HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-05/19/1992-Regular' May 19, 1992
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday,
May 19, 1992, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins
City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Azari,
Edwards, Fromme, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey and Winokur.
Staff Members Present: Burkett, Davis, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Al Bacilli, 520 Galaxy Court, questioned why it took so long to settle the
lawsuit involving the dispatchers and inquired who was responsible for E-911
funds and the distribution of the funds.
Chuck Patton, 1229 Teakwood Drive, expressed concerns regarding administration
of the Special Improvement District Program. He suggested that a complete and
unbiased audit be completed and available to the public before any further
' decisions regarding SID's are made.
Citizen Participation Follow-uo
Councilmember Maxey clarified E-911 meetings are open to the public but are not
open for public participation. He further stated the times and locations of the
meetings are posted in the Larimer County Courthouse, and spoke of programs
funded with the money collected.
Councilmember Winokur encouraged citizens to continue to be involved with City
issues.
Mayor Kirkpatrick stated the issues regarding the Dispatcher's lawsuit would need
to be addressed either in an individual meeting or in memo form.
Agenda Review
City Manager Steve Burkett requested that Item #17, Resolution 92-84 Approving
the Purchase of Property for Fossil Creek Trail Access in Clarendon Hills, be
withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. He noted that Item #29, Resolution 92-89
Selecting the Site For the New Senior Citizen Center, was a revised Resolution,
stating the revision adds the word "preferred".
Councilmember Horak requested that Item #16, Resolution 92-83 Authorizing the
Mayor to Amend an Existing Agreement with the State Board of Agriculture to
329
May 19, 1992
Increase Water and Sewer Service Fees for Colorado State University, be withdrawn
from the Consent Calendar.
Consent Calendar
This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and energy
on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the
Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this calendar to be "pulled" off
the Consent Calendar and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the
Consent Calendar will be considered separately under Agenda Item #23, Pulled
Consent Items.
a
Consider approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of Aoril 21.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 55, 1992 Vacating Right -of -Way for
Colboard Drive as Dedicated on the South College Investments Subdivision.
At a public hearing on April 14, 1992 the Planning Director approved the
Olive Garden Minor Subdivision, a replat of Lots 3, 4, and 5 of the South
College Investments Subdivision. The property is located along the north
side of Boardwalk Drive between Mason Street and South College Avenue.
The owner of the Olive Garden Minor Subdivision has requested vacation of
the Colboard Drive right-of-way, which bisects the property, as dedicated
by the previous plat (South College Investments Subdivision). This
portion of street right-of-way is no longer needed by the City since a
street connection in this location was never constructed and is no longer
planned. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading,
vacates the street right-of-way.
This 2,500 square foot parcel is located at the rear of the lot at 616 E.
Locust Street. This parcel was purchased in.1958. This substation became
obsolete when the area was converted to a higher voltage. The substation
equipment was removed in the spring of 1991. Subsurface environmental
testing has determined that additional site clean up is not required.
This site is no longer needed by Light and Power, therefore it was offered
to other City departments. Because of the small size of this parcel, no
other City departments desired to purchase the parcel. The site was then
posted with a "For Sale" sign. There were no responses to the sale sign,
a bid was issued for interested buyers in March of this year. Purchasing
received one bid in the amount of $1,676. The ordinance would authorize
the Mayor to execute a Deed of Conveyance for sale of the land to Douglas
P. Simons and Ellen P. Richey.
330
10.
May 19, 1992
The purchaser of the property, John Pitner, is initiating this request for
Local Landmark Designation for 125 S. College Avenue (old Walgreens Drug
store). A public hearing was held by the Commission on May 13, 1992, at
which time the Commission voted to recommend designation of this property.
The present owner of the property, G 8 L Limited, a Colorado General
Partnership, has consented to the designation, but has reserved the right
to withdraw such consent if the pending sale of the property fails to
occur prior to second reading of this Ordinance.
The Landmark Preservation Commission and City staff are pleased to
recommend the building located at 125 S. College Avenue as a local
landmark for its architectural and geographic importance.
11. Items Related to the Prospect Land Company Annexation and Zoning.
A. Resolution 92-78 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations
Regarding the Prospect Land Company Annexation.
' B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 59, 1992, Annexing
Approximately 12.6 acres, Known as the Prospect Land Company
Annexation.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 60, 1992, Zoning
Approximately 12.6 acres, Known as the Prospect Land Company
Annexation, into the R-C, River Corridor Zoning District.
This is a request to annex and zone approximately 12.6 acres located on
the north side of East Prospect Road, between the Orthopedic Center and
the Cache La Poudre River. The requested zoning is the R-C, River
Corridor District. The property is presently undeveloped and is zoned FA,
Farming in the County. This is a voluntary annexation.
APPLICANT: Ray Pigg OWNER: Flatiron Companies
c/o Neenan Company P. 0. Box 229
2290 E. Prospect Boulder, CO 80306
Fort Collins, CO 80525
12. Resolution 92-79 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation
Proceedings for the Burns Second Annexation.
The applicant and property -owner Rex Burns has submitted a written
petition requesting annexation of approximately .3848 acres located west
' of overland Trail and south of West Drake Road.
331
13.
14.
15.
May 19, 1992 '
The proposed Resolution makes a finding that the petition substantially
complies with the Municipal Annexation Act, determines that a hearing
should be established regarding the annexation, and directs that notice to
be given of the hearing. The hearing will be held at the time of first
reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances.
This request pertains to Mistler Auto Repair Project, which consists of a
proposal to construct a building on C-Commercial Zoned property for auto
repair. The site is located at 301 East Douglas Road. Auto repair is a
permitted land use in the C-Commercial Zone, however, the Urban Growth
Area Agreement requires public sewer for any new non-residential
construction within the UGA boundary. A waiver is being requested for the
requirement for public sewer capacity. The site achieves the public water
capacity, public street capacity, and contiguity to existing development
Phasing Criteria requirements.
This waiver request pertains to the Mulberry flea Market Special Review, '
located at 1828 East Mulberry Street, which is a request for an outdoor
flea market on a 4.2 acre site. An indoor flea market currently in
operation as a permitted use within the existing building on this site.
The site is zoned C-Commercial and the surrounding land uses primarily
consist of commercial uses. Of the four Urban Growth Area Phasing
Criteria, the proposed special review meets the requirements for public
water capacity, pubic sewer capacity, and pubic street capacity. A waiver
is being requested for the requirement of having one sixth of the site's
perimeter contiguous to existing development.
Over the past six years the Wastewater Utility has used the Insituform
sleeving method to reline and restore over 15,000 lineal feet of existing
six, eight, and ten inch sewer mains and service connections. The method
has been successful because it does not require any excavation of the
street, minimizing disruption to citizens, businesses and traffic. In
addition, there is a cost savings of 30%, compared to conventional
excavation and replacement methods, depending on the size and location of
the line. This year, funds were budgeted for the relining of
approximately 2,000 lineal feet of sewer mains, at a cost not to exceed
$200,000.
332 1
May 19, 1992
16.
In 1974, the City entered into an agreement with the State Board of
Agriculture concerning the furnishing of water and sewer service by the
City to Colorado State University. Since that time, the agreement has
been amended numerous times to adjust service fees as the City rates
change. Percentage rate adjustments for CSU correspond to rate
adjustments for all other customers serviced by the City. The proposed
amendment will increase CSU's water rate from $1.05 to $1.11 per 1000
gallons and the sewer rate from $1.17 to $1.24 per 1000 gallons. Rate
adjustments for CSU are made effective July 1stof each year to
accommodate its budgeting cycle. The proposed amendment to the agreement
has been approved by CSU.
17. Resolution 9i-R4 Annrnvinn the Durrhnen of Drnnnrt.. Cr,, c_. 1 r--- 6 r.--:1
ME
This resolution authorizes the purchase of land (Lot 5) from Clarendon
Hills Associates for trail access along the Fossil Creek Trail route in
Clarendon Hills. This 1.3 acre site will provide a connection to City -
owned land along Fossil Creek from Fossil Creek Drive and Shields Street.
City -owned land along Fossil Creek and the Burns Tributary will allow for
placement of the Fossil Creek Trail to the trail underpass at Shields
Street. This 1.3 acre site could also be developed as a trailhead with
amenities for trail users.
During the May 12 Council worksession, Council Member Horak requested a
resolution supporting the joint planning efforts of the NFRT & AQPC to
conduct a Regional Bikeway Plan.
With the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
of 1991 (ISTEA), competitive funds became available through the
Enhancement Program and through the local area's Surface Transportation
Program funds of the ISTEA for projects such as bikeway systems. In order
to compete for the funds with other areas of the State, projects must be
consistent and planned for through the Metropolitan Planning Organization
(the NFRT & AQPC) and the regional transportation planning efforts.
At the May 6 meeting of the NFRT & AQPC, the Council enthusiastically
discussed the potential of a regional bikeway system that would connect
the areas of the Fort Collins, Loveland, and Greeley. State
' Transportation Commissioner, Bill Neal, also encouraged the NFRT & AQPC to
333
19
20
ON
May 19, 1992
pursue a regional bikeway system and will work at the State and NFRT &
AQPC level to obtain funding for the project.
The Bikeway Plan would be programmed in the FY 1992 and FY 1993 Unified
Planning Work Program of the NFRT & AQPC. Upon completion and adoption of
the Regional Bikeway Plan as a component of the Regional Transportation
Plan and as commitments are made for local matching funds, the NFRT & AQPC
can compete on a statewide level for the Federal funds to construct a
regional bikeway system.
Resolution 92-86 Endorsing the Nomination of Susan E. Kirkpatrick to the
Board of Directors of the Colorado Municipal League.
This Resolution formally endorses the nomination of Mayor Kirkpatrick to
the Colorado Municipal League Board of Directors.
City Council has expressed its strong support in nominating Mayor
Kirkpatrick to the Board of Directors of the Colorado Municipal League.
The Resolution formalizes the endorsement of that nomination.
Resolution 92-87 Approving the Appointment of Loren Maxey to the Larimer
County Fair Board.
This Resolution formally approves the appointment of Councilmember Maxey
to the Larimer County Fair Board.
At the May 5, 1992, regular City Council meeting Councilmember Maxey
expressed a desire to be appointed to this Board. The City Council has
expressed strong support in appointing Councilmember Maxey to the Larimer
County Fair Board. The Resolution formalizes the approval of that
nomination.
The City has applied to participate in the Colorado Water Resources and
Power Development Authority revolving fund loan program. The Authority
should issue tax exempt bonds by late June or early July to provide monies
for the loan program. By participating in this program, the City will
borrow money from the Authority to construct about $25 million of
wastewater treatment capital improvements. The chief advantage of the
program is that participants, like the City of Fort Collins, may borrow
funds at lower interest rates than would otherwise be available.
The purpose of the resolution is to comply with federal regulations
regarding recovery of costs to issue the bonds and for the ensuing capital
projects costs that have been incurred before the issuance of the bonds.
334
J
May 19, 1992
The federal regulations were issued in late 1991 and this is the first
time that a reimbursement resolution will be used. By adopting the
Resolution, the City will be able to recover some of the costs that will
be incurred prior to the issuance of the bonds.
22. Routine Deeds and Easements.
a. Deed of Easement from Charles M. Betters, P & B Partnership, for
utility purposes across a portion of Lot 70, Westbrooke PUD First
Filing. Monetary consideration: E 0.
b. Powerline Easement from Paul Chatfield, 708 Peterson, needed to
underground existing overhead electric services. Monetary
consideration: $10.
Items on Second Reading were read by title by Deputy City Clerk Molly Davis.
8. Second Readina of Ordinance No. 55_ 1992 Varatinn Rinht_nf_Wnv f
26.
Items on First Reading were read by title by Deputy City Clerk Molly Davis.
9.
10.
11.
B.
C.
27. He
of
Items Related to the Prospect Land Company Annexation and Zoning.
011
30.
31.
District Liens.
33.
May 19, 1992 '
Councilmember Fromme made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to adopt and
approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar.
The vote on Councilmember Fromme's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Fromme, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 92-83
Authorizing the Mayor to
Amend an Existing Agreement
with the State Board of Agriculture '
to Increase Water and Sewer Service
Fees for Colorado State University, Adopted.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 1974, the City entered into an agreement with the State Board of Agriculture
concerning the furnishing of water and sewer service by the City to Colorado
State University. Since that time,. the agreement has been amended numerous times
to adjust service fees as the City rates change. Percentage rate adjustments for
CSU correspond to rate adjustments for all other customers serviced by the City.
The proposed amendment will increase CSU's water rate from $1.05 to $1.11 per
1000 gallons and the sewer rate from $1.17 to $1.24 per 1000 gallons. Rate
adjustments for CSU are made effective July 1st of each year to accommodate its
budgeting cycle. The proposed amendment to the agreement has been approved by
CSU."
Councilmember Azari made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards, to adopt
Resolution 92-83.
Water/Wastewater Utility Director Mike Smith, gave a presentation and reported
on the existing agreement with CSU. He noted the rates were established in 1974
and clarified CSU's rates increase when the general rates are increased.
336 1
1 May 19, 1992
Councilmember Horak remarked that since CSU is a major receiver of services, the
City should consider broader negotiations with CSU and questioned whether a cost
of service analysis had been done.
The vote on Councilmember Azari's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Fromme, Kirkpatrick, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: Councilmember
Horak.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 92-84
Approving the Purchase of
Property for Fossil Creek
Trail Access in Clarendon Hills. Postponed to 717
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
The purchase price for this 1.3 acre site is $33,000 and the money is budgeted
and available in the Conservation Trust Fund.
'
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This resolution authorizes the purchase
of land (Lot 5) from Clarendon
Hills
Associates for trail access along the
Fossil Creek Trail route in Clarendon
Hilis. This 1.3 acre site will provide
a connection to City -owned land
along
Fossil Creek from Fossil Creek Drive and
Shields Street. City -owned land
along
Fossil Creek and the Burns Tributary will
allow for placement of the Fossil
Creek
Trail to the trail underpass at Shields
Street. This 1.3 acre site could also
be developed as a trailhead with amenities
for trail users.
The cost of this land ($25,400/acre) is expensive when compared to other land
purchased for the trail system. This price includes development costs associated
with the Clarendon Hills Subdivision in addition to the raw land cost.. Lots
along Fossil Creek Drive are selling for $33,000. Unsuitable terrain (steep
slopes) and no existing trail easements prevents the trail from going east along
Fossil Creek Drive from the Burns Tributary junction.
The developer will pay all fees and costs (about $7,000) associated with the
development of Shields Street which forms the west boundary of the lot. Also,
the developer has deeded, at no cost, additional land (0.15 acre) to the City at
the Burns Tributary area for the trail underpass.
The Parks and Recreation Board discussed this potential purchase (then known as
Lot 59) at its meeting of April 24, 1991, and unanimously concurred with the
proposed purchase."
337
May 19, 1992 '
Councilmember Azari made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Winokur, to adopt
Resolution 92-84.
Councilmember Horak questioned the justification for taking action in this area
of the trail system when similar areas have experienced the same situation for
a longer period of time.
Director of Cultural, Library and Recreational Services Mike Powers, clarified
there is some urgency to complete the underpass and obtain the property while it
is available.
Councilmember Horak stated the system is not currently being used and questioned
the impact of the project. He asked why an easement was not obtained during the
PUD process.
Right -of -Way Agent Ron Mills responded to Council questions regarding how pricing
was established.
Mike Powers stated the developer was unwilling to split the lot with an easement.
He spoke of the trailhead that was projected for the site.
Councilmember Maxey questioned how a trailhead would conform with the overall
trail system. '
Mike Powers clarified the first priority was to complete the loop within the City
and reported the Fossil Creek area was the following phase in the trail plan.
City Manager Steve Burkett stated Staff would investigate and report back on
reasons why easements had not been obtained.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to postpone
consideration of Resolution 92-84 until the next Council meeting or until the
item had been satisfactorily addressed.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Fromme, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Horak spoke of Resolution 92-85 and the opportunity for obtaining
transportation funds for the recommended Regional Bikeway System and commented
on the enthusiasm between the Cities and County.
Mayor Kirkpatrick commented that the Children's Water Festival sponsored by the
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the City of Fort Collins was an
outstanding educational event. '
338
May 19, 1992
Mayor Kirkpatrick spoke of the cosmetic changes that would be occurring at the
Walgreen's building that was designated as an historic structure by Ordinance No.
58, 1992.
Councilmember Winokur commended Mayor Kirkpatrick for her work in representing
the City as a member of the Board of Directors of the Colorado Municipal League.
Ordinance No. 54, 1992,
Amending Chapter 26 of the Code
of the City of Fort Collins Relating
to the Waiver of Payment of the Water
Plant Investment Fee for Service Areas,
ents and Divisions of the City of Fort Collins
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, which was adopted 6-1 on First Reading on May 5, would change the
City Code to allow the Water Utility to waive the requirement for City service
areas, departments, and divisions and the Poudre Fire Authority to pay water
plant investment fees (PIFs) for specific installations which do not adversely
affect the utility's ability to treat and deliver water. The Code change would
apply only to water PIFs under this special circumstance. City departments will
still be required to pay water PIFs under normal circumstances, as well as pay
other development fees and monthly service fees."
Councilmember Fromme made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to adopt
Ordinance No. 54, 1992 on Second Reading.
Councilmember Maxey questioned if it was a practical option for private
organizations to use treated water when raw water is not available in the
delivery system.
Water/Wastewater Utility Director Mike Smith clarified there had not been any
requests from the private sector to use raw water.
The vote on Councilmember Fromme's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Fromme, Kirkpatrick, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: Councilmember
Horak.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ktlll
May 19, 1992
1
Ordinance No. 61, 1992
Authorizing the Lease of a
'Corporate Lot• at the Fort Collins/Loveland
Municipal Airport. Adopted on First Reading.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
The lease will generate $4,356 annually for the Airport for the first five years.
After the fifth year, and every fifth year thereafter through the term of the
lease, the rent will increase (using an equation based on CPIs).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Airport Manager, along with representatives of the cities of Fort Collins and
Loveland, has negotiated a lease of Lot 1, Barnstorm Second Addition to the City
of Loveland, Colorado to Virga Corporation (see attached map). This is the
second lease of a "corporate lot," the first being to Firewall Forward on Lot 5
under the direction of the former Airport Authority.
This is an exciting step for the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport. The
Airport Strategic Plan identified leasing the "corporate lots" as a significant
and important focus area for the Airport. '
The Virga Corporation intends to construct a 3600 sq. ft. aircraft hanger to
house its corporate aircraft. At the end of the leased period, the improvements
revert to the ownership of the cities. The term of the lease is for 25 years
with three five-year options to renew. The lot is approximately one acre, 4356
sq. ft. The initial lease rate is $.10 per square foot with increases every five
years. It is hoped that additional "corporate lots" will be leased in the very
near future."
Councilmember Maxey withdrew from discussion on this item due to a perceived
conflict of interest.
Councilmember Edwards made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Fromme, to adopt
Ordinance No. 61, 1992 on First Reading.
Airport Manager Fred Anderton gave a presentation on this item noting it was the
first Corporate Lot Lease in several years.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 E. Harmony Road, spoke of the construction funds used to
build the Airport and suggested selling the Airport to relieve the City of the
debt.
Bob Tueting, 916 Cheyenne Drive, concurred with Mr... Lockhart and stated the
Cities should not be involved in the Airport business. '
340
' May 19, 1992
Fred Anderton spoke of subdividing portions of the Airport and noted the lots
could be used for a variety of hangar applications.
City Manager Steve Burkett stated that leasing Corporate Lots would reduce the
need for tax dollars.
Councilmember Horak commended Airport Manager Fred Anderton for his excellent
customer service.
Mayor Kirkpatrick spoke of the important role the Airport plays in the Northern
Colorado transportation system.
The vote on Councilmember Edwards' motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Fromme, Horak, Kirkpatrick and Winokur. Nays: None.
(Councilmember Maxey Withdrawn)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 92-88
Authorizing the Mayor to
Enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement
with the City of Loveland to Construct a Municipal
' Fire Station at the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this Intergovernmental Agreement is to provide a iegai basis for
the City of Loveland to construct and retain ownership of a municipally owned
fire station at the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport in conjunction with
the Airport Fire Station. The FAA will make a formal grant offer to the Airport
in July to construct an Airport Fire Station this summer. The City of Loveland
has a need to improve its fire fighting capability in the area around the Airport
and wanted to take advantage of the opportunity to incorporate design
efficiencies by building with the Airport station. There will be no cost to the
City of Fort Collins for this project.
The improved fire fighting capabilities at the Airport will assist the Airport
in attaining certification to permit larger planes to fly to the Airport on a
regular basis. This will benefit the Airport's signatory carrier, Continental
Express, should it desire to have larger aircraft fly to FNL, as well as any
future carriers who may desire to provide regular or occasional flights from Fort
Collins."
Councilmember Edwards made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to adopt
Resolution 92-88.
341
May 19, 1992 '
Assistant to the City Manager Julia Novak gave a presentation on this item and
outlined funding sources. She clarified the City would be contributing to the
construction of the building.
Councilmember Horak questioned the City's contribution to firefighting and
benefits received by the City.
Airport Manager Fred Anderton stated the Loveland Fire Department would begin
managing the fire station full-time in January 1994 and reported on the costs
involved.
Bob Tueting, 916 Cheyenne Drive, questioned the costs to the taxpayers.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 E. Harmony Road, opposed the joint ownership of the Fire
Station.
Councilmember Horak supported the overall concept and expressed concerns that it
was not a great cost benefit for the City.
Councilmember Azari spoke in support of the Resolution stating it was a great
benefit to the residents of northern Colorado.
The vote on Councilmember Edwards' motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers '
Azari, Edwards, Fromme, Kirkpatrick and Winokur. Nays: Councilmember Horak.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Councilmember Maxey returned to the Chambers)
Resolution 92-89
Selecting the Site For
the New Senior Citizen Center, Adopted.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
The financial impacts of land acquisition and development of all three sites are
identified in a confidential memo in Councii's packets dated May 19, 1992.
Adoption of this Resolution will determine the preferred site. In June, staff
wiII return to Council with options to fund any additional costs incurred by this
selection.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Resolution selects the site for the Fort Collins senior citizen center.
Staff is asking that the Council review and consider three potential sites for ,
342
' May 19, 1992
this new center. Two of these sites, the Centre for Advanced Technology (C.A.T.)
and Raintree, are privately -owned. One site, part of the EPIC P.U.D., referred
to as the Edora Park site, is City -owned.
If Council chooses a private site, the Resolution will be completed with the name
of either Raintree or Centre for Advanced Technology and the site size, either
five or seven acres.
If Council chooses the Edora Park site, the Resolution will be completed with the
name of Edora Park, approximately five acres, and the selection of either a
Stuart Street access to the center or a Riverside access.
Staff will return in June with funding options for the location selected. These
options may include reducing the scope of the project to accommodate the increase
in land or development costs or options to add money to the existing project.
BACKGROUND:
Choosing a location for the new senior citizen center, a Choices 95 project
approved by the voters in 1989, is the next decision step for City Council. In
1989, it was assumed that this facility would be built on City -owned land.
Last spring, when Council authorized staff to proceed to the site selection phase
' of this project, they directed staff to search for the best possible public and
private site(s) for this facility, based on site criteria developed during the
programming phase.
J
There is no money allocated in the project budget for land acquisition or for
funding unusual site development problems. Unusual site development problems
have been defined as those which add costs to a project as a specific result of
the condition of the site, including problems like soil contamination, moving
utility lines that already cross the property, the solving of drainage or sloping
problems, poor soil conditions, etc.
Input from the public was received from a survey this past winter and also during
a City Council -hosted open house and public outreach hearing on March 31. In a
memo to the Council on April 9, staff narrowed the list of over 20 sites down to
five sites-- three privately -owned properties, a City -owned site referred to here
as Edora Park, and a piece of S.I.D. property at Shields and Horsetooth. Land
acquisition negotiations were completed with the three private land owners. Staff
talked to neighborhood groups at each of the sites to identify any concerns they
might have with this project. Staff also calculated the unusual site development
costs associated with each of the properties.
The five sites included the following:
343
May 19, 1992 '
Five to seven acres in the Centre for Advanced Technology, the northeast
corner of West Drake and South Shields. This property is owned by Everitt
Companies.
Five to seven acres directly north of Raintree Shopping Center, northwest
corner of West Drake and South Shields. This property is owned by Raintree
Associates.
3. Approximately five acres at the west end of the EPIC P.U.D., adjacent to
Edora Park. This property is owned by the City.
4. Five acres on the north side of West Horsetooth, west of South Shields,
called Horsetooth Commons. This is an S.I.D. property, to which the City
holds title.
5. Five to seven acres directly east of the entrance into Rolland Moore Park.
This property is owned by Colorado State University Research Foundation.
Two of these sites have been eliminated from consideration. After completing the
negotiation phase, CSURF has withdrawn its offer of sale.
The S.I.D. property known as Horsetooth Commons has also been eliminated from the
list for final consideration. Through a recently -completed SID bid process, the
City has received an offer of sale on this property. In addition, the Planning
and Zoning Board recently gave final P.U.D. approval to the property immediately
'
to the west of Horsetooth Commons. This property is known as Kingston Woods.
The Kingston Woods P.U.D. was approved with the understanding that a road shown
on the original Horsetooth Commons P.U.D. (Seneca Drive) that dissects the
property from west to east would remain as a direct linkage from Kingston Woods
to Richmond Drive. Satisfying this requirement would make the Horsetooth Commons
property unusable for the senior center project. The road itself would use
valuable acreage, reducing the total to less than 5 buildable acres, and would
separate the parking from the facility.
Staff recommends that City Council adopt Resolution 92-, selecting one of the six
options below. The total cost shown with each option reflects the total cost of
the building as currently planned on each site. Total cost includes constructing
the building ( architectural fees, equipment, furnishings, and the.construction
costs), all site development work, land acquisition if appropriate, and
associated fees. The amount of money currently budgeted in Choices 95 for this
project is $4,760,500.
1.
Centre for
Advanced Technology, 5 acres--
Total
Cost:
$5,096,500
2.
Centre for
Advanced Technology, 7 acres--
Total
Cost:
$5,214,100
3.
Raintree, 5
acres--
Total
Cost:
$5,102,500
4.
Raintree, 7
acres--
Total
Cost:
$5,193,500
5.
Edora Park,
access from Stuart--
Total
Cost:
$4,924,500
6.
Edora Park,
access from Riverside--
Total
Cost:
$5,010,500
344
,
' May 19, 1992
Because the possible sale of private land is involved in this issue, the
information about private land costs, along with further cost breakdowns and site
comparisons, are included in a confidential memo in the Council packets.
Additional information on this issue is included in the attached report, which
contains the following:
1. Information about the process used to narrow the site list.
2. The advantages and disadvantages of each of the three remaining sites.
3. Future operation and maintenance costs of the new center.
4. Input received from the Parks and Recreation Board, the Senior Advisory
Board, the project Building Team, and the Riffenburgh Parent Advisory
Board."
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards, to adopt
Resolution 92-89 with the following inserted in the blanks: the Raintree site
comprising approximately 7 acres.
City Manager Steve Burkett gave a presentation on this item noting all of the
proposed sites exceed the budget and that funding options may need to be
discussed.
' Recreation Manager Jean Helburg stated staff supports either the CAT or Raintree
site. She gave a slide presentation and reported on the various site advantages
and disadvantages.
Councilmember Winokur asked what the Senior Advisory Board and Parks and
Recreation Board recommendations were.
Helburg stated the Parks and Recreation Department did not give a direct
recommendation but spoke of the concept and concerns for different site
locations. She reported the Senior Advisory Board made and adopted two motions
which recommended placing the site at either Raintree or the CAT.
Councilmember Edwards questioned if the motion were finalized could the
additional two acres be pursued as a first right of refusal rather than an
outright purchase in order to defer or delay the additional $100,000 cost until
future expansion would be necessary..
David Hodge, Riffenburgh Elementary Principal, supported staff's recommendation
and spoke of the impact the Edora site location would have on the present traffic
flow problem in the Riffenburgh area.
Helene Stout, 2532 Creekwood Drive, stated she supported the Raintree site and
spoke of her concerns regarding the Edora site.
345
May 19, 1992
Eldon Malmstrom, Riffenburgh Teacher, residing at 2118 Rollingwood Drive, spoke
in opposition to the proposed Edora site and suggested selecting an area with
greater expansion potential.
David Benson, 1425 East Stuart, spoke in support of the Senior Citizen Center and
urged Council to support the motion recommending the Raintree site.
Don O'Connell, 2218 Eastwood Drive, spoke in opposition to the Edora site.
Harold Warren, 1120 Robertson, stated the Edora site was not a desirable location
for the Senior Citizen Center. He expressed his concerns that the center would
potentially obstruct the view from the Veteran's Memorial.
Bob Everitt, owner of the Center for Advanced Technology, urged Council to adopt
the Resolution considering the Center for Advanced Technology (CAT) and spoke of
the expansion possibilities. He stated $60,000 worth of artwork would be
contributed if the additional 2 acres of land were purchased.
Ron Frank, 3008 Phoenix Drive, spoke in support of the Raintree site.
Bob Tueting, 916 Cheyenne Drive, suggested staggering operating hours of the
Center to alleviate traffic flow at peak school times.
Bill Way, a Fort Collins resident, stated the view from the Veteran's Memorial I
would be obstructed if the Edora Park site was selected.
Councilmember Winokur spoke in support of the Raintree site.
Councilmember Azari spoke in support of the motion and commented on the positive
characteristics of the site.
Councilmember Edwards spoke in support of the motion stating the Raintree site
was clearly the best choice and commended the Site Selection Committee for their
work. He commented on efforts to respond to citizen's requests that City owned
property be utilized for the Senior Citizen Center, which was determined not to
be a feasible option.
Councilmember Horak spoke in support of the Raintree site and stated the cost
difference between the sites was not considerable and commented on the
accessibility to the trail system, noting the playground at Rolland Moore Park.
was the only handicap accessible playground in the City.
Councilmember Maxey stated he supported the motion, and noted that minor
disadvantages of the Raintree site can be dealt with in the design.
Councilmember Fromme stated that she originally supported the Edora site,
anticipating a swift conclusion to the process, butchanged her mind .after
evaluating the Raintree location. '
346
May 19, 1992
'
Councilmember Winokur commended Billie Higgins, former
member of the
a Senior
Advisory Board, for
her endeavor in keeping the process
moving.
Mayor Kirkpatrick
listed intergenerational activity
and uncertainty in
overinvesting in one
section of the City as her concerns
regarding the Raintree
site, but stated it
was the best choice because it meets all of the major
criteria.
The vote on Councilmember Winokur's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Fromme, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 62, 1992,
Authorizing the Issuance of
Industrial Development Revenue
Bonds of the City of Fort Collins for
the Value Plastics, Inc. Project Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
' The debt created by the issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds
("IDRBs") will be repaid from the net operating revenue generated by the project,
not by taxes or resources of the City. The bonds do not constitute a debt or
obligation of the City. Upon issuance of the bonds, the City will receive a fee
of 1/16th of one percent of the present value of the outstanding annual debt of
the financing schedule, consistent with the City's IDRB policies. These funds
are designated by policy to be used for economic development purposes. The fee
is dependent upon the debt service for the bonds and is estimated to be between
$6,000 and $10,000.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In January, Sampson Partnership/Value Plastics, Inc. ("Value Plastics") submitted
an application to the City for the inducement of $2,150,000 of industrial
development revenue bonds pursuant to the City's established policies.
On March 3, 1992, the Council unanimously adopted the Inducement Resolution for
the Value Plastics, Inc. Project in the amount of $2,150,000. This ordinance
authorizes the issuance of the industrial development revenue bonds to be used
to finance the construction of the improvements for the project. These
improvements include acquiring, constructing, and equipping a manufacturing
facility to be located near or on Eastbrook Drive in the Timberline Business
Park.
1 347
May 19, 1992
1
Value Plastics was founded by the Sampsons in 1968 to design, manufacture,
promote and sell a broad selection of products related to the interconnection of
hose, tubing and manifolds. The Company's present facility on Eastbrook was
financed through IDRB's issued by the City in 1984.
Protect Budget and Use of Bond Proceeds
The estimated budget for the project is as follows:
Sources
Proceeds of Bonds $2,150,000
Interest earnings 107,500
Subtotal $2,257,500
Uses
Construction costs $2,215,500
Costs of issuance 42,000
Total $2,257,500 '
The proceeds of the bond issue will be used to pay the capital costs of the
proposed project. The equipment cost consists of major equipment used in the
manufacturing process and has an expected useful life of 10 years. The building
addition has an expected useful life of 40 years. The term of the bonds is 20
years.
The underwriter for the transaction will be Central Bank National Association of
Denver. It is expected that the bonds will be marketed between first and second
reading. Mr. David E. Dwyer of Fischer, Brown, Huddleson & Gunn will serve as
bond counsel for the transaction.
The financial transaction will be secured by a letter of credit from Central Bank
National Association of Denver because of this security it is expected that the
issue will be rated by Moody's Investor's Service.
Economic Benefits
The project will yield direct and indirect benefits to the Fort Collins economy.
The direct benefits include an increase in the annual property tax because of the
increase in assessed valuation. This increase is estimated to be $7,100. Use
tax receipts from materials used in the construction of the improvements is
expected to be approximately $4,300.
348 1
May 19, 1992
Indirect benefits arise from the fact that nearly all of the company's products
will be sold outside the City limits, thereby drawing income into the City.
About 90 percent of the expenditures by the company will be made to local
vendors. It is anticipated that an additional 25 employees will be hired from
the iocal job market by 1997. If it is assumed that 50Y, of the additional
employee payroll is spent locally, the City will receive in excess of $34,000 per
year in sales tax after 1997."
Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Counciimember Edwards, to adopt
Ordinance No. 62, 1992 on First Reading.
Finance Administrator Alan Krcmarik gave a background presentation on this item
and briefly outlined the economic benefits.
The vote on Councilmember Maxey's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Fromme, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 63, 1992,
Amending Certain Sections of the
Code Pertaining to the Enforcement of Special
Improvement District Liens. Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed ordinance would accomplish several changes in the manner in which
the City deals with the delinquent payment of assessments in special improvement
districts. First, Section 22-95 of the Code would be amended to: (1) reduce
the penalty interest rate on delinquent assessments so as to coincide with the
rate specified in the assessing ordinances for the each special improvement
district and (2) broaden the circumstances under which the City's Financial
Officer is authorized to waive penalty interest. Next, Section 22-97 would be
amended to specifically authorize the City to retain certain SID properties that
it has acquired through the foreclosure of its assessment liens and would specify
the amount to be deposited into the special assessment fund by the City.
Finally, an additional subsection would be added to Section 22-97 which would
parallel the authority contained in the state statutes to foreclose certificates
of purchase held by the City as a result of the tax sale of delinquent
properties. Unlike the state statute, the proposed ordinance would limit the
circumstances under which this alternative foreclosure process could be applied.
BACKGROUND:
Last fall, Council adopted Ordinance No. 134, 1991, which made several changes
to Section 22-97 of the Code, dealing with the enforcement of the City's special
349
May 19, 1992
assessment liens. Included with the agenda materials is a copy of the agenda
item summary which accompanied that ordinance.
Several other Code changes were proposed by City staff at the same time,
including a revision of the penalty interest provisions of the Code and the
addition of alternative foreclosure procedures to enforce the City's liens.
Consideration of these additional amendments was postponed by the Council,
pending further staff review and outreach to affected parties.
PENALTY INTEREST
With regard to penalty interest, the City's present method of calculation has
been challenged by Everitt Companies, Inc. ("Everitt"), a property owner which
has made certain assessment payments under protest. Staff and the Council
Finance Committee have met with Everitt and its legal counsel to discuss
Everitt's allegations that: (a) the 18% penalty interest authorized by the 1989
amendment to the Code is too high, (b) the Financial Officer's method of
calculating penalty interest in addition to the accrual of ordinary interest is
improper and inconsistent with the language of the Code, and (c) the Financial
Officer or City Council should have greater latitude to waive disputed amounts
of penalty interest.
As a result of,these discussions, staff believes that certain changes to the I
provisions of the Code are warranted, as well as a partial waiver of the penalty
interest which has been contested by Everitt. Those recommended changes are
described below.
1. Penalty Interest Rate. The proposed ordinance would amend
Section 22-95 of the Code to provide that the penalty interest rate for
delinquent assessments would be the same as the penalty rate specified
in the assessing ordinance for each district. The effect of this change
would be to reduce the penalty interest rate in all special improvement
districts except Districts No. 90 and 91 from 18% per year to 12% per
year. Both of these districts specified the higher rate in the
assessing ordinance. Everitt, and perhaps others, believe that this
reduction in rate should apply to all districts, including Nos. 90 and
91.
2. Waiver of Penalty Interest. The proposed ordinance would also
amend Section 22-95 so as to broaden the circumstances under which the
Financial Officer is authorized to waive penalty interest. At present,
the Financial Officer's ability to waive penalty interest is limited to
situations in which the default in payment is "attributable to an act or
omission of the city or County which is inconsistent with the procedures
set forth in (Chapter 22) of the Code." Thus, in order to waive any
penalty interest under the present wording of the Code, the Financial
Officer must find that a mistake was made. Because the primary purpose
of penalty interest is to encourage the timely payment of assessments '
350
May 19, 1992
and reimburse the City for costs incurred by reason of the
delinquencies, staff believes that it would be helpful for the Financial
Officer to have greater flexibility in deciding whether a waiver of
penalty interest would be in the best financial interests of the City.
Under the criteria contained in the proposed ordinance, penalty
interest waivers would be permissible when:
(a) a written protest and request for waiver has been filed with the
Financial Officer within 90 days of the due date of the
installment;
(b) all portions of the installment payment of the assessment,
excluding only the disputed amount of penalty interest, have
been paid within said 90-day period of time; and
(c) the Financial Officer finds that the proposed waiver of penalty
interest is necessary to avoid a manifest injustice to the
property owner, to correct an error in the calculation of the
penalty interest, or to resolve a good faith dispute regarding
the amount of penalty interest due.
' Unless the waiver is due to an error in calculation, the amount waived would
be limited to no more than one-third of the amount due. If these new
criteria are approved by the Council, the Financial Officer would waive
$47,197.55 of the penalty interest due from Everitt for delinquent payments
in 1991 and 1992. This would be consistent with the reduction in the
penalty interest rate and would bring Everitt current in its SID
obligations. This represents less than one-third of the total amount of
penalty interest due from Everitt during that period of time.
AUTHORITY FOR CITY TO BUY PROPERTY
Section 22-97 of the Code would be amended by the proposed ordinance so as to
specify that, in lieu of selling a particular property acquired at tax sale, the
City Council could choose to keep the property for a particular public use, in
which event the City would deposit into the appropriate special assessment fund
an amount equal to the principal and accrued interest (excluding penalty
interest) remaining to be paid on the assessment against the property.
Additionally, the City Manager could require, as a condition of the transaction,
that the General Fund of the City be reimbursed for all costs incurred by the
City in enforcing its lien against the property, such as publication costs, title
insurance costs, appraisal or marketing costs, fees paid to the County Treasurer
and general taxes paid by the City on the subject property.
351
May 19, 1992 '
ALTERNATIVE FORECLOSURE
Two kinds of alternative foreclosure procedures were suggested earlier. The
first would have allowed the City to foreclose its lien against the property
through a court proceeding rather than through the annual tax sale. That
proposal is no longer being recommended.
The second alternative foreclosure proposal, which is again being recommended,
would authorize the commencement of a court action to foreclose the certificates
of purchase which the City receives at the tax sale. This process is already
contained in the state statutes, although the City's interpretation of the
meaning of that statute has been challenged by Everitt and certain local lending
institutions. In the City's view, this process would enable the City to shorten
the three-year redemption period that normally applies to properties sold at the
tax sale.
In order to address the concerns expressed by the affected parties, City staff
is recommending certain changes from the earlier alternative foreclosure proposal
which was presented to the Council.
First, it has been argued that shortening the three-year redemption period is not
necessary if the market value of the property represented by a certificate of
purchase remains adequate to satisfy the City's assessment lien and fully '
reimburse the City for all costs expended in enforcing the lien. Staff generally
agrees with this contention. Accordingly, the proposed ordinance includes a
provision that the alternative foreclosure process would be used only when the
market value of the property represented by a tax certificate becomes inadequate
to fully satisfy the financial interests of the City and its bondholders.
Secondly, the lending institutions have expressed a concern that this alternative
foreclosure process (and the shortened redemption period) would deter local
lenders from providing financing to homeowners, since the threat of such a
foreclosure process would impede the marketability of the loans in the secondary
market. The lenders believe that this alternative foreclosure process would not
have such a negative effect upon local financial institutions and homeowners if
the proposed process applied only to undeveloped properties. As a practical
matter, developed properties seldom are stricken off to the City at tax sale.
Therefore, staff believes that it would not adversely affect the City's interests
if this kind of limitation were incorporated into the proposed ordinance. For
that reason, language has been added to exempt properties from the alternative
foreclosure process if, subsequent to the construction of the district
improvements, the property has been further improved by the addition of buildings
or structures which, in themselves, are equal in value to the unimproved
property, including the district improvements.
If Council approves the proposed Ordinance, a resolution would be presented at
the next Council meeting directing the City Attorney to commence foreclosure
actions pursuant to the authority contained in the ordinance and the state '
352
' May 19, 1992
statute. A copy of that resolution is included in the agenda materials.
SUMMARY
With the modifications described above, staff believes that the proposed
ordinance strikes an appropriate balance between the interests of the City and
those of the parties who will be most directly impacted by its implementation.
To summarize:
• The penalty interest rate would be consistent with the rate
stated in the assessing ordinance, but it would still be
calculated in addition to ordinary interest.
• The Financial Officer would have greater discretion to waive
penalty interest, according to certain criteria, in order to
maximize the amount of assessment payments received by the City
and minimize, to the extent possible, the need to sell
delinquent property.
• An alternative foreclosure process would be provided which would
shorten the period of time that the City has to hold properties
which have depreciated in value to a point where they no longer
support the amount of the City's lien plus the costs that the
City has incurred in enforcing the lien.
The overall objective of these changes is to minimize the cost incurred by the
City's taxpayers as a result of the default in SID assessment payments and to
expedite the process whereby the City can acquire and resell delinquent
properties, so as to restore them to the tax rolls, reimburse itself for costs
incurred and apply the balance of the proceeds to the payment of districts
bonds."
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards, to adopt
Ordinance No. 63, 1992 on First Reading.
Finance Administrator Alan Krcmarik reported on SID's penalty interest
calculations and property acquisitions. He spoke of amendments to the Code which
were designed to encourage property owners to pay on a timely basis. He reported
on the manner in which the Financial Officer is allowed to waive penalties and
noted the new provisions would expand the criteria without compromising the
financial interests of the City or taxpayers.
City Attorney Steve Roy outlined the foreclosure process and stated the Ordinance
would shorten the period of redemption so the City could obtain ownership of
property sooner and minimize the expense to the taxpayer. He noted the process
would be used for undeveloped properties and for properties for which the overall
value would not be sufficient to support the lien.
353
May 19, 1992 '
Councilmember Maxey inquired where the interest money from the penalty interest
is placed when the penalties are paid.
Alan Krcmarik stated the funds go into the Bond Fund to offset interest accrued
on late bond payments, and explained penalty interest payments were based on the
total amount due.
City Attorney Steve Roy clarified there is a statute that would permit the owner
of property to challenge the regularity of a tax sale proceeding in an attempt
to reclaim the property.
Lucia Liley, 110 E. Oak, spoke in support of the alternative foreclosure
recommendation and thanked Council and staff for the opportunity to discuss the
foreclosure process and penalty interest issues. She urged Council to impose
penalty interest charges solely on the delinquent installment. She urged Council
to amend the Ordinance to include SID's 90 and 91, explaining the districts were
created before the amendment to the Code reducing the penalty interest rate.
Ward Fischer, 420 Jackson Avenue, representing First Interstate Bank and Home
Federal Savings and Loan, stated he appreciated Council and staff's cooperation
regarding accelerated foreclosure and urged Council to adopt Ordinance No. 62,
1992.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 E. Harmony Road, commended the City for their efforts in I
trying to minimize the taxpayer impact of SID's and spoke of the possible
negative implications of accelerated foreclosures.
Councilmember Winokur clarified that the City's proposal was not to reduce the
rate of penalty interest from 18% to 12% but to make sure the rate of penalty
interest is that which is specified in the original assessing ordinance.
Councilmember Fromme requested a two page memo outlining the pros and cons for
charging interest on the entire account balance.
City Attorney Steve Roy clarified that bond holders interest is limited to the
principal and interest due on the bonds, and the Financial Officer's ability to
waive penalty interest does not affect their interest or security.
Councilmember Edwards stated he supported the Ordinance noting the City would be
going back to what was originally agreed on.
The vote on Councilmember Winokur's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 63, 1992 was
as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Fromme, Horak, Kirkpatrick,
Maxey and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
354
May 19, 1992
Resolution 92-91
Adopting a Policy for the Sale of
Property Acquired Through or in Lieu of
Special Assessment Foreclosure Process Adopted
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
The sales policy proposed by City staff establishes guidelines for the disposal
of real property which has been acquired by the City through or in lieu of the
Foreclosure of delinquent special assessment liens. By following the policy, the
City should be able to receive the best possible price for the property and
minimize its expenditures for special assessment debt. Although the City will
advance certain costs associated with property sales, some of those costs will
be reimbursed when sales are finalized.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City holds tax certificates on approximately 550 acres of real property on
which there are special assessment liens for $4.3 million in principal owed to
' bondholders. When the period for redeeming these certificates of purchase has
expired, the City will apply for deeds to the properties, sell them and apply the
proceeds of sale, less costs and fees, to the payment of SID bonds. The proposed
sales policy that, if adopted by Council, will be followed when the City is
disposing of the property. Under the proposed policy, the asking price would be
based on market value. The City would either sell the property directly through
a competitive process or list the property for sale with one or more real estate
brokers. City Council would approve all final sales by ordinance as is required
by the Code for the final disposition of any real property of the City.
BACKGROUND:
Both state statutes and the City Code provide that the City may enforce its liens
for special improvement district assessments by selling property in default
through the County Treasurer if the owner of the property has failed to pay
special assessments. If no private investor purchases the property, the
certificate of purchase is issued to the City. Since the tax sale of 1988, the
City has acquired certificates of purchase on 79 properties totaling 550 acres.
The amount of delinquent special assessment represented by the certificates is
as follows:
Principal: $4,361,880
Accrued Interest
and Penalty: $1,702,438
' Commission: f 112,184
355
May 19, 1992 '
Advertising: S 1,785
Total Face Amount
of Tax Certif. $6,178,287
Investor interest in the amount of $2,109,887 (to the end of May) is not expected
to be recovered. Ownership of the certificates of purchase entitles the City to
apply for title to the properties if the certificates are not redeemed within the
requisite period of time by parties holding an interest in the properties.
Occasionally, a property owner voluntarily deeds a parcel of property over to the
City in lieu of foreclosure. Since these properties constitute the underlying
security for the City's special assessment debt, the City must fulfill its
obligations to the holders of the district bonds by liquidating the property and
applying the proceeds of sale, less costs and fees incurred by the City, to the
payment of the bonds.
A Special Improvement District Task Force was formed by the City Manager in
September of 1991 to review the sales practices of other municipalities and any
applicable legal requirements, and develop a sales policy to be used by the City.
Members of the Task Force are the City Attorney, the Director of Administrative
Services, the Financial Officer, the Planning Director, the Director of
Purchasing and Risk Management, the Director of Economic Affairs, the ,
Right -of -Way Agent, the Financial Policy Analyst, and the Senior Accountant. The
Task Force contacted a number of municipalities both in Colorado and out-of-state
and reviewed the policies they had established for special assessment properties.
A17 applicable legal requirements were considered when developing the policies
for the City.
The City of Fort Collins Sales Policy for Property Acquired Through or in Lieu
of Special Assessment Lien Foreclosure Process (the "Sales Policy") is designed
to meet the City's obligation to its bondholders, to provide information to the
public, and to assist staff in actively pursuing the sale of special assessment
properties. The Sales Policy recommended for adoption has been presented to the
members of Fort Collins, Inc., the Fort Collins Board of Realtors, and a11.1oca7
mortgage institutions. No objections were raised and positive comments were
received.
The Sales Policy was reviewed by members of the Council Finance Committee and
their suggestions were followed in developing in the final draft. The Finance
Committee recommends adoption of the Sales Policy.
356 1
May 19, 1992
Summary of the Sales Policy:
I. Property Included
The Sales Policy applies to all present and future special
assessment lien property.
11. Marketing
Marketing information will be actively disseminated. The City may
consider rezoning or replatting the property prior to marketing and
will comply with all City Code provisions when doing so.
III. Sale of Property
The City has three options for disposal of the property: 1) direct
sale by auction, sealed bid or other competitive process, 2) sale
through an exclusive or non-exclusive broker, and 3) sale to the
City for public use.
The asking price will be the market value. A licensed real estate
appraiser will be retained periodically to determine a range of
' market value.
IV. Financing
The City of Fort Collins will not offer financing to a prospective
purchaser.
V. Responsibility for Property Acquisition. Sales, and Maintenance
This responsibility shall be within Administrative Services/Finance
Department. The annual recommended budget will provide funding for
costs associated with this responsibility. Property will be
maintained by the City in compliance with all applicable laws.
Council Action:
Chapter 23 of the Code requires that all sales of property be authorized by
ordinance. Once a responsible buyer has been established for each property, the
final sale will be brought to Council for approval.
Any amendments to the Sales Policy would require adoption by the Council."
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards, to adopt
Resolution 92-91.
357
May 19, 1992
City Manager Steve Burkett noted that the majority of property values would be
less than the taxes owed.
Financial Policy Analyst Susanne Edminster gave a brief review of the sales
policies and clarified the sales policy is only for special assessment lien
property. She stated all property sales would be subject to Council approval.
Councilmember Maxey questioned if properties would be free from liens.
City Attorney Steve Roy stated the property is subject only to general taxes as
a prior lien and spoke of the benefits of acquiring a quiet title.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Fromme, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 64, 1992
Authorizing the Sale of Lots
1 through 18 and Tract C of Horsetooth
Commons PUD. Adopted on First Reading.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item. I
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
The special improvement district assessment lien on this property is $105,646.
In securing clear title, the City incurred expenses for an appraisal,
environmental audit, title insurance, general taxes, and County fees in the
amount of $22,286, which will be deducted from the purchase price and reimbursed
to the Special Assessments Debt Reserve Fund. The remaining balance of $92,714
will be used to pay debt service and the City's commission. Approximately 90Y
of the total lien and costs will be recovered.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Under Chapter 22 of the Code, the City is authorized to sell property at the
annual tax sale conducted by the Larimer County Treasurer if special assessments
levied against the property have not been paid. Lots I through 18 and Tract C
of Horsetooth Commons PUD were sold at the 1991 tax sale and tax certificates of
purchase were issued to the City as there were no interested private investors.
The owner of the property subsequently executed a deed in lieu of foreclosure
which transferred title to the City. In order to obtain the best price available
for the property the City issued a bid for interested buyers, as authorized by
the Code. The bid was mailed to all local realtors and was advertized under
property for sale in the Coloradoan. One bid was received in the amount of
358 1
I
May 19, 1992
$115,000 which is a reasonable offer. Council is required to approve the sales
transaction by ordinance if it is determined to be in the best interests of the
City.
BACKGROUND:
In 1985 several property owners petitioned the City to create the Cunningham
Corner Special Improvement District #82 for the purpose of constructing street
and utility improvements for a planned residential and commercial development on
the northwest and northeast corners of Shields Street and Horsetooth Road. Bonds
were issued in the amount of $1,265,000 to pay for the improvements. Assessments
were levied against the property in 1986 and the first installment was collected
in 1988.
Part of the planned development was a mixed commercial and residential area known
as Horsetooth Commons PUD. Some commercial buildings have been constructed but
the majority of the PUD is undeveloped. The owner of Lots 1 through 18 and Tract
C failed to pay assessments due on the property in 1990 and the land was offered
to investors at the 1991 tax sale. No investors bought the certificates of
purchase and they were issued to the. City. Soon after, the property owner
offered to execute a deed in lieu of foreclosure to the City which was reviewed
by the City Attorney's office and accepted by the City.
' Property within any special improvement district is the underlying security for
bondholders that debt service wi11 be paid. By offering property at tax sale and
subsequently marketing the land, the City is able to obtain the funds needed to
pay the debt service. Since it is important that the best market price be
obtained for the property, a bid was issued for interested buyers and an
appraisal was obtained. Progressive Living Structures, Inc. of Loveland was the
only bidder and offered $115,000.
The following is an itemization of the assessment lien and City costs which
accrued on the property:
Assessment Lien:
Principal $78,232
Interest 10189-10190 8,441
Penalty 16,901
City Commission 2.072
Total. $105,646
Costs:
County Treas. Commission + Fees f 3,991
Interest Payment on Bonds 10,986
(10190-6192)
General Taxes 1991 2,604
' 1990 2,576
359
May 19, 1992
'
Title Policy 579
Appraisal 1,500
Recording Fees 50
Total $22,286
The City Right -of -Way Agent's analysis of the bid is as follows:
Total site area: 5.46886 Acres
Patterson Pl (Stonegate Dr) .46463 Acres
Site Less Road 5.004 Acres
S26,000/Ac x 5.004 Acres $130,104 Value
Probable Listing Commission
at 10% $ 13,010
Net to City $117,094
Staff recommends acceptance of the bid. $22,286 will be deducted from the
purchase price to reimburse the City for costs and the balance of $92,714 will
be used to pay debt service on the 1989 Consolidated Special Assessment Bond
issue and the City's commission."
Councilmember Azari made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Fromme, to adopt
Ordinance No. 64, 1992 on First Reading.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 E. Harmony Road, questioned the amount of money taxpayers
'
are losing on the sale.
Financial Policy Analyst Susanne Edminster presented slide comparisons showing
what the amount owed versus the sale, and stated the bond holders interest would
not be compromised.
The vote on Councilmember Azari's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Fromme, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: None.
MI:IBiiRKITXIjXTI1%j1A
Other Business
Councilmember Edwards made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, directing
staff to prepare an Ordinance expanding the Golf Board from 1 members to 9
members.
Councilmember Edwards stated he had recently completed the Golf Board interviews
and spoke of the need for expanding representation of the Golf Board.
Councilmember Horak stated more time was needed to discuss the item.
360
The vote on Councilmember Edwards' motion was as follows: Yeas
Azari, Edwards, Frortme, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey and Winokur
THE MOTION CARRIED.
May 19, 1992
Councilmembers
Nays: None.
Councilmember Winokur spoke of the Senior Advisory Board's request for funding
to prepare a senior information guide and spoke of the contents of the brochure.
Council member Horak stated the issue should presented in. .the form of an agenda
i tem. I . ! .
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, directing
staff to prepare an agenda item addressing the senior brochure on the Agenda for
June 2.
The vote on Councilmember Winokur's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Fromme, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, directing
' staff to prepare an agenda item for the June 2 meeting addressing the possibility
of cablecasting Council Committee meetings.
Councilmember Horak suggested proposing the item for discussion during the 1993
budget process rather than addressing it as a separate item.
Councilmember Azari spoke of concerns regarding forgetting the items in the
budget process due to the small amounts involved.
Councilmember Horak stated staff is looking at taking out a page out in the
newspaper as a method to reach out to the public, and the newspaper proposal
represented an overall outreach program. He noted this might be a better
outreach method than cablecasting Council Committee meetings.
Mayor Kirkpatrick inquired if there were Council volunteers to serve on an Ad -Hoc
committee concerning suggestions relative to the Boards and Commission's process.
Seeing there were no volunteers she stated future concerns would be addressed
under the Other Business portion of Council meetings.
361
AdJournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
ATTEST: Mayor
City Clerk 11�
362
May 19, 1992 '
j