l LETA funding to be reappropriated for use in 2012 is $21,878. 21. Computer Automated Dispatch System - $99.712 In October 2011, approximately $1.7million was appropriated for hardware upgrade and replacement of the countywide computer aided dispatch/records and jail management system (CADIRMS). The process was delayed due to the need for Police Services to hire a project manager. There was also some delay on the vendor's part in producing the specifications and hardware requirements for the upgrade. The 18 month CADIRMS upgrade project will kickoff in April 2012. The funds will be spent in 2012 as the equipment is ordered and installed. 316 April3, 2012 City Manager 22. Performance Excellence Program - $81,432 , These funds will be used to pay for contractual services for the Performance Excellence program. Staff's work on the organizational strategic plan has been completed and the ongoing work toward developing systems forperformance improvement and measurement will continue throughout 2012. Funds were originally appropriated for this program in 2011, but were not spent until later in the year due to other priorities. These reappropriated funds will provide organizationwide continued contractual support for the program. 23. Internal Focus Groups - $5,000 The internal service focus groups are intended to provide a data collection tool to evaluate the service provided to internal customers by City departments. The initial concept for this tool was to develop an online survey to collect internal services data. However, after meeting with the City's Strategic Issues Team (SIT), the decision was made to conduct focus groups to obtain initial qualitative information on internal services. An outside consultant was used to conduct the focus groups and provide an analysis of the results. Normally, this is funded bi-annually; however, staff . is seeking remaining funding for additional work in 2012. Finance 24. Budgeting for Outcomes Improvements - $20, 000 At the completion of each Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process feedback is gathered from the various constituents involved in it as part of a continuous improvement process. There are two areas of improvementplanned that require consulting services and were not completed in 2011. The first of those is assisting Results Teams and Sellers with the performance measures in the Request for Results and Offers, respectively. This aligns with Citywide efforts around operational excellence and performance measurement. The second area for improvement is with relative offer prioritization. Staff has done a good job prioritizing offers within each Outcome, but this enhancement will enable staff to take a systematic, data driven approach to looking at all Offers across all Outcomes. This item reappropriates $20, 000 for these BFO improvements. KEEP FORT COLLINS GREAT (KFCG) FUND Requests in the amount of $46,884 are included in the General Fund descriptions (Items 1, 7, and 14 listed above). Community Development & Neighborhood Services 25. Design Assistance Program - $20, 848 This item requests the reappropriation of 2011 dollars in the amount of $20,848 for the Design_ Assistance Program. Program policies and procedures were developed for this program during 2011 and monies offered to potential recipients starting in late June. Because the program was in effect for only a portion of 2011, all available funds were not expended. $19,152 of the $40, 000 available was paid in 2011. Staff is requesting that the balance of $20,848 be made available for 317 April3, 2012 2012 Design Assistance Program efforts, in addition to the $40, 000 that has been budgeted in 2012 for this purpose. Environmental Services 26. Unified Carbon Accounting Svstem - $4.296 Two KFCG offers were approved to increase the City's transparency and rigor of environmental data reporting. One provided funds for a new Environmental Data Analyst staff position and another provided funding for a unified carbon accounting database. This reappropriation request is to use remaining non personnel dollars to increase the support for further needed enhancements for the City's unified carbon accounting system, GEMS (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Management System). 27. Healthy Sustainable Homes (HSH) - $6, 000 The HSHProgram (formerly called "Volunteers for Sustainable Homes') provides direct personal assistance to help residents improve indoor air quality to ease asthma and/or COPD, a health concern shared by 26% of area residents. Volunteers train to become Sustainability Masters and then provide in -home assessment and recommendations. Homeowners voluntarily request the service and then make voluntary in -home changes. 2011 funds were used to compile materials, train volunteers and begin in -home assessments. Remaining funds will be used to continue program marketing and outreach. 28. Innovation Fund for Senior Center Lighting - $19.947 Thisfunding was approved to develop efficient, innovative improvements to the City's physicalplant and operational procedures. These improvements focus on reducing costs, reducing energy and water use, and reducing the City's environmental and carbon footprint. Projects are evaluated by an interdepartmental team using a triple bottom line approach, however, projects with the best return on investment are given priority. The Innovation Fund is not anew idea; many communities and organizations have implemented similar funds over the last decade. In fact, Poudre School District (PSD) has its own version, which has helped the District save millions of dollars in operational costs while significantly reducing environmental impacts. The remaining funds are intended for Senior Center lighting improvements approved, but not implemented in 2011. 29. Sustainability Outreach and Education - $8,923 This funding was approved to increase outreach and education on internal and external sustainability. Sustainability outreach efforts focus on empowering individuals to improve their environmental and carbon footprint. The areas of particular focus are educational displays and training and the remaining funds will be used for these purposes. 30. Commercial Recycling Outreach and Incentive Programs - $3,168 This funding provides services and programs that augment the City's overall waste reduction and recycling program, as part of achieving the goal of diverting 50% of the community's waste from the landfill. Specifically, this new effort focuses on getting more commercial and multi family 318 April3, 2012 generators to start recycling or compostingprograms. For these customers, specialized educational material, site analyses, and financial incentives help encourage them to sign up for recycling or composting services. Unspent funds from 2011 are being requested to support the newly initiated recycling rebate program. 31. Eco Industrial Center - $16,517 A contract.for $69,000 was signed with a consulting firm to conduct a real estate analysis for locations to establish a new recycling center, and to design it as an operational facility that expands the City's recycling drop-off site capacity. The final report was completed in February 2012. Remaining funds will be used to pay for final invoices on this consulting project, and to pay for any additional reporting/investigations needed to answer questions about the feasibility ofconstructing a new, expanded recycling drop-offsite in Fort Collins. 32. Earth Tub Composting Vessels - $3,540 This funding contributes to the operations of a demonstration site for composting food waste using a contained, "in -vessel " system. As a pilot project, the Earth. Tubs provide an opportunityfor the City to evaluate a waste diversion strategy applicable for small local districts such as the Old Town area; several local restaurants and City buildings participate in this'pilot food waste composting project. Human Resources 33. Learning/Organizational Development - $12,200 Following the approval of the Keep Fort Collins Great ballot measure, City Council allocated a portion of the 11% of the "other community priorities" for Executive Leadership Development (Lead 4.0) in the amount of $109,950. Implementation of the program was delayed due to: (1) Executive leader schedules; (2) the Police Chief recruitment process; and (3) the effort to collaborate with Larimer County and Poudre School District for their participation. The program is now well underway; the reappropriation of $12,200 is requested to complete the Lead 4.0 pilot program. Funds will be used to continue professional business coaching and specific competency - based training. Natural Areas 34. Stream and River Rehabilitation and Restoration - $10,528 The remaining balance of this $250, 000 Keep Fort Collins Great line item will be used to further the City's stream restoration and rehabilitation efforts. Funds were expended in 2011 on several projects, including improvements at.Fossil Creek, and McMurry Natural Area; planning for additional implantation in 2012; and, development of an ecological model of the Poudre River. Stream rehabilitation and restoration projects are often complex and require several years of planning and permitting; thus, it is expected that this particular fund will carryover monies on a regular basis. 319 April3, 2012 Engineering 35. Skvway Transit Stop and Adjoining Sidewalk Improvements - $4.157 This project will provide accessibilityfrom Foothills Gateway to the existing Transfort bus stop at Skyway Drive and South College Avenue. Specifically, this project will construct a concrete sidewalk along the south side of Skyway Drive from Gateway Center Drive to South College Avenue. The preliminary design has been completed. Final design and construction will be in 2012. The total project cost is $157,000. 36. Drake —Redwing Pedestrian Signal Improvements - $14, 000 The Drake/Redwingproject is a pedestrian safetyproject intended to betterserve users of the Mason Trail. Right-of-way issues involving CSU and the BNSF railroad delayed the project in 2011. Completion is anticipated within the month. 37. Miscellaneous Pedestrian Sidewalk and Ramp Repairs - $23, 868 This request will allowfor improvements to sidewalk and ramps in various locations within the City. Street Oversizing 38. Street Oversizing Capital Expansion Fee Program - $141,909 These funds are designated to cover the City's portion of the arterial and collector roadways built as part of developments. Approximately $152, 691 was spent in 2011 on replacing traffic signals on arterial streets. The balance will be used in 2012 for construction of Turnberry Road, done in conjunction with the developer's contribution. Parking Services 39. Parking Services - $12,934 Parking Services received KFCG funding for long -needed maintenance projects for the Old Town Parking Structure. The majority of the projects identified for 2011 were completed, but work on the entry/exit area redesign could not be completed until 2012. The remaining balance of $12,934 is needed to complete the architectural work on the entry/exit area redesign. CULTURAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES FUND 40. Art -in -Public -Places - $106,102 City Council approved legislation in 1995 creating an Art -in -Public -Places (APP) program. The purpose of the program is to encourage and enhance artistic expression and appreciation adding value to the community through acquiring, exhibiting and maintaining public art. The program is funded by setting aside I %ofall eligible City construction projects (including Utilityprojects) over $250,000, as defined in the APP guidelines. This item reappropriates $106,102 in the Cultural 320 April 3, 2012 Services Fund to be used for the APP projects that were in progress in 2011 and will continue into- 2012. As APP funds lapse at the end of the year, funds need to be reappropriated to continue these projects, including the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, North College Improvements and other miscellaneous projects. RECREATION FUND 41. Security Camera Installation - $51,000 In 2011, $200, 000from Recreation reserves was appropriated.for various improvements and life - cycle replacements at the different Recreation facilities. A project that did not get completed in 2011 was installation of security cameras at the Fort Collins Senior Center, Northside Aztlan Community Center, and EPIC,leaving$51,000 in unused, appropriatedfunds. Recreation has been coordinating with Transfort to "piggy -back" with a similar project in order to receive cost savings; however Transfort was not ready to sign a contract by year end 2011. Installation of security cameras is a high priorityfor safety and security of both employees and citizens using the facilities; therefore, Recreation is requesting reappropriation of $51, 000 for this project in 2012. CEMETERY FUND 42. New Cemetery Management Computer System - $50, 000 The process was initiated in 2011 to purchase anew cemetery management system. The bid process was not completed before the end of 2011. Therefore, funding will need to be reappropriated in 2012 to cover the cost of the new system. TRANSPORTATION SER VICES FUND 43. Parking Services - $44, 000 Parking Services has a comprehensive service agreementfor the access and revenue control systems for the two parking structures. Funds were budgeted in 2011 for this expense and the renewal was due in November. However, the vendor was still determining final costs for upgrades required for credit card systems so a Purchase Order could not be issued and paid prior to the end of the year. The vendor has continued to cover maintenance during the interim and will be sending an invoice for the renewal in February. The cost of the service agreement is $44, 000. LIGHT AND POWER FUND 44. Residential Solar Rebates - $26, 000 This item reappropriates $26,000 in the Light and Power Fund for residential customer solar rebates. Due to construction delays for seven residential solar electric rebate applicants, projects which were approved in 2011 will not be completed until 2012. The rebates range from $3,500 to $3, 750 per customer. The Utilities is requesting reappropriation of 2011 finds in order for these solar rebate incentives to be paid in 2012. 321 April3, 2012 45. Art -in -Public -Places - $23.366 City Council approved legislation in 1995 creating an Art -in -Public -Places (APP) program. The purpose of the program is to encourage and enhance artistic expression and appreciation adding value to the community through acquiring, exhibiting and maintaining public art. The program is funded by setting aside 1 %ofall eligible City construction projects (including Utilityprojects) over $250,000, as defined in the APP guidelines. This item reappropriates $23,366 in the Light and Power Utility Fund to be used for the APPprojects that were in progress in 2011 and will continue in 2012. As APP funds lapse at the end of the year, funds need to be reappropriated to continue these projects including the Transformer Cabinet Mural project. WATER FUND 46. Art -in -Public -Places - $143.340 City Council approved legislation in 1995 creating an Art -in -Public -Places (APP) program. The purpose of the program is to encourage and enhance artistic expression and appreciation adding value to the community through acquiring, exhibiting and maintaining public art. The program is funded by setting aside 1 % ofall eligible City construction projects (including Utilityprojects) over $250,000, as defined in the APP guidelines. This item reappropriates $143,340 in the Water Fund to be used for the APP projects that were in progress in 2011 and will continue in 2012. As APP funds lapse at the end of the year, funds need to be reappropriated to continue these projects including the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery and the Linden Street Pocket Park. STORM WATER FUND 47. Art -in -Public -Places - $21.228 City Council approved legislation in 1995 creating an Art -in -Public -Places (APP) program. The purpose of the program is to encourage and enhance artistic expression and appreciation adding value to the community through acquiring, exhibiting and maintaining public art. The program is funded by setting aside I %ofall eligible City construction projects (including Utilityprojects) over $250,000, as defined in the APP guidelines. This item reappropriates $21,228 in the Stormwater Utility Fund to be used for the APPprojects that were. in progress in 201land will continue in 2012. As APP funds lapse at the end of the year, funds need to be reappropriated to continue these projects including the Flood Markers, Manhole Covers and the Storm Drain Markers. FINANCIAL /ECONOMIC IMPACTS This Ordinance increases 2012 appropriations by $1,898,522. A total of $1,083,767 is requested for reappropriation in the General Fund and $814, 755 is requested from various other Cityfunds. Reappropriation requests represent amounts budgeted in 2011 that could not be encumbered at year-end. The appropriations are from 2011 prior year reserves. " Councilmember Horak expressed concern regarding a $145,500 appropriation for a Transportation Utility Analysis, which he understood would not been needed if ballot initiative Keep Fort Collisn Great passed. City Manager Atteberry replied this addressed the revenue diversification issue. Ann Turnquist, Policy and Project Manager, replied the budget offer is being continued because the 000A April3, 2012 revenue diversification issues were expected to remain, and Council had wanted to continue to discuss the Transportation Utility Fee. Councilmember Manvel asked if it makes sense to move forward with this study rather than look at other revenue diversification strategies. City Manager Atteberry replied it should be done in the context of other diversification strategies. Councilmember Horak stated this is premature and he does not want the funds appropriated for this particular use. City Manager Atteberry stated, should this not be approved, an offer will return in the future, perhaps within a greater context of revenue diversification. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance No. 025, 2012, on First Reading, deleting the reference to the Transportation Utility Analysis. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 028, 2012, Appropriating General Fund Reserves for the Purpose of Rebating Use Tax to Hewlett Packard Company in Support of the Building Six Annex Expansion in Accordance with Resolution 2010-029, Adopted on First Reading The following is staff s memorandum for this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance appropriates $241,193 of General Revenue Funds for a Use Tax rebate approved by City Council on May 18, 2010 (Resolution 2010-029; Vote: 4-1; Nays: Ohlson; Abstain: Poppaw; Absent: Kottwitz). The Resolution approved an agreement between the City and Hewlett Packard Company to provide Business Investment Assistance for the Building 6 Annex Expansion. The additional operations created approximately 100jobs with an annual average wage of$90, 000. The City's assistance included both a one time use tax rebate and a personal property tax rebate on lab equipment for a total value of $1.6 million. This Ordinance appropriates $241,193 in use tax rebate, which is substantially less that the maximum rebate approved of $600, 000. BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION On May 18, 2010, City Council adopted a resolution approving a Business Investment Agreement ("Agreement') between the City and Hewlett Packard Company ("HP') for the Building 6Annex Expansion. HP expanded operations at the Harmony Road facility, including construction of an Engineering Focused Lab by retrofitting 40, 000 squarefeet ofthe Building 6Annex. Theadditional operations created over 100 jobs with an annual average wages of $90, 000. The expansion included two phases totaling $64.4 million in construction and equipment investment. The Agreement includes two performance based investments: (1) a one-time Use Tax rebate on the lab equipment purchased at installation; and (2) a Personal Property Tax rebate on the same lab 323 April3, 2012 equipment for ten years. Both investments relate to revenues the City would not otherwise collect if the expansion did not occur. The total investment package has a value of $1.6 million over ten years. During the same time period the City will receive $2.0 million in revenues net of the investments made through the agreement. HP has completed the expansion and submitted an application for Use Tax rebate under the terms of the Agreement. The Agreement authorized a Maximum Use Tax Reimbursement of $600,000. After thorough review by the City's Sales Tax department, the application requests $241,193 in Use Tax rebate. FINANCIAL /ECONOMIC IMPACTS The Ordinance will have the following impacts on the City of Fort Collins finances: $241,193 of General Fund Reserves will be appropriated for the purpose of remitting a Use Tax rebate to HP. The Use Tax was received in a prior year and is now held in reserves. • The Sales Tax Department has validated that HP remitted at least $241,193 of Use Tax through the purchase of eligible equipment as indicated in the Agreement. Martin Shields, Associate Professor of Economics and Regional Economist at Colorado State UniversitypreparedanEconomic lmpactAnalysis(EIA)ofHP'splannedexpansion. Thefollowing summarizes that analysis: Construction Benefits/Impacts • Direct Employment and Income — Based on a $34.4 million budget for retrofit, the proposed expansion will directly support approximately 336 construction jobs during the construction phase earning an average wage of $52,300 (Source: IMPLAN, CSURegional Economist). • Spin-off Employment and Income — The construction jobs will support approximately 207 spin-off jobs during the construction phase earning an average wage of $35, 600 (Source: IMPLAN CSU Regional Economist). • Total Employment — The project will support a total of 543 direct and spin-off jobs during construction, with an average annual compensation of $45,900(Source: IMPLAN, CSU Regional Economist). • Construction Use Tax — Based on an investment of $34.4 million in retrofit, the City will receive approximately $620, 000 in construction use tax. The calculation assumes 60 percent of the investment is in materials and 40 percent in labor. (Source: Insight Fiscal Impact Model; CSU Regional Economist) Operations Benefits/Impaets Direct Employment and Income — Per HP, 100 positions will be created after the retrofit of Building 6, earning an average wage of $90, 000. Total payroll including benefits is approximately $12.6 million (based on an assumption of 40 percent ofgross pay in benefits). 324 April3, 2012 • Spin-off Employment and Income — Based on the anticipated job growth supported by the expansion of Research and Laboratory space at HP, the 100 direct jobs will support an additional 124 spin-offpositions in Larimer County with an average wage of approximately $32,900 (Source: IMPLAN, CSU Regional Economist). • Total Employment- The proposed expansion will support a total of 224 direct and spin-off jobs (Source: IMPLAN, CSU Regional Economist). • On going Real Property Taxes —Based on a $24 million investment in Building 6, it is likely the Real Property Taxes will increase after completion. This increase in value could generate an additional $88,000 annually in property tax revenue to the City or $880,000 over ten years. • On -going Use Tax — Assuming HP replaces 50 percent of the $30 million investment in equipment over the next ten years, this could result in an additional $450, 000 in equipment use tax revenue. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The HP retrofit will impact the environment in the following ways: • An existing building on the HP Harmony Campus will be retrofit for a productive use allowing 100 newjobs to be added to the community without consuming additional raw land. The stated goal of the facility is to develop an Engineering Focused Laboratory with a "sustainable data center" and provide additional energy efficiency improvements. • HP has and remains a strong Climate Wise partner. Energy Efficiency projects to -date have included lighting upgrades, chillerplant expansion and upgrade, air handling unit upgrades, a building tune-up, and ice thermal storage. The total power savings equals 6.2 million Kilowatt Hours annually and a reduction in demand of 1,641 kilowatts. • Annual water consumption will increase by 8.0 million gallons as a result of cooling operations. A great deal of this water will not enter the waste water system due to evaporative loss. • Annual electricity consumption will increase by 10.67 megawatts. " Councilmember Poppaw withdrew from the discussion of Ordinance No. 028, 2012, due to a previously declared conflict of interest: Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he would like to see individual incentives become performance - based. Josh Birks, Economic Advisor, stated the level of sophistication relating to incentives can be elevated in the future. A natural evolution is to add additional accountability into these types of incentives, including demonstrable proof as to the number of jobs being created. Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer, stated budget offers would be involved in the 2013-2014 budget to aid in increasing the transparency and visibility of these kinds of incentive programs. 325 April3, 2012 Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson suggested statements indicating job creation numbers should not be provided without evidence. Birks agreed and City Manager Atteberry replied data from Hewlett Packard will be provided to Council. Birks noted this addition has created one of the first data centers that is being operated in a more efficient environment. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance No. 028, 2012, on First Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. (Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) Consideration of the Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board's February 16, 2012 Denial of Two Stand -Alone Modifications Concerning the Proposed Carriage House Apartments Located at 1305-1319 South Shields Street, Planning and Zoning Board Decision Upheld The following is staffs memorandum for this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In January, 2012, Charles A. Bailey, Catamount Properties, Ltd, (Appellant) submitted two stand- alone modification of standard requests: one relating to the general standard in Section 3.4.7(B) of the Land Use Code (LUC) regarding the preservation ofstructures deemed individually eligible for local landmark designation, and one.for the demolition of an individually eligible structure (Section 3.4.7(E)). The Appellant requested to redevelop the properties located at 1305 and 1319 South Shields Street by demolishing two existing single family residences and associated outbuildings and constructingfive multi family buildings with approximately ten unitsper building. On February 16, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board considered two Stand -Alone Modification of Standard requests to Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E). After testimony from the applicant, the public and staff, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously denied (6-0) the two modification of standard requests. On March 1, 2012, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk's Office seeking redress of the action of the Planning and Zoning Board. The Appellant alleges that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing because it considered evidence that was substantially false and grossly misleading and failed to properly interpret the relevant provisions of the Land Use Code when denying the two stand-alone modification of standards requests. BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION The existing buildings at 1305 and 1319 South Shields Street are over fifty years old. Therefore, the proposal to demolish these buildings is subject to Chapter 14, Article 4, of the Municipal Code, commonly called the "Demolition/Alteration Review Process. " In November 2011, pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code, the Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) Director and the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Chair determined that the 326 April3, 2012 house at 1319 South Shields and the outbuildings at 1305 South Shields Street were not individually eligible for local landmark designation. The residence at 1305 South Shields Street was reviewed by the CDNS Director and the LPC Chair on three separate occasions, in September, November, and December, 2011, and each time the dwelling was unanimously determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation. Additionally, on November 9, 2011, the LPC conducted a Preliminary Hearing on the proposed demolition of the dwelling. LPC Preliminary Hearings are an opportunity for the applicant and the Commission to explore alternatives to demolition or substantial alteration. At this Preliminary Hearing, the Appellant did not discuss or provide any alternatives to demolition, and a mutually agreeable solution to demolition of the home was not identified. The Commission moved that the application proceed to a LPC Final Hearing. An LPC Final Hearing would be scheduled after the receipt ofsubmittal requirements, including approved plans for the redevelopment of the property. For the Planning and Zoning Board to approve a Project Development Plan, it must comply with all applicable Sections of Article 3 and Article 4 of the Land Use Code. As conceptually proposed, the project does not comply with Sections 3.4.7 (B) and 3.4.7(E), due to the failure to demonstrate either that the plan provides for the preservation of the individually eligible home at 1305 South Shields Street by incorporating the building in his proposal; or by providing evidence that the applicant has, to the maximum extentfeasible, attempted to comply with the Code provision and that no feasible and prudent alternative exists and all possible efforts to comply with the regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken. Therefore, the Appellant chose to submit two "stand-alone" modification requests. ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD At its February 16, 2012, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board made the following motions: The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(B) of the Land Use Code based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good. 2. The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good. The Board considered the testimony of the applicant, affected property owners, the public and staff, and unanimously voted (6-0) to deny the modification of standard requests to Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code. QUESTIONS COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to hold a fair hearing? Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code? 327 April3, 2012 ALLEGATIONS ONAPPEAL On March 1, 2012, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk's Office. The Appellant, who was the applicant before the Planning and Zoning Board, alleges that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing and failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code when denying the two stand-alone modification of standard requests to Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code. A. Failure to Conduct a Fair Hearing in that the Planning and Zoning Board Considered Evidence Substantially False and Grossly Misleading. The Appellant states, "The Board deferred to staff opinion and a prior erroneous determination of eligibility based on substantially false and grossly misleading evidence as was demonstrated to be blatantly incorrect.." The Appellant maintains that the Board considered evidence substantially false and grossly misleading. In support, the Appellant cites the November 9, 2011 staff report to the Landmark Preservation Commission; the initial determination of eligibility; the State of Colorado, Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form, prepared by the historic preservation firm HistoryMatters, LLC. The Appellant asserts these contained false information and that the Board relied on the product of this false information in accepting the eligibility determination for the 1305 South Shields structure. The Appellant further details other aspects of these materials, as well as information from a separate report provided by the Appellant, referenced as the Rogue Architects Report, in support of this assertion. The Planning and Zoning Board did not receive nor did they discuss the November 9, 2011 staff report prepared for the Landmark Preservation Commission. The Planning and Zoning Board did not discuss any information contained in said report in connection with its decisions on the modifications of standard request. Similarly, none of the three determinations of eligibility were provided to the Planning and Zoning Board. Land Use Code 3.4.7(C), Determination of Landmark Eligibility, provides that the determination ofeligibilityfor local landmark designation will be made in accordance with Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The applicable provisions of Chapter 14 provide for the determination of eligibility to be made by the CDNS Director and LPC Chair, or, in the case of conflicting determinations, by the Landmark Preservation Commission. In this instance, three separate determinations of eligibility were made for the building at 1305 South Shields Street. On each occasion, the CDNS Director and LPC Chair determined that the building is individually eligible for local landmark designation. The factual information that the house at 1305 South Shields Street has been determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation was provided to the Board on page 3 of the staff report on the modifications of standards. This information was also verbally relayed to the Board at the hearing, as documented in the transcript of the meeting (Transcript, pg.15). The HistoryMatters, LLC report, commissioned by private citizens, was sent to the Planning and Zoning Board electronically on February 16, 2012, at the same time as electronic copies of the Appellant's Rogue Architecture and Gebau reports were sent. The Planning and Zoning Board did 328 April3, 2012 not review or consider any of these reports in making its decisions on the modifications ofstandards (transcript, pg.15). The transcript of the February 16, 2012 Planning and Zoning Board meeting reflects that, when asked about the relevancy of these documents to the Board's consideration, the Appellant, Mr. Charles Bailey stated, "The fact of relevancy of these documents is that, again, we're not asking for a declaration that the home isn't eligible, these are just supporting materials that were part of the slide show. ".... and, "But the Gebau report and the Rogue report, you know, were not asking that your decision hinge on those reports. " (Transcript, pg.15). B. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of Section 2.8.2(H)(2) of the Land Use Code in the Request for a Modification of Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code. The Appellant states, "A modification of standard is allowed if granting the modification is not detrimental to the public good" and the Appellant maintains that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Plan, West Central Neighborhood Plan, and the Land Use Code zone district standards in relationship to the eligibility of the property in making its decision that modifications of Standards 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) would be detrimental to the public good. The question, thus, is do the benefits to the community of retaining the historic structure at 1305 South Shields Street outweigh the benefits to the community of additional student housing at this location. The Appellant states that the granting of the modifications is not detrimental to the public good because the proposed project addresses eleven City Plan policies. Therefore, the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code. On February 16, 2012, the Appellant requested that the Planning and Zoning Board (Board) grant modifications to Section 3.4.7(B) and Section 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code. These Land Use Code (LUC) Sections are as follows: Section 3.4.7(B) General Standard If the project contains a site, structure or object that (1) is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark .... then to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure. The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is: (a) preserved and adaptively used on the development site; or (b) is located on property adjacent to the development site... New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto Section 3.4.7 (E) Relocation or Demolition A site, structure or object that is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation ... may be relocated or demolished only if, in the opinion of the decision maker, the applicant has, to the maximum extent feasible, attempted to preserve the site, structure or object in accordance with the standards of this Section, and the preservation of the site, structure or object is not feasible. 329 April3, 2012 In order for the Board to approve the modification requests to LUC Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E), the Board must find that the modifications are not detrimental to the public good and that one or more of the four criteria outlined in LUC Section 2.82(H) are fully complied with. LUC Section 2.8.2(11) states that: The decision maker may grant a modification of standard only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible. The staff report to the Board, notes that, "while providing for infill and redevelopment as well as student housing is a goal of City Plan... providing for the protection of historic resources is also required. " The Planning and Zoning Board's discussion at the Hearing did not specifically cover policy documents such as City Plan as they relate to the requested modification. In its denial of the two stand alone modification of standard requests, the Planning and Zoning Board did not make specific findings regarding the cited City Plan policies referenced by the Appellant in the Notice of Appeal. The Appellant states thatgranting the modifications is not detrimental to the public good because the proposed project advances the public good by substantially addressingpolicies from the West Central Neighborhood Plan as established in three Maps, one Policy and three Housing Objectives. On page 3 of the Notice of Appeal, the Appellant references WCNP Map 4- Zoning District Map. This map was not part of the record and the Planning and Zoning Board did not take the WCNP Map 4 into consideration when moving to deny the two modifications based on the fact that they are detrimental to the public good. ' As the staff report states on page 2, providing for infill and redevelopment as well as student housing is a goal of the West Central Neighborhood Plan; however, providing for the protection of historic resources is also required. In terms of the public good, the staff report to the Board notes that, "the public good lies within a delicate balance of community values and is inextricably linked to the identity and heritage of an area and its people and a modification to Sections 3.4.7 (B) and (E) to not require the preservation of the individually eligible structure at 1305 South Shields Street could be considered as detrimental to the public good in so much that it could weaken the sense of heritage and area identity. " 330 April3, 2012 The motions made by the Planning and Zoning Board at its February 16, 2012 Hearing denying the two stand alone modification of standard requests did not contain any language referencing the cited West Central Neighborhood Plan Maps, Policies or Housing Objectives referenced in the Notice of Appeal. The Appellant alleges that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevantprovisions of the Land Use Code in that the proposed project is not detrimental to public good in relationship to the eligibility of the Property and the lack of exterior integrity of Property. In doing so, that the Board failed to properly interpret and apply the Code in that the requested modification of standard. The property was determined to be individually eligible pursuant to the process outlined in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The Planning and Zoning Board did not make a determination of individual eligibilityfor local landmark designation on February 16, 2012. Additionally, the State of Colorado, Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form that the Appellant references on page 4 of the Notice of Appeal was not provided to the Planning and Zoning Board, as the Planning and Zoning Board has no ability to consider, make, or change a determination of eligibility. Land Use Code 3.4.7(C), Determination of Landmark Eligibility, specifically states that the determination of eligibilityfor local landmark designation will be made in accordance with the process laid out in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The determination of eligibility for the residence at 1305 South Shields Street was made following the process outlined in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The Appellant alleges that the Board failed to apply the proper and commonly understood definition of "substantial. " Section 5.1.1 of the Land Use Code gives the Director authority to interpret or define words, terms and phrases not explicitly defined in LUC Section 5.1.2. The definition of substantial, as stated in the staffreport, was determined using Webster's Third New International Dictionary ((Mabridged) pursuant to L UC Section 5.1.1. The definition provided by staff to the Board was "considerable in amount, value or worth. " In context with the complete modification criteria of subsection 2.8.2(H)(2) (below), the definition of the word substantial was appropriately interpreted by staffand subsequently the Planning and Zoning Board. Section 2.8.2(H)(2) states, (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application ofsuch a standard would render the project practically infeasible. The motions made by the Planning and Zoning Board at its February 16, 2012 Hearing denying the two stand alone modification of standard requests did not contain any language referencing the word substantial nor did they make any specific findings in relation to the word substantial. 331 April3, 2012 The Appellant alleges that the Board failed to properly interpret and apply the Code in that the requested modification of standard and demolition of the Property substantially alleviates existing, defined and described problems of city-wide concern and substantially addresses and benefits important community needs. . The motions made by the Planning and Zoning Board at its February 16, 2012 Hearing denying the two stand alone modification ofstandard requests did not contain any language referencing adopted city policies, the intent or purpose of the Land Use Code or any statements regarding the project in terms of the LUC Section 2.8.2(H)(2). SUMMARY The house at 1305 South Shields Street was determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation pursuant to the process and procedures contained in Chapter 14 ofthe Municipal Code. When a building that has been determined to be individually eligible is proposed to be demolished or significantly modified as part of a development plan, then the plan is subject to the standards contained in Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code. As proposed, the project did not meet Section 3.4.7 requirements and the Appellant requested a modification of these standards preceding the submittal ofa Project Development Plan, which was heard on February 16, 2012. In order to grant a modification request, the Board must make the findings outlined in Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code. The Board moved to deny both of the request for modifications based on their determination that granting the modifications would be detrimental to the public good. " Deputy City Attorney Carrie Daggett stated this appeal was filed prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 131, 2011, which amended the appeal procedure. Daggett added that new evidence is only admissible in certain circumstances: evidence that is presented to support or oppose a claim that the Planning and Zoning Board considered evidence relevant to its decision that was substantially false or grossly misleading and evidence offered in response to questions of Councilmembers during this proceeding. Only parties -in -interest are allowed to participate in this hearing. Council may opt to uphold, overturn, or modify the Planning and Zoning Board's denials, or may remand all or part of the decisions back to the Board for re -hearing or further consideration of specific matters. Mayor Weitkunat stated she took part in a site visit to the property, along with Councilmembers Horak and Ohlson. Courtney Levingston, City Planner, stated the Planning and Zoning Board denied two modification requests relating to the demolition of the house at 1305 South Shields Street, which was determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation. Levingston described the conceptual plan for development of the site. Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner, described the demolition alteration review process. As conceptually proposed, the Carriage House Apartments project does not comply with two sections of the Land Use Code for Historic and Cultural Resources and the applicant has, therefore, requested modifications of standard. Following the Board's denial of said modifications, the appellant filed a notice of appeal with the City Clerk's Office citing grounds that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing and failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code. McWilliams and Levingston discussed the allegations in the appeal. 332 April3, 2012 Appellant Presentation Charles Bailey, Catamount Properties, appellant, introduced attorney Jeff Johnson, and historic architectural specialists, Jim Burshoff from Oz Architects and Juan Luna from Rogue Architects. He requested consideration of three key elements: review of the Planning and Zoning Board's decision and findings, definition of public good, and a final determination based on facts. He stated plans have not been submitted, given the potential of the historical aspect preventing the project. Mr. Bailey discussed the history of the area on Shields Street and pointed out the lack of historical features of the house at 1305 South Shields Street. He discussed a report from Rouge Architects which was received by the Planning and Zoning Board at the night of its hearing and noted it was presented late due to the nature of the modification request at that hearing; there was no request to deny the historical designation of the structure at that hearing. Mr. Bailey discussed the errors, in his opinion, of the Historitecture Report relied upon by staff to conclude that the structure is individually eligible for historical designation. He stated this home has no historical integrity or significance and should not be eligible for designation. Mr. Bailey discussed the policies in various City Codes and Plans which are supportive of his proposed project. Deputy City Attorney Daggett noted Mr. Bailey provided copies of a highlighted document of record and stated the Code requires any new written materials be submitted by noon the Wednesday prior to the Council meeting. She recommended that Council consider whether or not it will accept the documents at this point. The attorney for the opponents did not have any objection to the submission of the material and Council opted to accept the highlighted documents. Opponent Presentation Sandra Quackenbush, 1308 Bennett Road, discussed the development process and historical designation process to this point. Dave Taylor, 1302 Bennett Road, addressed City Code provisions and stated the Planning and Zoning Board provided a fair hearing and correctly and fairly applied Land Use Code provisions. He requested the Planning and Zoning Board decision be upheld. Andrew Bantham, 1214 Bennett Road, supported the Planning and Zoning Board denial of the modification requests and suggested the applicant is attempting to circumvent the development process by requesting that he not have to comply with certain Land Use Code sections. Appellant Rebuttal Mr. Bailey introduced Bev Carlson, the property owner at 1305 South Shields Street. She opposed the historical designation of the home and stated her rights have been disregarded with regard to her desire to sell the property. Jeff Johnson, attorney for Mr. Bailey, stated the appellants are not circumventing the development process, but rather implementing it in the only way allowed to challenge the fundamental decision ofthe Director ofNeighborhood Services and the Landmark Preservation Commission Chairperson. 333 April3, 2012 He stated the applicant believes this project enhances the public good and is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code. Additionally, the project satisfies the requirements to grant the modification. Opponent Rebuttal Mr. Bantham stated the neighborhood supports student housing but stated it is not the only goal which should be supported by the development process. He requested Council uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. Council Discussion Mayor Weitkunat commended both sides on their presentations and requested input from Deputy City Attorney Daggett regarding the purview of Council regarding this decision. Deputy City Attorney Daggett replied there are two types of questions before Council: the first relates to the hearing process before the Planning and Zoning Board. Assuming Council finds the Board hearing to be fair with a proper process, Council would then move to the question of whether or not the Board properly interpreted and applied the Land Use Code. Councilmember Troxell stated the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) application contained incorrect information; parts of the justification for declaring this property to be historic are inaccurate. Councilmember Kottwitz asked if the Planning and Zoning Board hearing could be considered unfair as they may or may not have been presented with accurate information, and 'asked if this process is part of the appeal process for the Landmark Preservation Commission. Deputy City Attorney Daggett replied the Land Use Code specifically references the Chapter 14 process and states that a structure that is determined to be eligible for historic designation is considered to be eligible for the purposes of the Land Use Code. Chapter 14 does not specify an administrative appeal process for determinations made relating to eligibility for landmark designation; therefore, the process in Chapter 14 and the Land Use Code becomes the process by which those issues are tackled. Councilmember Kottwitz asked if property owners can reapply or go through the Planning and Zoning Board with the same property once it has been determined to be eligible. Deputy City Attorney Daggett replied this project actually had three different reviews at the Chapter 14 level, all of which resulted in determination of individual eligibility. There is no limit in Chapter 14 on eligibility"review and the Land Use Code has limits on resubmissions of ODPs and PDPs in terms of timing, but does not address resubmission in terms of modifications. Councilmember Manvel asked about the referenced preliminary and final hearings. Deputy City Attorney Daggett replied the preliminary hearing process is a process in which the LPC attempts to work with the applicant to come up with ideas which may result in a mutually agreeable outcome. If that does not occur, the project continues through the process and the LPC provides a final review of an approved plan. That review cannot undo the Land Use Code approval. Councilmember Manvel asked why no development plan has been submitted. McWilliams replied the process would typically involve a preliminary hearing with the LPC to discuss alternatives that would meet the different Code standards and would allow the applicant to develop the project. If 334 April3, 2012 a solution is not found, the applicant can develop plans and submit them for approval. At that point, the plans would return to the LPC. The LPC could then approve the project as submitted, opt for a maximum of a 45-day postponement to create a solution among neighbors, or state that the property has such significance it should be considered for landmark designation against a property owners' desire. In that case, Council would make the final decision. Any decision made by the LPC in its final hearing is appealable to Council. Council makes the final decision regarding all landmark designations, based on recommendation from the LPC. Deputy City Attorney Daggett noted the process referenced in Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code is an eligibility process, not the actual designation process. Councilmember Troxell asked why the decision is not being appealed in terms of the property's eligibility for designation. McWilliams replied, once the building is found to be individually eligible as a Fort Collins landmark, the applicant would develop plans. Councilmember Troxell stated that presupposes that the eligibility is valid. McWilliams confirmed that is what the applicant maintained; however, the eligibility of the property was reviewed on three separate occasions, the first two of which were based solely on the property's architectural merits, its rarity in Fort Collins, and the age of additions or alterations. The fact that Mr. Carlson had lived in the building was not brought forth at all until the third determination of eligibility. The report presented by the neighborhood group was present for the third determination of eligibility. Mayor Weitkunat noted the structure has been determined to be eligible for historic designation. The applicant chose to go before the Planning and Zoning Board to request a stand-alone modification of standard. The Board had to first determine whether or not the granting of that modification would impair the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code or substantially alleviate an existing and defined problem. Council must now determine whether or not the Board properly applied the Code. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, that the Planning and Zoning Board did not fail to conduct a fair hearing. Councilmember Manvel noted the Planning and Zoning Board was making its decision with the given that the property was eligible for designation, and agreed the hearing was fair. Councilmember Troxell agreed the hearing was fair; however, he stated the process with the LPC is flawed and lacks checks and balances.. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board denying the proposed modification of standard from 3.4.7(B) of the Land Use Code. 335 April3, 2012 Councilmember Kottwitz requested Council examine the process regarding the LPC. City Manager Atteberry stated he has already met with staff regarding that issue and he will return to Council with additional information. Councilmember Troxell stated the LPC process is flawed but supported the motion regarding the modification of standard. Councilmember Horak stated he could not yet agree the process if flawed. Councilmember Troxell replied the application for this property represents 1301 South Shields as part of the justification as to why it should be applicable for historical designation; therefore the Planning and Zoning Board decisions have been based on flawed materials that have gone through the LPC. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson stated he would support the motion but agreed the LPC process needs to be reviewed. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. _ THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board denying the proposed modification of standard from Section 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Councilmember Poppaw requested that staff prepare information regarding an unused medicine disposal site and place the item on the six month planning calendar. The discussion should include all pharmaceutical and personal care products. Councilmember Kottwitz agreed and suggested possibly partnering the event with the hazardous waste disposal day. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson agreed and requested an examination of all possible options. The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. ATTEST: Interim City Clerk Adjournment 336