The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20063254.tiff EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET Case ORD2006-9 - NEWBY FARMS LLC, CIO VILLAGE HOMES OF COLORADO Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description A. Planning Staff Inventory of Items Submitted B. Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation C. Planning Commission Summary of Hearing (Minutes 10/17/2006) D. Clerk to the Board Notice of Hearing E. Planning Staff City of Longmont City Council Minutes, dated September 12, 2006 F. Hergenreder Family Letter of concern, dated 12/18/2006) G. H. J. K. L. M. N. O. P. Q. R. S. T. U. V. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION CITY OF LONGMONT, COLORADO September 12, 2006 -7:00 p.m. 6:30 p.m.—Pre-Meeting Public Forum in Study Session Room The September 12, 2006, meeting of the Longmont City Council was called to order by Mayor Pirnack at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. 1. ROLL CALL—PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE City Clerk Valeria Skin called the roll. Those present were: Mayor Julia Pimack and Council members Karen Benker, Marty Block, Mary Blue, Doug Brown, Roger Lange, and Fred Wilson. Mayor Pirnack led the assembly in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. CHAIR REMINDER TO THE PUBLIC: A. Anyone wishing to speak at"First Call—Public Invited To Be Heard" will need to add his or her name to the list outside the Council chambers. Only those on the list will be invited to speak at the first "Public Invited To Be Heard." B. Speakers who do not place their names on the list will have the opportunity to speak during public hearing items this evening, or at the "Final Call—Public Invited To Be Heard" (any item) at the end of the meeting. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Council member Lange moved, seconded by Block, to approve the minutes of the August 22, 2006, meeting as corrected (see below). Motion carried: 7-0. (The name of Planner Joni Marsh needs to be corrected on Page Three of the minutes.) 4. AGENDA REVISIONS AND SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS There were no revisions to the agenda. 5. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT The Acting City Manager had no reports to present at this time. EXHIBIT ,_tea City Council Proceedings— September 12, 2006 Page 2. 6. SPECIAL REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. A Proclamation Designating September 2006 as National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month in Longmont, Colorado Mayor Pirnack read into the record a proclamation designating September 2006 as National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month in Longmont. 7. ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ANY MATTER A. O-2006-65, A Bill for an Ordinance Designating 422 Pratt Street, the Young-Blum House, as a Local Historical Landmark(Public Hearing and Second Reading Scheduled for September 12, 2006) Jim Golden, Acting City Manager,read the title of the ordinance into the record. There was no formal staff presentation on this item. Mayor Pirnack opened a public hearing on this item. There being no one present to address Council on this issue, the public hearing was closed. Council member Block moved, seconded by Lange, to adopt Ordinance O-2006-65 on second reading. Motion carried: 7-0. 8. FIRST CALL-PUBLIC INVITED TO BE HEARD Jerry Williams, 630 Lashley Street, talked about the landscaping project along 3rd Avenue, and stated he did not believe the project will be finished by winter time. He questioned the Council's logic in awarding the contractor a time extension, since it is already in excess of 60 days. Mr. Williams said that the City is open to litigation from anyone who didn't bid on the project because of the completion requirement of 150 days. The project is over a year old, and one-half million dollars over budget. The City has now hired someone to oversee this project in its final phase,but Mr. Williams said he hates to have that person put in a losing position. Arnold Turner, PO Box 212, Hygiene, spoke concerning the ordinance on transferable development rights. All the TDRs (Transferred Development Rights) are under contract. However, Boulder County can't put them into effect from the Rabbit Mountain Sending Area to the Blue Mountain Vista Receiving Area until Council provides this ordinance to the County. Mr. Turner offered his services as a proof reader on these ordinances if Council needs it. Joan Lutz, 2203 Watersong Circle, spoke in favor of the Newby Adam annexation since she believes there are many exceptional benefits. She stated that the most important benefit is the preservation of the critical, irreplaceable wildlife habitat next to St. Vrain Park. City Council Proceedings—September 12, 2006 Page 3. Ron Skarka, 100 Inverness Terrace East, Englewood, identified himself as the applicant in the Newby/Adam Annexation item, and asked if it was possible to speak at more length when the item is considered on the agenda. Council's consensus was not to move the item up on agenda. However, it granted Mr. Skarka five minutes to speak when the item is considered. Mr. Skarka indicated there are some issues and policies he believes will negatively impact the application. Among these are the idea of creating a metro district to fund infrastructure and the policy on school capacity. Bruce Dierking, 7102 Rozena Drive, spoke on behalf of the Adam family who has farmed in this area for close to 50 years. However, the reality is that it is not feasible for Mr. Adam to continue his dairy operation. About a year ago, the Adam family contacted the City and talked with Mr. DelVecchio. A letter was sent by the City to the County and to the Adam family stating that there was no interest in annexing the property and that the property was not eligible for annexation. The family then approached Weld County. In addition, the family contracted with a very good developer interested in moving their annexation forward. So, the family started winding down their dairy operation. Going through the City's review process will result is a lengthy delay. Also, there was some testimony at the hearing in August that could be interpreted to mean that the family was not willing to work in good faith with the State Parks system. That is not accurate. There was no agreement on price, so the state indicated it would not be making an offer on the property. Lesia Bingham, 12797 Hillcrest Drive, spoke about the steering committee that is developing guidelines and standards for the corridor along Highway 66. She stated her last experience dissuaded her from perhaps participating further. She followed the process, raised her hand for questions and was disparagingly reprimanded by a steering committee member who said that she was wasting the committee's time. After the meeting was over, that member apologized for her comments. Ms. Bingham said it is her understanding that developers will add five feet of soil before beginning construction, so there should not be any drainage issues because of the number of ponds that will be created. Ms. Bingham said she will be present when this issue returns to Council. She is concerned that there will be a large impact on people to the east and south of this property. Peter Benson, Village Homes, applicant for Adam/Newby Annexation, wished to address two items discussed last week. There was a concern about potential library needs being met. A new library has been funded and construction on this 30,000+ square feet building will begin sometime soon in Firestone. The district and county emergency response time is seven minutes, so crews can reach the perimeter in less than five minutes without speeding or having sirens on. Daniel Haifley, 2670 Elmer Linn Drive, talked about Newby/Adam property and indicated that, as a homeowner, he would love to have the dairy still in operation. His main concern is the park and the connection to the St. Vrain River. It is an important watershed for all who live in this area. He said it is irrelevant who annexes the land. But, he advocates having the connection managed by the park to ecologically preserve its natural integrity. A homeowners association will not protect it as well. He encouraged Council to annex the property if it is in a better position to protect the watershed. City Council Proceedings—September 12, 2006 Page 4. 9. CONSENT AGENDA AND INTRODUCTION AND READING BY TITLE OF FIRST READING ORDINANCES A. Land Development Code Ordinances (All pulled from consent agenda for presentation and discussion) 1. O-2006-66, A Bill for an Ordinance Amending Chapter 15.01 of the Longmont Municipal Code regarding the Land Development Code General Provisions (Removed from consent agenda) 2. O-2006-67, A Bill for an Ordinance Amending Chapter 15.02 of the Longmont Municipal Code regarding the Land Development Code Development Review Procedures(Removed from consent agenda) 3. O-2006-68, A Bill for an Ordinance Amending Chapter 15.03 of the Longmont Municipal Code regarding the Land Development Code(Removed from consent agenda) 4. O-2006-69, A Bill for an Ordinance Amending Chapter 15.04 of the Longmont Municipal Code regarding the Land Development Code Use Regulations (Removed from consent agenda) 5. O-2006-70, A Bill for an Ordinance Amending Chapter 15.05 of the Longmont Municipal Code regarding the Land Development Code Development Standards (Removed from consent agenda) 6. O-2006-71, A Bill for an Ordinance Amending Chapter 15.06 of the Longmont Municipal Code regarding the Land Development Code Sign Standards (Removed from consent agenda) 7. O-2006-72, A Bill for an Ordinance Amending Chapter 15.07 of the Longmont Municipal Code regarding the Land Development Code Subdivision and Improvement Standards (Removed from consent agenda) 8. O-2006-73, A Bill for an Ordinance Amending Chapters 15.08, 15.09 and 15.10 of the Longmont Municipal Code regarding the Land Development Code Nonconformities, Enforcement and Penalties, and Definitions (Removed from consent agenda) 9. O-2006-74, A Bill for an Ordinance Amending Appendices A, B, C, and D to title 15 of the Longmont Municipal Code regarding the Land Development Code Application Fees, Submittal Requirements, Signature Certification Blocks and Petitions (Removed from consent agenda) B. O-2006-75,A Bill for an Ordinance Amending O-2006-36 Authorizing the Second Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Longmont and County of Boulder concerning Transferred Development Rights (Ordinance introduced and public hearing scheduled for September 26, 2006) City Council Proceedings—September 12, 2006 Page 5. C. O-2006-76,A Bill for an Ordinance Amending Title 14, chapters 14-04, 14-08, and 14- 20 and Title 15, Appendix B, of the Longmont Municipal Code on Water and Wastewater Rates and Fees for Mixed Uses (Ordinance introduced and public hearing scheduled for September 26, 2006) D. O-2006-77, A Bill for an Ordinance Authorizing the City of Longmont to Lease the Real Property Known as Vance Brand Municipal Airport Hangar Parcel H-64 (The Premises) to KLM Holdings, L.L.C. (Tenant) (Ordinance introduced and public hearing scheduled for September 26, 2006) E. R-2006-59,A Resolution of the Longmont City Council Urging Longmont Citizens to Vote "Yes"on Ballot Issue 2A, an Additional Sales Tax of 3-1/4 Cents on Every Ten Dollar Purchase with Proceeds Used Exclusively to Increase the Level of Service for Public Safety in the City of Longmont, on the 2006 November Coordinated Election Ballot(Resolution adopted) F. R-2006-60,A Resolution of the Longmont City Council Urging Longmont Citizens to Vote "Yes" on Ballot Issue 2B, a Lodging Tax of 2 Cents for Every Dollar Lodging Purchase, with Proceeds Used to Promote Tourism, Conventions, and Related Activities and Facilities in Longmont, on the November, 2006 Coordinated Election Ballot (Resolution adopted) G. R-2006-61, A Resolution of the Longmont City Council Approving the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and Boulder County for the Boulder County Domestic Abuse Project(Resolution adopted) H. R-2006-62,A Resolution of the Longmont City Council Approving the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and the State of Colorado for a Youth Tobacco Use Prevention Grant(Removed from consent agenda) I. R-2006-63,A Resolution of the Longmont City Council Approving the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and Boulder County for Its Social Services Foster Parent Support Program (Resolution adopted) J. R-2006-64,A Resolution Authorizing Assignment to the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority of a Private Activity Bond Allocation of the City of Longmont Pursuant to the Colorado Private Activity Bond Ceiling Allocation Act (Removed from consent agenda) K. Accept Communications from Boards, Committees and Commissions (Communications accepted) Jim Golden, Acting City Manager, read the titles of the ordinances into the record and reviewed all of the items on the consent agenda. Council member Block moved, seconded by Wilson, to adopt the Consent Agenda with the exception of items A, H and J, which were pulled for additional discussion. Motion carried: 7- 0. City Council Proceedings—September 12, 2006 Page 6. 10. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA A. Land Development Code Ordinances Brien Schumacher, Planner, noted that the proposed amendments are included in nine ordinances. Chapters were separated out into separate ordinances except for the appendices, which were combined into one ordinance. If there are changes at second reading, the cost to republish single ordinances will be less than republishing one ordinance with all chapters. He pointed out that there were a few revisions as outlined in a Council communication last week. Those changes were not considered substantive,but rather matter of language and the elimination of redundant language. He asked if Council had questions or concerns about those changes or if there was anything else Council wanted to discuss. He clarified that the changes, when and if adopted, will go into effect two weeks after adoption, and will apply to all development applications. He then discussed the impact on the applications in process. Since most of the changes being proposed are clarifications or allow additional flexibility, they will provide a benefit to the applications in the process, particularly to those considered redevelopment or infill applications. Council member Lange asked about the process for addressing anything Council may have overlooked. Mr. Schumacher responded that staff will be happy to discuss any future revisions or potential changes to the Land Development Code with Council. Responding to Council member Brown, Mr. Schumacher confirmed that, on Page 228, there is only one accessory dwelling unit allowed per property. Council member Block moved, seconded by Lange, to introduce on first reading the amendments to the Land Development code as contained in Items 1 through 9 (Ordinances O- 2006-66 through 74) of agenda item 9A. Motion carried: 7-0. H. R-2006-62, A Resolution of the Longmont City Council Approving the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and the State of Colorado for a Youth Tobacco Use Prevention Grant Council member Lange stated he did not see much detail on how this sizeable sum of money will be spent. Karen Roney, Community Services Department Director, advised Council that the funding is primarily used to pay a temporary staff member who coordinates the tobacco prevention activity. She offered to obtain the grant budget details for Council. Council member Lange moved, seconded by Blue, to adopt Resolution R-2006-62. Motion carried: 7-0. City Council Proceedings— September 12, 2006 Page 7. J. R-2006-64,A Resolution Authorizing Assignment to the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority of a Private Activity Bond Allocation of the City of Longmont Pursuant to the Colorado Private Activity Bond Ceiling Allocation Act Council member Benker asked if it were possible to use private activity bonds to assist with some of the projects on Main Street. She cited the property on 4th and Main Street, specifically about turning the top floors into affordable housing. Or, the parking garage project might have housing associated with it. Phil DelVecchio, Director of Community Development,responded that if the economic development project will create primary jobs,the answer is yes. Commercial activity is generally not allowed. An affordable housing component would be eligible. He also advised Council member Benker that last year's interest rate was around 5.5% to 6%. Council member Brown asked if there was a representative present from Thistle Housing. He asked what kind of on-site management they will have. Affordable housing residents have 50%below the area median income and that school district and the neighborhood already have issues. Building low income housing units means those units come with all the social implications. Mr. DelVecchio responded that Council is being asked to approve the resolution to authorize the assignment to the State Housing Authority. An endorsement resolution will come forward on the 26`h and the project can be discussed further at that time. Kathy Fedler, Community Block Grant Development Coordinator, added that a Thistle representative will be present at Council's next meeting. According to application, the bulk of the people already qualify. There will be no relocation of the residents. The only difference is that the project will be kept permanently affordable. Council member Brown moved, seconded by Benker,to adopt Resolution R-2006-64. Motion carried: 7-0. 11. GENERAL BUSINESS A. Presentation of Issues in the Proposed 2007 Operating Budget Jim Golden, Finance Director and Acting City Manager, outlined what will be covered at this meeting. Longmont Downtown Development Authority (LDDA): In the past,the LDDA budget has been made up of three separate funds: operating fund, debt service fund and a development incentive program. Earlier this year a TIF (Tax Increment Financing) loan was authorized for purposes of advertising and marketing. With that loan a marketing and advertising fund was created, so a fourth fund is included in this budget. He called Council's attention to Page 385 which contained the LDDA operating fund statement. In the 2007 Budget column, revenues in 2007 are projected at$157, 569 dollars and expenses are $178,523 dollars. There is a contribution from reserves of$20,954 and an ending working capital. If expenditures in 2006 and 2007 track with City Council Proceedings—September 12, 2006 Page 8. what is budgeted, the 2007 ending working capital will only be $6,752, most of which would be considered the TABOR emergency reserve. The 2006 budget called for a $14,566 contribution from reserves. Expenditures grew by $12,000 over 2005, mostly in wages and benefits. Budgeted property tax revenue in the LDDA has seen slow growth over the last few years, and has not kept pace with the growth in budgeted expenses. Without a significant increase in revenue to the operating fund in future years, the City won't be able to sustain the proposed expenses into 2008. If and when a construction project takes place, a charge for staff time will be made to the construction budget out of TIF funds as opposed to operating funds. The LDDA Board is requesting one time expenses of$22,800 for holiday lights, and $17,800 for special events. Council will also be reviewing a request by the LDDA Board to use $146,000 of TIF revenue for marketing and advertising. The Board's proposal is to use a similar level of funding for three years. There is more detail in depth in the Council communication on Page S-28. The other downtown-related type funds consist of the Downtown Parking Fund and the Longmont General Improvement District budget. Mary Murphy-Bessler, Director of the Longmont Downtown Development Authority,referred to the Downtown Parking Fund Statement(Page 39). There is a slight increase to that budget expenditure of over$2,000 from the year before, which basically results from contractual obligations and services. (The LDDA has a contract with City for snowplowing and maintenance of the parking lots.) She indicated that for the first time, as of yesterday, the LDDA actually had received payment for every single permit. The LDDA is at 100%capacity for permits in its parking lots. She indicated that$1,900 was added to the Operating Fund balance. The LDDA is doing its best to obtain more sponsorship for special events. Festival on Main is becoming so successful, and the LDDA has had sponsorships. It hopes it does not use the $14,000 from the fund balance. The only increase in the operating budget involves salaries and benefits. The LDDA is keeping a very tight budget as it moves forward into 2007. Ms. Murphy-Bessler explained to Council member Lange that the "Professional and Contracted Services" of$5,000 (Page 389—Line 250) is for holiday lighting. This amount is requested annually, and it is not automatically added into the line item. She reminded Council of the LDDA request regarding the 2007 budget(page 390) for marketing and advertising funds for events downtown. The City Attorney's Office investigated whether TIF funding would be allowable. It can be used for overall marketing and promotions of the downtown area. She cited projects underway or recently completed. The LDDA Board has determined that a more progressive approach to business development and retention is needed. Currently the LDDA is staffed by 1.75 positions. The proposed budget increase is for a three-year marketing and advertising program to promote,market, brand, and advertise the downtown area. The proposed funding is through TIF funds. The proposal is to use 20% of annual revenue for purposes of business recruitment and marketing of downtown ($146,000 for 2007). She reviewed some of the areas where the money will be spent. The LDDA is also looking for one additional signature event for downtown. It is increasing requests for support for existing events. She reviewed the line item detail for this request. City Council Proceedings— September 12, 2006 Page 9. Council member Block wondered if the three year time increment takes away Council's ability to fund the parking garage. Mr. Golden responded affirmatively. He pointed out that the projections for TIF revenues are about $900,000 compared to $760,000 from last year. The City projection for funding the parking garage is a little better because the $900,000 is on a per year basis. Responding to Council member Block's question about how the LDDA knows if its investment is giving a reasonable return, Ms. Murphy-Bessler replied that there will be more businesses, less vacancies, other larger community events, and a downtown presence in terms of marketing. She hopes to be able to tell Council next year where the successes are. The LDDA wants to collaborate with the City's Economic Manager and create a database to help monitor what works well. Right now, the LDDA does not have a tool to review vacancy rates. Council member Block said he assumed the LDDA has some initial conditions that it can measure success against. Council member Lange said his expectation is that Council will see the money is being spent wisely and expeditiously. He advocated making the decision for allocation of these monies on an annual basis. Council member Benker noted that the LDDA already has performance measures, such as sales tax increase, more commerce on Main Street,the number of people drawn to events, articles in different newspapers, a record of new and departing businesses, LDDA-sponsored events, sponsorships obtained, etc. Putting those facts together over a period of years would be helpful, as would an annual report. She stated she would like to see merchants involved in some of these marketing decisions. Ms. Murphy-Bessler wanted Council to know that the 2003 Festival on Main cost the LDDA $10,000 dollars and had an attendance of 1,000 people. This year the Festival on Main cost the LDDA $1,000 dollars, and there were 14,000 people in attendance. Mayor Pirnack was concerned whether there will be enough TIF revenue to fund the parking garage. The City needs more revenue than it currently has. She hopes marketing campaign will increase revenue. One of the ongoing dilemmas about Main Street is that it is a state highway. The area the LDDA encompasses was meant to spread out from Main Street. She asked how much of this marketing effort has to do with branding, and whether there is gong to be some attempt to do some beautification of the adjoining streets. Ms. Murphy-Bessler responded that the LDDA has three actual flower pots that are branching out onto Coffman Street. The hope is to extend whole streetscape project to Terry Street. Mr. Golden referred Council to the One-Time Expenses Category. On Page S-33 there is a five-year history of the General Fund balance. One realizes that there has been a shift in that fund balance, especially over the last year or two. The amount of dollars available for one-time expenses is tightening up this year. Responding to Council member Brown, Mr. Golden advised that the 2006 ending balance is a projected one. It will be finalized in late March (after the audit). A better estimate will be given City Council Proceedings—September 12, 2006 Page 10. in late January. This figure is an indication of City revenues and expenses compared to the budget. It is an indication of the general health of the revenue system There is a healthy fund reserve for bonding. Council member Block wanted confirmation that there will be zero undesignated funds. Mr. Golden responded that that statement is correct. The projection is that approximately $2.6 million dollars this year will be programmed for one-time expenses. Council member Block noted that this is the first point in time the City has had to utilize all the undesignated revenues. Mr. Golden responded that he would always bring a zero number to Council in every budget process. In previous processes, all those dollars have been spent either for Council reserve funds or for one- time expenses. He believes it is going to be a struggle to fund that $2.6 million dollars. Anything beyond that figure will come from savings from City departments and from measures such as delaying hiring for vacant positions. Mayor Pimack indicated that Council is seeing a reduction of its ability to designate funding. It is already starting to see some the effects of build-out. One example is the overestimation of building permits. Council member Brown stated that it would be good to have discussion on use taxes and what they mean to the community. TABOR requires 6% of the budget for emergencies. What happens if there is an emergency and the reserves are lost? Mr. Golden replied that those funds must be restored by the end of the fiscal year, however this is almost an impossible task. One-Time Expenses: The Council's financial policy states that it does not have an annual on-going commitment. There is a list of one-time expenses on first page of the supplemental information section of the budget. Technology expenses, other equipment, one-time services with a one-year commitment, and other expenses with one-year commitment would be funded with ongoing revenue if it were available. There is no contribution to the affordable housing fund in this budget. Longmont Community Justice Partnership (LCJP) was funded $180,000 in 2006. At this point, it is not in the proposed budget. However, it is on the list of agencies requesting funding from Council. Total one-time expenses for 2007 total $2.6 million dollars, which is a 33%decrease from 2006's one-time expenses of$3.9 million dollars. In addition to that amount, $993,825 is designated from the fund balance for future Council one-time expenditures. The proposed $200,000 for the Humane Society capital campaign is within the funded budget. Council member Lange said he believed the $993,000 was the amount Council tucked away for a possible land purchase for a park. Mr. Golden responded that this amount is beyond what was "tucked away for the land purchase ($240,000)." That$240,000 is in the fund balance, but is probably listed under a future carry-over project. City Council Proceedings—September 12, 2006 Page 11. Longmont Humane Society: Mike Helmstetter, Humane Society Development Director, stated that three years ago the Humane Society made a multi-year request for a total of$1 million dollars. The Society is asking Council to continue the commitment articulated in its letter to keep the Society on track for four years. As of today, the Society has received pledges totaling 95% of the $8.2 million dollar goal. 361 donors have participated in the campaign, and there are five individual pledges of$100,000 or more. He reviewed the details of the fundraising campaign. He indicated that the Society remains engaged with surrounding municipalities regarding annual service contracts and campaign contributions. The request to these towns is based on the proportion of animals the Society serves from their areas. Final architectural documents and the construction contract are currently being reviewed. The groundbreaking is anticipated in December with the dedication of the building taking place in March or April of 2008. He reviewed the services offered by the Humane Society. Jim Golden clarified that dollar amount the City has committed is $450,000 over the past two years. Council member Benker observed that Council took a $50,000 budgeted amount from the upgrade of Chambers and moved it to the Humane Society contribution so that the amount did total $250,000. Mr. Golden advised Council that it had $400,000 to allocate. Staff will be asking direction for these funds in about three weeks. He reviewed changes, and indicated that the Education Summit is included as funded item in the amount of$40,000. Longmont Council for the Arts(Artists in Residence Program for $2,500 and Mini-Grants Program for $3,000): Maureen McCoy, Executive Director for Longmont Council for the Arts, explained that the Artists in Residence program can support artist projects at two separate schools. Past projects have included ranged from musical venues to sculptures. All funds are used for supplies. In addition, the artists volunteer all their hours. The Council for the Arts hopes to support eight schools in total. The Mini- Grants Program supports artists and art organizations that are not classified as 501(c)3s. She said she very much appreciates any support Council can provide. Longmont Area Visitors Association (LAVA) Beth Witzek, LAVA, clarified that the $30,000 request is contingent on the Lodgers tax. If the tax doesn't pass, LAVA wishes to continue this important work in the same manner as conducted this year. If the tax does pass, these funds won't be necessary. Responding to Mayor Pirnack's query about the status of a LAVA website, Ms. Witzek replied that she had met with a web designer. The plan is to implement a seasonal picture on the website and develop a signature photo for Longmont. The LAVA calendar is kept up to date with the most recent events. Magellen Center: Pam Gibson, Magellen Center, explained that the Center's primary function is to conduct research.. She spoke about programs developed based on the research done in the past and the success of those programs. The Center has helped about 181 businesses, and offers a drop-in program. Of 106 requests for drop-ins, 80% were able to get help from the Center's senior fellows. Navigators assist high school students in the St. Vrain area to stay in school and go to college. The Center is launching City Council Proceedings— September 12, 2006 Page 12. a program with the St. Vrain Valley School District to review and research the best possible way to get students successfully through high school to college. Council member Benker asked how specifically the$75,000 dollars requested would be spent. Ms. Gibson responded that the Center is asking for 75% operating support and 25%program support. The Center pays $7,500 for insurance each year to cover the groups that use the facility. For every program, there is a minimum initial start up cost of$10,000 dollars. In addition, the Center spends $1,000 for advertising, $1,000 for software and materials, a$5,000 investment in manpower, and $3,000 printing cost for almost every program because there is wide dispersal for what is generated. There is one paid position ($33,000) for an administrative assistant. Everyone else at the Magellen Center essentially volunteers. Senior Fellows are not paid. This year there are 20 Fellows from around the world, including no less than six economists. Finally, the Center incurs $3,600 dollars a year in phone expenses, and$1,200 dollars in intemet and web expenses. Council member Lange noted that the proposal was 75% for capital expenditures and 25% for program expenses. Ms. Gibson apologized and said that the 75% should be for operating funds. She also said that part of the 25% will help launch the new program the Center is creating with SVVSD. To reach that point takes months of work, and the Center needs the funds for start-up expenses. Responding to Council member Brown's query about finding senior fellows, Ms. Gibson replied that after reviewing the agenda for the coming year, the Center determines that there are certain areas of expertise needed. A call is put out to other think tanks and experts in a variety of fields. There are a high number of individuals in Longmont proper that come from other countries who have linguistic difficulties. The Center is conducting a joint project to investigate the cultural differences of employees brought into this area. She reiterated that the Center's goal is to fuse learning with world of work. The end goal is based on belief that every individual in the United States is entitled to one job that pays him or her enough to provide for basic needs. Youngsters today will not make enough income to subsist or be able to start a business of their own unless they finish college. Longmont Economic Gardening Initiative (LEGI): Doug Bene, Longmont Economic Alliance, indicated that the Longmont Economic Gardening Initiative Program began July 1 of this year. An open house was held in August. Brochures have been created. Applications are available on the website, and contracts being finalized with Front Range Community College. So far, there are 22 active applications. He asked for Council's continued support ($50,000 dollars) into 2007 so the program's success can actually be measured. Council member Block asked if there some organizational unspent funds from this year that that could support this program next year. He asked if the actual expected expenditure is the carry-over amount plus $50,000. Mr. Bene responded that because the fiscal year and calendar year funds overlap, he doesn't know how to divide those funds out. He reviewed what has been spent so far. City Council Proceedings—September 12, 2006 Page 13. Mr. Golden advised Council staff will double check on this issue and provide Council the information. Council member Benker asked Mr. Bene to speak about the $50,000 set aside in the budget for Economic Development activities. Mr. Golden clarified that the City Manager recommended $50,000 be put in the budget for economic development activities for 2007. Mr. Bene explained that some of that money is set aside for Citywide branding activity. Also, LDDA (Longmont Downtown Development Authority)has discussed coordination of a real estate service and area estate analysis program. An Economic Development brochure also has been created. Mayor Pirnack indicated that it might be good idea clarify the information on the economic development items by seeing where they are in the budget and what they fund. Mr. Golden added that the $50,000 is for Economic Vitality Task Force strategy implementation. Regional Air Quality Council (RAQC): Gerald Dilly, Technical and Program Manager for the Regional Air Quality Council, asked Council to approve $10,000, the same amount that has been provided in the past to support RAQC's work program. RAQC is the leading air quality planning agency that represents seven counties in the Denver regional area. Air quality continues to be issue on the Front Range. The agency, through 2002, actually achieved attainment for ozone and particulate matters. Ozone reduction programs include citizen outreach, local outreach to cities through a gas testing program, and the"Repair Your Air"program. The agency works with the Denver Regional Council of Governments quite closely on issues related to transportation conformity, and establishes the budget it must meet. Responding to Council member Blue's query about the number of monitoring stations in Longmont, Mr. Dilly responded he was unsure since that is a function of the Air Pollution Control Division. Council member Brown noted that there are a lot of ozone emissions from oil and gas wells in Weld County. Mr. Dilly agreed that those emissions definitely affect air quality. But,he also included lawnmowers, hair spray and anything that is made up of volatile or organic compounds. Cars represent 22% of the problem, oil and gas about 33% and remaining percentage is from consumer products. Weld County is not in the region but is included in this 8-hour ozone action plan. The control area also includes portions of Larimer County. Council member Lange asked to what extent the agency receives similar funding from other northern Colorado cities. Mr. Dilly replied that local funding is very important because most state and federal funding has to be leveraged with a local match. Currently, funding is being received from Boulder, Loveland, and Fort Collins. City Council Proceedings—September 12, 2006 Page 14. Greenwood Wildlife Center: Libby Osnes-Erie, Animal Care Manager at Greenwood Wildlife Rehabilitation Sanctuary, explained that the Sanctuary is a nonprofit organization which rescues and rehabilitates sick, injured, and orphaned wildlife, and then releases them back into wild. In 2005, the Center received 3100 animals, with 408 animals (a little over 13%) taken in from within the City of Longmont. The associated cost of rehabilitating the animals from Longmont was over $31,000 dollars. However, not all the animals brought in could be rehabilitated. So, with the release rate of 60%, the dollar portion associated with the City of Longmont for released animals was over$16,000. The Center is asking for $15,000 to cover the expenses for released animals brought from within the City of Longmont. The Center provides advice, information, and education on wildlife. It provides an even greater service to the public by providing a place for them to bring wild animals. Responding to Council member Blue's question about where the Center is physically located, Ms. Osnes-Erie replied that it is between Lyons and Longmont on Highway 66. Longmont Sister Cities Association (LSCA): Lee Kline, President of the LSCA, thanked Council for its support over the past ten years and requested funding of$24,100. With the funding provided in the past, LSCA has become an integral part of the City of Longmont. She talked about the student exchange program. This year was Longmont's 13`h exchange with Japan and the eighth exchange with Mexico. Students who participate are required to prepare a presentation that they take back to their school and community. LSCA has established a strong partnership with Longmont Museum for hosting multi-cultural celebrations. The Association also partners with the City on Rhythm on the River, and participates in Cinco de Mayo and the Holiday Parade, among others. All activities are designed to strengthen cultural understanding. Longmont Symphony Orchestra (LSO) ($10,000 for 4th of July Concert and $20,000 for Vance Brand Civic Auditorium Don Dwyer, LSO Board Member, stated that the LSO is a great asset to the City. It provides many behind-the-scenes functions such as free programs for the schools and community. Many symphony members are professionals. Having the extra funding will help LSO to pay a$15,000 operating loan, improve the music library, and allow the Symphony to obtain more outside artists for concerts. He expressed appreciation for the support Council has given in past years. Mick Finnegan, LSO Board Member, explained that LSO specifically seeks funding for the July 4`h picnic concert. The other request concerns rent that LSO currently pays at Vance Brand Civic Auditorium. LSO is asking for financial help to defray some of the costs of that rent. LSO is Vance Brand's biggest client. It pays approximately $25,000 a year for Thursday and Friday rehearsals and for Saturday performances. Council member Blue observed that no Council representative is designated for the Vance Brand Operating Committee. She asked what LSO has seen in terms of the cost increase. Mr. Finnegan replied the LSO was very appreciative that Vance Brand Auditorium actually held back a 13% increase until January of next year. Responding to Mayor Pirnack, Karen Roney, Director of Community Services, advised that several years ago Council indicated that a staff administrative representative would be adequate. Ms. Roney City Council Proceedings—September 12, 2006 Page 15. identified herself as the representative to the steering committee rather than a Council liaison. She offered to provide Council more information about the Auditorium's cost increases. Council provides about$42,000 a year to help Vance brand Auditorium operate. Mayor Pirnack indicated she would be interested in facts about the facility's usage. Longmont Community Justice Partnership (LCJP) Dr. Beverly Title, Executive Director of Teaching Peace, thanked Council for its support in the past and asked for Council's continued support at the same level of$180,000. LCJP continues to build on its vision by engaging volunteers who conduct the community group conferences and the other restorative processes. LCJP has gone to considerable lengths to perform internal evaluations and has contracted with NRC (National Research Center)to make sure LCJP programs are efficient. LCJP's success rate runs at over 90% and its satisfaction rating by victims, offenders, and community members averages about 97%. LCJP has especially increased its efforts since the wave of gang violence has escalated. Families of gang members are usually shocked to discover their youth are involved in gangs. Council member Blue asked Jim Golden about Attachment D—S-34, last year's one time requests, and wondered of LCJP had been included. Mr. Golden answered that last year LCJP was a funded item for$180,000 that was included in the budget. Council member Benker wondered why this particular project pulled out of the regular budget. Mr. Golden replied that more requests that usual were received. When prioritizing, the City Manager thought Council should look at this program as well as others. Also, staff was able to increase amount that Council allocates by almost the same amount. The City Manager directed staff to place CTEK in the budget as a funded item with LAEC (Longmont Area Economic Council)because both groups are doing high priority work in trying to add primary jobs to the community. Bright Eyes Early Care and Education Initiative: Karen Roney, Community Services Director, indicated that this is a community-based collaboration. The six primary objectives of this group help young children to learn and be ready for life: increasing the comprehensive school readiness program slots for three- and four-year olds,enhancing the community's awareness about the importance of early care and education, providing a variety of enrichment activities for families and their young children, enhancing the opportunities for children to develop cognitive and language skills, and improving the social and emotional development and health of young children. She identified a variety of activities to support these objectives. The request for$25,679 is being made to fund a half time position to help supplement and complement the work within the subcommittees. It is also for the promotion and outreach of early care and education,and for assistance in helping to raise money to sustain these efforts. The hope is that only one year of support will be needed. Council member Lange asked for elaboration, and also whether this process is a collaborative effort with St. Vrain Valley Schools. City Council Proceedings—September 12, 2006 Page 16. Ms. Roney responded that the hope is to be funded by grants in the future, along with other sources. Two proposals have submitted that haven't been funded yet. Two more grant proposals are being written. Human Agency funds are also being sought to support an additional classroom that will be available at Meeker Center. Members of the St. Vrain Valley School District(SVVSD) are assisting to write the grant proposals. The SVVSD, through their allocation of state funding, is passing that funding through for the operational expenses of one of the additional classrooms at the Meeker Center. Everyone involved is providing whatever they can (staff support, funding, etc.) for this effort. Unfortunately, there has been a loss of a key staff member. Christina Pacheo, who also works at Children and Youth Resources, will be functioning in Amy Ogilvie's position. Ms. Roney indicated that she herself will also assume some of those responsibilities in order to keep this effort moving forward. Jim Golden, Director of Finance, added that he had some follow-up items. a. He confirmed the funding of$250,000 in 2006 for the Humane Society. b. He indicated that an attachment from CTEK had been handed out. Its funding is at$50,000 in the 2007 proposed budget. LAEC's proposal for 2007 is also included in Council's packet on page S-59. Its funding is included the proposed budget at $165,580 dollars, the same level as last year. Staff did not ask LAEC to make a presentation tonight. But, if Council wishes, one can be made in a few weeks. A contract will be brought back for Council's direction and decision in early December. Council member Lange inquired about the time-frame for deciding the level of funding for these agencies. Mr. Golden replied that staff usually asked for direction at the first Study Session that is held the first week in October. Staff will bring back information Council has requested before that meeting. Public Safety Tax: There is a proposal on the November ballot for an increase in the sales and use tax from 2.95% to 3.275% or .325 cent increase. If passed, the tax will add $4.7 million dollars to the 2007 budget. That will include 18 full time employees in Police, five full time employees in Fire and two full time employees in Children and Youth Resources. Staff has provided information in packet with updated expenditures to reflect costs that came out of the proposed 2007 pay plan. There are some minor changes to projected ongoing expenses. A new Proforma has been included as Attachment E. The summary page for .325 tax scenario has been updated. In addition, staff has prepared budget pages by service that reflects the overall proposal. In the event the tax is not approved in November, the proposed budget will need to be amended to support a six-member gang suppression unit. He made two corrections on Page S-27. In the middle of the paragraph the number$746,626 should actually be $761,054. On the next line the number$496,249 should be $510,677 ongoing. That aligns with what is presented on Page M-3 of the proposed budget. Staff will begin soon to determine where those resources be redirected from if the tax does not pass. Appropriation ordinances for the 2007 budget will not be presented until the second meeting in November(the 28th) with second reading on December 12th. The Charter requires ordinances to be adopted by December 15`h. If the public safety tax is not approved, staff will plan to have discussions at the November 8, 14, and 21, 2006 meetings and will seek Council's options and directions. City Council Proceedings—September 12, 2006 Page 17. Council member Blue asked if Council would consider taking funds from one-time funding to provide the level of safety needed. Mr. Golden responded that those are one time dollars, and $510,000 on-going dollars are needed to fund salaries for six full time employees. About $250,000 dollars will be coming from the one-time expenses. Staff will try to bring Council some options. B. Newby/Adam Property Annexation and Longmont Planning Area Amendment Referral Brien Schumacher, Planning Development Services, advised that at the August 29th meeting staff reviewed several issues around this property. The applicant, in his most recent letter, concluded that annexation of his property by the City would not be in his best interest. A representative from St. Vrain State Park system was also at the August 29th meeting and identified several issues and concerns. At Council's desk is a copy of letter from Colorado State Parks emphasizing its interest in being involved in the planning process for this property, especially the Adam parcel. He reviewed specific items regarding cost of utilities based on staffs preliminary evaluation. Regarding extending water utilities out to the Life Bridge annexation, there is a cost advantage to Village Homes for water from the City as opposed to water from the Longs Peak Water District. Staff believes the quality of electric service Longmont provides is a preferred alternative to other service providers. In regard to emergency services, the property would be subject to City response times at the time of development. Since there are other annexations and developments in process, the applicant could coordinate with them to mitigate response times. On the subject of schools, Village Homes indicated a willingness to pay the cash-in-lieu fee to the School District to mitigate impacts on the schools. The City and School District are part of a working group that is reviewing the school capacity benchmark and existing Intergovernmental Agreement. It will recommend revisions regarding that particular benchmark. That item will be coming to Council for discussion on September 19`h. Council may wish to provide direction on the issue of a special improvement district. Village Homes is interested in forming a special improvement district to assist with financing infrastructure improvements. Applicants for the LifeBridge development and West Union Annexations are also interested in similar discussions. The Council communication identifies some of the potential exceptional benefits. Also identified are the issues raised by Colorado State Parks concerning County Road 7 and the protection of floodplain and wildlife habitats. Regarding the issue of the coordinated planning agreement, if Council decides to refer the property into the annexation process, a seven-month time-frame would begin from the time a complete application is submitted. If the property is not referred into the process, Village Homes may submit an annexation application to Weld County. Mr. Schumacher wished to respond to a letter regarding the Adam property and the notice of inquiry staff received from Weld County last year. At that time the Adam property by itself was not, and still is not, contiguous to the City limits. Therefore it is not eligible for the annexation process. The City asked to be notified regarding the owner's bid process in that letter as well. City Council Proceedings—September 12, 2006 Page 18. Mr. Schmacher advised Council member Blue that he is not sure when the Adam and Newby interests joined forces for one proposal. He surmised that the Village Homes representative might be able to answer that question. Council member Lange asked if the open space purchases changed the dynamic by providing the needed continuity for annexation. Mr. Schumacher replied that the City responded only to the Adam property annexation last year. It is currently not contiguous to the City by itself. When combined with Newby property, it does obtain that contiguity. Council member Brown noted that it will be costly for the City to run services to this location. Mr. Schumacher responded that that issue will be part of the analysis that staff makes. The only exception to providing City services is the sanitary sewer service. The St. Vrain Sanitation District would provide sanitary sewer service. However, he noted that McLean-Western is served by the City. Ron Skarka, Village Homes, stated that there is a perception that if this property is not referred to annexation, the St. Vrain Park will be jeopardy. That is not the case at all. A commitment has been made to preserve that park, whether the annexation application is processed in the City or in Weld County. Staff had recommended working in tandem with other parties to obtain services. He sees this as turning into a mega-process that literally could put him into a process that could take years. He is not sure all aspects of providing service have been thought through. He referred to Page Three of staff comments concerning electrical service. The main feeder electric infrastructure extensions are paid by LPC (Longmont Power and Communications)rather than the developer. The City's cost is recovered through electric community investment fees reimbursed on a city-wide basis. However, comments received from LPC indicate that access and easements will be negotiated by the applicant to accommodate the extension of the services to the area. LPC stated that main feeder facilities for this development do not easily integrate into the City's current system due to the remote location. So, this is a bit of a mixed signal and leads to questions about how long this process might take. There is another avenue available, the County process. He stated that the Weld County Mixed Use Development Plan is well thought out. It will put the property under significant scrutiny. The County also requires that the application be coordinated with Longmont, Meade, Firestone, State Parks, etc. Recognizing these issues of service,he requested that Council disapprove this annexation application. Council member Brown observed that the most important thing in this discussion is the riparian way. The City and State have invested over$22 million dollars into that project. He asked how it would be preserved. Mr. Skarka responded that the property is all under private ownership. So, the public does not have public access to the waterway. The commitment is that the area will be preserved through the Adam property. Public access has not yet been determined. Council member Block stated that the issue for him is what is best for Longmont citizens. The question is whether Longmont's interest is better served by having the property in the City. He City Council Proceedings—September 12, 2006 Page 19. believes the process would be expedited and the applicant's interests better served if the annexation application was made through Weld County. Council member Benker feels that this particular property is so far away from the core of Longmont that the citizens living there won't have a real connection to the City. The City needs to make a decision as to where its boundaries are. She does not see how the City can provide a high quality service without costing a lot of money. She stated that, although she likes the idea of a buffer, she does not favor annexing these two pieces of land into Longmont. In addition, the applicant will not receive an answer for almost a year. Council member Lange said his dilemma is a lack of information. His preference would be to move the application through the process so he can make a decision based on more facts than he has today. Council member Lange believes this is a very important piece of property whether it is in the City or not. Council member Wilson stated that previously he raised an objection about any annexation that obtained its contiguity by way of open space. It is a bad precedent to set. Having large blocks of open space crossed by utility lines and emergency services defeats the whole purpose of compact urban design and efficiency. This residential property will barely break even in terms of tax money. The barely marginal positive cash flow to the City would be in jeopardy. The City has been talking about build-out for some time and envisioned itself with a certain size and shape. If Council makes this kind of annexation to the east, then there is no logical boundary or buffer to say where the City ends. It makes no sense to leap over properties that were bought for the express purpose of defining the edge of Longmont, especially when the people who own and want to develop this specific property don't want to be part of Longmont. Unless someone steps forward to purchase the river corridor at market prices, the City does not have much ability to say that the corridor will be public land. This annexation process will be very expensive for the developer and landowner and expensive for the City. In the ends,this does not make sense. Council member Brown indicated that the only reason to annex this property is to keep the integrity of the creek, state park, and trails that have been built. Council member Blue stated she will not support the annexation application. Mayor Pimack noted that the applicant is very concerned about associated costs. She indicated that one huge benefit of annexing the property is that it will become part of the RTD boundary. That is an advantage because of the huge growth that is occurring in Weld County and because of the necessity to provide transportation links. The City's experience dealing with Weld County on transportation links in a collaborative way has not been great. At some point it is likely those smaller municipalities will bring through a proposal to have RTD services. Her belief is that the City can do a better job of providing services than special districts can in a county. She said that police services are a concern for her in this area. She indicated that she supports moving the application forward. Council member Block stated he hopes everyone realizes that this property is contiguous with Lifebridge. The decision the evening says Council does not want to conform with the Weld County Intergovernmental Agreement. City Council Proceedings—September 12, 2006 Page 20. Council member Lange moved, seconded by Block, moved to authorize staff to accept and process the application and authorize the annexation review. Motion failed: 3-4 (Brown,Blue Wilson and Benker dissenting). C. Compensation Adjustment for Municipal Judge Council member Lange moved, seconded by Block, that the Municipal Judge's compensation be increased starting the year 2005 by an increase of 4.5% ($106,402) retroactive to December 26, 2005. Motion carried: 7-0. Mayor Pirnack indicated that the staff report refers to an attached salary survey and the Municipal Judge's performance. According to the Charter, Council does not evaluate the Municipal Judge's performance. 12. FINAL CALL-PUBLIC INVITED TO BE HEARD There was no one present to address Council. 13. MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMENTS Council member Benker said it recently came to her attention that there are no doggie day cares or dog kennels in the City of Longmont because they must be located in general industrial areas. She asked if there are there enough Council members interested in looking at how other cities deal with doggie day cares or kennels. Council member Wilson thought there was an ordinance that limited the number of dogs in a household. Council member Benker noted that over the past couple of months, a number of ordinances have come before Council without fiscal note. There is no standard procedure that gives Council an idea of how much a program or process will cost. She asked Council if it is interested in having a fiscal note attached to a proposed ordinance. Most ordinances will have a minimal or no fiscal impact. Mayor Pirnack stated when the City raises fees, there is an extensive analysis. Jim Golden, Director of Finance, added that this information can be included if that is what Council requests. Mayor Pimack believed the topic warranted more discussion, and said staff can bring the issue back at a later time. Council member Block shared some items from this evening's pre-meeting. Several neighbors in the eastside neighborhood received notices from the City. Because of the eastside neighborhood grant, the City received additional code enforcement funds. One issue is that residents must have an address on their portion of the alley. Unfortunately, not all the eastside neighborhood knows what is City Council Proceedings—September 12, 2006 Page 21. going on. Also, there was a fire on Main Street and the sidewalk is now blocked off. The question was raised whether that sidewalk can remain permanently blocked off. Finally, there are some neighbors concerned about the increase in skydiving operation at Vance Brand Airport. Council member Block asked how much it has it increased and how much further it could increase. Council member Wilson moved, seconded by Benker, to suspend the rules and extend the meeting for three more minutes. Motion carried: 7-0. Council member Brown Brown noted there is an RFP for skydiving activities at Vance Brand Airport. Council member Blue responded that one disgruntled citizen complained and then the City decided to issue an RFP rather than contract with the skydiving company at Vance Brand Airport that has been working on this project for years. If the increase in skydiving is impacting takeoffs on the runway, then, that is an issue. Increased skydiving activity means additional income for the City. In addition, the president of the skydiving company at Vance Brand recently donated money to the new Blue Skies Park. Council member Blue indicated her dissatisfaction with how the whole situation has been handled. Mayor Pimack replied that Council needs to have factual information. She also noted that no one but Council member Wilson has signed up for the pre-meeting on December 26th. Mayor Pirnack recommended canceling that meeting. Council member Brown moved, seconded by Blue to cancel the Council meeting of December 26, 2006. Motion carried: 7-0. Mayor Pirnack also confirmed the Council meeting for November 7, 2006 has been cancelled. Jim Golden, Finance Director, indicated the plan is to have a study session on Wednesday,November 8, 2006. 14. CITY MANAGER REMARKS The City Manager had no additional items to bring before City Council. 15. CITY ATTORNEY REMARKS The City Attorney had no additional items to bring before City Council. 16. RETENTION OF TAPES OF THIS MEETING There was no desire expressed to retain the tapes of this meeting beyond the normal retention period. City Council Proceedings—September 12, 2006 Page 22. 17. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:05p.m. CITY OF LONGMONT, COLORADO Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk p.1 ELMER HERGENREDER EXHIBIT JERRY HERGENREDER JIM HERGENREDER _ 2130 County Road 28 Longmont, CO 80504 - _ _ Phone: (303)-776-9585 jimheigenreder@aO1.COm Past-it`Fax Note 7671 Date / To �� /M ©• t? From —7^ Co./De.t. Vr�Ja ea, tct{-f tE December, 182006 Phone A9 e Phone n Fax* � 33 ZO YG 6 8- Weld County Commissioners Weld County Planning Department 918 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Ordinance # 2006-9 Newby Farms/Village Homes of Colorado Dear Commissioners, Our family owns the farm immediately to the north of Newby Farms and we would like to voice some concerns we have concerning the future development of Newby Farms. 1) If Newby Farms will be subdivided into several lots for any use other than farming we would like the Weld County "Right to Farm" (Appendix 22-E of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan) to be part of the signed legal documents associated with each lot sale. Since we are still actively farming our land we would like to avoid future complaints from numerous land owners when right now we have only one land owner that is no problem at all. If multiple lots are granted to this development, we would like a physical fire proof and sight proof barrier between our property and the Newby Farms along the entire property line. The barrier should be of a design to match the Newby Farm development but also serve the purpose intended; at this point, we would suggest a colored cinder block wall ten feet tall along the shared property line with Newby Farms. 2) We have viewed a concept map of the Newby Farms/ Village Homes development and we would like to see that the development provide all of the land for the facilities needed for the additional people that this will bring to the neighborhood. Current concept drawings appear to have open space along the north side of the Newby property line which would be an encroachment on our property. In reference to item one in this letter, it would be helpful to have a two-hundred foot buffer zone on the Newby side of the property line. We have also viewed future concept road maps for our neighborhood. A future collector road on a concept map was drawn between the Newby Farm and our property, encumbering land on both sides of the property line . At this point, since we do not need a road for our farm, we would suggest that the Newby Farm development provide the land for the road on the south side of our shared property line with Newby Farms. Sincerely, Elmer Hergenreder Jerry Hergenreder Jim Hergenreder Hello