Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-06/05/1990-RegularJune 5, 1990 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council -Manager Form of Government Proclamations and Presentations 6:15 p.m. A. Proclamation Naming presented to Linda F B. Presentation of 1 Achievement Award t cable television or appropriate persons. ns, the Group, Inc. Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. was was forwarded to the A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, June 5, 1990, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur. Staff Members Present: Burkett, Krajicek, Roy Citizen Participation Barbara Allison, 1212 Lynnwood Drive, commented on the City's involvement with the electrical inspections at Poudre Valley Hospital. Agenda Review: City Manager City Manager Burkett requested Item #23a, Deed of dedication from James W. Day, Patricia M. Day, Robert L. Lee and Judy C. Lee located on the west side of Lemay Avenue needed for a stormwater detention pond in accordance with the Greenbriar Drainage Basin Master Plan. Monetary consideration: $69,262, be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda. -25- June 5, 1990 Items Related to the City's ' Fiscal Year 1990-91 Community Development Block Grant Program Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Public Hearing and Resolution 90-73 Adopting Fiscal Year 1990-91 Community Development Block Grant Programs and Projects. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 57, 1990, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Projects in the Community Development Block Grant Fund. The Community Development Block Grant Program provides federal funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to the City of Fort Collins which can be allocated to housing and community development related programs and projects, thereby reducing the demand on the City's General Fund Budget to address such needs. The Resolution establishes the individual programs and projects to be funded with Community Development Block Grant funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the FY 1990-91 Program year which begins October 1, 1990. The total amount of CDBG funds available to the City is $725,000. The CDBG Citizens Steering Committee has evaluated all applications and presents a list of priorities to the City Council as to which programs and projects should receive funding for the next program year. The Ordinance appropriates $645,000 from the City's FY 1990-91 Entitlement Grant, $50,000 from Reprogrammed CDBG funds, and $30,000 of anticipated Program Income. The CDBG Program is an ongoing grant administration program funded by the Department of Housing and Urban, Development. The City of Fort Collins has received CDBG Program funds sin e 1975. In 1975 and FY 1976-77 the City received HUD discretionary grants. Since FY 1977-78, the City has been an Entitlement Recipient of CDBG funds, meaning the City is guaranteed a certain level of funding each year. The level of funding is dependent on the total amount of funds allocated to the program by Congress and on a formula developed by HUD, which includes data on total population, minority percentage of population, income levels, housing stock conditions, etc. Programs and projects funded with Community Development Block Grants have to address at least one of the following three broad National Objectives: -26- June 5, 1990 ' 1) be a benefit to low- 2) eliminate or prevent 3) to meet urgent needs. and moderate -income persons, slum and blight conditions, and CDBG grants can fund a wide range of activities including, acquiring deteriorated and/or inappropriately developed real property (including property for the purpose of building new housing) and acquiring, constructing, rehabilitating or installing publicly owned facilities and improvements. CDBG funds can also be used for restoration of historic sites, beautification of urban land, conservation of open spaces and preservation of natural resources and scenic areas. Housing rehabilitation can be funded if it benefits low- and moderate -income people. Economic development activities are eligible expenditures if they stimulate private investment or community revitalization and expand economic opportunities for low- and moderate -income people and the handicapped. Certain activities are ineligible, under most circumstances, for CDBG funds including, purchase of equipment, operating and maintenance expenses including repair expenses and salaries, general government expenses, political activities, and new housing construction. Since its inception in 1975, the City's CDBG Program has focused on programs of housing rehabilitation and neighborhood revitalization. Three neighborhood strategy areas have been identified as in need of special assistance and attention. These neighborhoods are the Holy Family area, B.A.V.A. (Buckingham, Alta Vista, and Andersonville), and Laurel School neighborhoods. The downtown area is included in the strategy neighborhoods. Available Funds: The City's Entitlement Grant for FY 1990-91 is $645,000. The Entitlement Grant will be combined with $50,000 of reprogrammed funds from cancelled projects and contingency funds from the FY 1989-90 program year, and $30,000 of Program Income. HUD requires the City to estimate the total amount of anticipated Program Income which will be received during the program year. Combining all sources of income provides a total of $725,000 available for programs and projects during the next CDBG Program year. Selection Process: The selection process for the City's FY 1990-91 CDBG Program began on February 8, 1990, when the CDBG Citizens Steering Committee held a public hearing to obtain citizen input on'community development and housing needs. The CDBG Program office placed legal advertisements in local newspapers starting on March 1, 1989, to solicit requests for CDBG funded programs and projects for FY 1990-91. The application deadline was Friday March 30, 1990. At the close of the deadline the City received 30 applications ' requesting a total of approximately $1.5 million. -27- June 5, 1990 Copies of all applications were forwarded to the City Council through the City Manager's office on April 5, 1990. Copies of all applications were distributed to the CDBG Citizens Steering Committee at its regular monthly meeting on Thursday April 12, 1990. On Wednesday May 9, and Thursday May 10, 1990, the Steering Committee met to ask clarification questions from each applicant. The Steering Committee met on Wednesday May 16, 1990, for the purpose of preparing a list of priorities to the City Council as to which programs and projects should be funded for the FY 1990-91 program year. At this meeting the Committee reviewed the written applications, the information provided during the question and answer session, and reviewed the performance of agencies who received FY 1989-90 CDBG funds. The Committee then worked on formulating its list of priorities. The attached Resolution formally adopts the City's FY 1990-91 CDBG Program. List of Priorities: HUD CDBG regulations limit the amount of available funds which can be allocated to various generic categories. Funds for Planning and Administrative purposes are limited to 20% of the total of the Entitlement Grant and any anticipated Program Income. The City's Entitlement Grant for the next program year is $645,000 and anticipated Program Income is $30,000. This means the 20Y limitation for Planning and Administrative purposes is applied to a total of $675,000, making the 20Y funding limit a total of $135,000. Funds for Public Services are limited to 15% of the total of the Entitlement Grant (only), making the 15% funding limit a total of $96,750. The Steering Committee, thus, not only had to decide which applicants presented programs and projects which best fit into the City's CDBG Program, but also had to insure funding allocations were kept within HUD regulations. Listed below is a summary of each applicant's initial request for funding (some applications were modified at the time of verbal presentations to the Committee, see below) and the Steering Committee's list of priorities: REQUEST FUNDING APPLICANT PROGRAM/PROJECT -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planning and Administration (20% - $135,000) $104,500 $104,500 City of Fort Collins CDBG Administration 14,272 (1) 14,272 Neighbor -to -Neighbor, Inc. Housing Counseling 3,225 (1) 3,225 Neighbor -to -Neighbor, Inc. CHOICE Senior Housing Counseling 15,000 - Small Business Cns Ser. Downtown Self -Help 1 ME June 5, 1990 Acquisition 17,000 17,000 Habitat for Humanity Low -Income Housing 250,000 104,000 Housing Authority Acquisition of Distressed Properties 35,050 - ABC Properties Sycamore Housing Housing Rehabilitation 90,000 40,000 Housing Corporation Payment of Non -Federal Share 85,849 (2) 85,549 Neighbor -to -Neighbor, Inc. Housing Redevelopment 75,000 75,000 Larimer Co. Food Dist. Rehab of Warehouse 33,270 33,270 Sunshine School Fire Sprinkler/Kitchen Rehab 150,000 50,000 LDC Loan Program Public Facilities 18,960 - LDC/City of Fort Collins LaPorte/Mountain Alley 50,000 - LDC/City of Fort Collins Trimble Court 140,000 - City Parks & Recreation Jefferson St. Park 31,000 - City Parks & Recreation West Side Park Architectural Barrier Removal 49,000 - Heritage Round Table Rhodes/Trimble House ' 72,000 72,000 City Parks & Recreation City Park Center Access 5,000 Housing Authority ABR Assisted Housing Public Services (15% - $96,750) 50,000 20,000 Children's Clinic Healthy Start 6,890 - Crossroads Sarehouse Minority Outreach 20,000 10,000 United Day Care Center Sliding Scale Assistance 17,640 10,000 Sunshine School, Inc. Sliding Scale Program 6,192 - Sunshine School, Inc. Childcare for the Homeless 19,000 (1) 19,000 Neighbor to Neighbor Housing Counseling 6,450 (1) 6,450 Neighbor to Neighbor Choice Housing Counseling 8,235 - BASE Camp, Inc. Before & After School Enrichment 19,000 18,300 Cathol'ic'Community Hostel of Hospitality Services%Northern Hope Job Bank 10,000 - CCSN Job Empowerment 18,000 - Project Self -Sufficiency Case Management 30,000 10,000 Colo. Housing Asst. Corp. Foreclosure Prevention 23,040 - Care -A -Van Local Share 6,800 3,000 Disabled Resource Services Employment Assistance June 5, 1990 29,434 Contingency -------------------------------------------------------------------------- $1,478,073 725,000 Total NOTES: (1) During the City's recent monitoring by HUD, it was determined that only Fair Housing Counseling could be funded under the Planning and Administration category. Staff requested that Neighbor to Neighbor, Inc., amend its initial proposal to reflect the actual percentages devoted to the various types of housing counseling conducted by the agency. The figures listed reflect the corrected dollar amounts. (2) Neighbor to Neighbor, Inc., also amended its Housing Redevelopment Program request to include $6,700 of housing counseling and an additional $2,000 of architectural barrier removal projects to cover Housing Authority projects. The total amount of requests considered by the CDBG Citizens Steering Committee was approximately $1.5 million. With $1.5 million in total requests and only $725,000 available, obviously not all applications could be funded. Also, due to HUD funding limitations, some applicants received less funds than requested in order to keep the generic category within program maximums. No applicant received more funds than requested. Contingency Funds are based, mainly, on about $30,000 of anticipated Program Income expected to be received by the City during the program year from October 1, 1990, to September 30, 1991. The Steering Committee allocated full funding to ten (10) applicants. In the Committee's opinion, the ten applications recommended for funding best fit CDBG program objectives and City CDBG policies and deserved full funding. Proposals which did not receive funding were deemed of a lower priority and, in some cases, a lack of funds prohibited funding. The following describes the reasons why certain projects did not receive the requested full funding'amount: Children's Clinic Healthy Start Requested: $50,000 Funded: $20,000 The Committee was impressed by the Clinic's progress and its attempts at seeking other sources of funding. The reduction in funding was mainly due to the limitation of funds which could be allocated to Public Service applications and the Committee's desire to send a strong message to all Social Service agencies that CDBG funds are not a continuous funding source. Catholic Community Services/Northern Hostel of Hospitality/Hope Job Bank Requested: $19,000 Funded: $18,300 1 -30- June 5, 1990 ' The Committee feels that CCSN has been very successful in its efforts to help the homeless in the community. The reduction in funding was mainly due to the limitation of funds which could be allocated to Public Service applications. Sunshine School, Inc. Sliding Scale Day Care Requested: $17,640 Funded: $10,000 The reduction in funding was mainly due to the limitation of funds which could be allocated to Public Service applications and the Committee's desire to send a strong message to all Social Service agencies that CDBG funds are not a continuous funding source. United Day Care Sliding Scale Day Care Requested: $20,000 Funded: $10,000 The reduction in funding was mainly due to the limitation of funds which could be allocated to Public Service applications and the Committee's desire to send a strong message to all Social Service agencies that CDBG funds are not a continuous funding source. The Committee believes that United Day Care should make better attempts at seeking other funding sources. ' Disabled Resources Employment Assistance Requested: $6,800 Funded: $3,000 The reduction in funding was mainly due to the limitation of funds which could be allocated to Public Service applications and the Committee's desire to send a strong message to all Social Service agencies that CDBG funds are not a continuous funding source. Colorado Housing Assistance Corporation Foreclosure Prevention Requested: $30,000 Funded: $10,000 The reduction in funding was mainly due to the limitation of funds which could be allocated to Public Service applications. The Committee believes it is important to bring other sources of funding into the community and that foreclosure prevention is acritical issue. The Committee suggests that Neighbor to neighbor, Inc., administer the program and the CHAC service the loans. Fort Collins Housing Authority Acquisition of Distressed Properties Requested: $250,000 Funded: $104,000 ' The Committee was concerned with the Housing Authority's high management costs and recommends that 10 units for low income families be completed with the funds. -31- June 5, 1990 Fort Collins Housing Authority ' Payment of Non -Federal Share Requested: $90,000 Funded: $40,000 The Committee recommends that the City set up a revolving loan program open to the public and suggests that CHAC service these loans. Local Development Corporation Loan Program Requested: $150,000 Funded: $50,000 The reduction in funding was mainly due to the limitation of funds. The Committee recommends that the LDC only undertake projects in the downtown area. The following describes the reasons certain projects did not receive any funding amount: BASE Camp, Inc. - Before and After School Program, $8,235 Crossroads - Minority Outreach, $6,890 Care -A -Van - Local Share Matching Funds, $23,040 Sunshine School - Homeless Childcare, $6,192 Project Self Sufficiency - Case Management $18,000 Catholic Community Services Northern - Job Empowerment, $10,000 The recommendation not to fund the above applicants was mainly due to the limitation of funds which could be allocated to Public Service applications and the Committee's desire to send a strong message to all Social Service agencies that CDBG funds are not a continuous funding source. Fort Collins Housing Authority - Architectural Barrier Removal, $5,000 - an additional $2,000 was added to Neighbor to Neighbor, Inc. housing redevelopment program to cover architectural barrier removal of Housing Authority units. The following projects did not score well during the Committee's evaluation process and were not discussed in great detail. In summary, these projects are not a high enough priority to deserve funding. Small Business Consulting Services - Downtown Self -Help, $15,000 ABC Properties - Sycamore Housing, $35,050 LDC/City of Fort Collins - LaPorte/Mountain Avenue Alley, $18,960 LDC/City of Fort Collins - Trimble Court, $50,000 City Parks & Recreation = Jefferson Street Park, $140,000 City Parks & Recreations- West Side Neighborhood Park,. $31,000 Heritage Round Table - Rhodes/Trimble House, $49,000" Chief Planner Ken Waido gave a brief presentation regarding the allocation of funds from the Community Development Block Program and described the ' process which began in February 1990. He stated the CDBG Citizen Steering Committee held a public hearing to assess community development needs. He -32- June 5, 1990 ' explained how funding applications were solicited and noted the Steering Committee's recommendations. Councilmember Edwards expressed concern about the Committee's recommendation that the Housing Authority receive a decreased level of funding and noted recommended funds were one-third less than in 1986. Lou Stitzel, CDBG Steering Committee spoke of the funding reductions and noted the importance of grass -roots support to limit future reductions. She noted that some of the funding decreases might be made up due to the state division of housing receiving more funds in 1990. Ken Waido stated that the Housing Authority funds are decreasing at a faster rate than the funds in the CDBG and stated that over the past three ears the funds have decreased twenty-five percent. He stated he was not aware of additional funding sources for the Housing Authority. Councilmember Edwards asked if a performance evaluation was conducted on grants that were made in 1989 and asked if the grant criteria was being followed. Ken Waido stated that each month staff updates the Committee on the progress of the project receiving funding allocations. He stated that this year there are five recipients who have not spent any money and it is anticipated that two of the recipients will complete the projects by the ' end of the program year. Councilmember Edwards asked about the $104,500 allocation for program administration. Ken Waido stated the allocation was to assist with program administration and stated the regulations allow twenty percent of the grant amounts to be used for administrative purposes. Councilmember Winokur asked about the $40,000 housing rehabilitation allocation to the Housing Corporation. Ken Waido stated the $40,000 was to be given to Neighbor -to -Neighbor and noted the original applicant was the Colorado Housing Assistance Corporation. He stated the Committee's recommendation was that Neighbor -to -Neighbor administer the program and the Colorado Housing Assistance Corporation service the loans. Councilmember Winokur noted that if Council concurred with the recommendation, Resolution 90-73 will need to be amended to read City of Fort Collins rather than Housing, -Corporation. He asked about the high management costs of CDBG program administration. Mary Clark, CDBG Steering Committee member, stated she believed regulations ' permit twenty percent of the grant amount to be used for administration. She noted the Committee advocated more housing for low or moderate income citizens and referred to the twenty-five percent funding reduction in the -33- June 5, 1990 last three years. She commented on the balance between housing and public facilities with respect to community needs. Councilmember Mabry asked about the City Park Center accessibility recommendation. Mary Clark stated that Parks and Recreation staff had been trying to find a way to make the second floor of the City Park building accessible. She stated there were no available funds for the elevator project and stated the Committee believed it was a worthwhile project for CDBG funds. She noted that Parks and Recreation did contribute fifty percent of the funding for the elevator. Councilmember Mabry noted the elevator project had been rejected from funding by the City and asked why the Committee strongly supported the project. Mary Clark stated it was a matter of balancing the needs and wants of the community and noted the issues also involved housing versus community development and historic preservation. Mayor Kirkpatrick asked about the Habitat for Humanity recommendation with respect to housing needs. Lou Stitzel commented on the one to eight funding percentage ratio and stated the program will be a benefit to the community in the area of self help resources. Councilmember Edwards asked about the $50,000 funding and loan program for the Local Development Corporation. Lou Stitzel stated that the money turnover progress had been beneficial and explained the short term loan process. She noted funds are replenishing the loan fund. The following people spoke regarding the City's Community Development Block Grant Program: 1. Mitch Morgan, boardmember, Local Development Corporation (LDC), noted LDC assets and commented on LDC's loan success. 2. Anita Basham, 1221 Green Street, Housing Authority Commissioner, commented on the funding cuts and the Steering Committee's funding recommendation for the Housing Authority'. 3. David Herrera, Executive Director of the Housing. Authority, presented slides showing the accomplishments of the Housing Authority with the use of CDBG funds. 4. John Kefalas, Housing Authority Commissioner, spoke regarding the high cost of housing in Fort Collins and urged Council to address the issues of the poor and provide affordable housing. 1 -34- June 5, 1990 ' 5. Dr. ColIopy, volunteer administrator of the Children's Clinic, commented on the services provided by the Clinic and expressed disappointment in the $10,000 funding cut. 6. Lou Stitzel, CDBG Steering Committee Member, commented on the funding cuts combined with additional housing requests. 7. Dan Alexander, Housing Authority Commissioner, questioned the administrative costs received by the City of Fort Collins. Ken Waido explained that twenty percent of the funds are for administrative costs and noted the annual reduction in administrative costs for the CDBG program and commented on the City receiving a Financial Management Award from HUD. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards, to adopt Resolution 90-73, deleting $72,000 from the City Park Center access fund and increasing the funding to the Housing Authority by $72,000 making the total funding $176,000 to the Housing Authority. Councilmember Horak stated Council needs to address the architectural barrier issue. He commended the Housing Authority for the good job it has been doing with its funding and encouraged Council develop a plan for spending. ' Councilmember Edwards made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mabry, to amend Resolution 90-73 to delete $50,000 from the LDC and to ask the CDBG Steering Committee for recommendations for reallocating the money. Councilmember Winokur asked if the intent of the motion was to exclude the LDC from further funding consideration. Councilmember Edwards stated that was his intent. The vote on Councilmember Edwards' motion to amend Resolution 90-73 to delete $50,000 from the LDC and to ask the CDBG Steering Committee for recommendations for reallocating the money was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, and Mabry. Nays: Councilmembers Maxey and Winokur. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Winokur statdd'he preferred to not absolutely exclude the LDC from funding. Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards, to amend the Resolution by changing the City of Fort Collins Housing Corporation to the Fort Collins Housing Authority. I Councilmember Horak accepted Councilmember Winokur's and Edwards' motion as a friendly amendment to his previous motion. -35- June 5, 1990 Councilmember Winokur pointed out the amendment did not change the original ' recommendation of the CDBG Steering Committee and stated he believed the money will be used effectively. He expressed thanks to the CDBG Steering Committee for its assistance in deciding who should receive funding stated he wished there was more money available to satisfy the community needs. Councilmember Edwards expressed thanks to the CDBG Steering Committee for its hours of deliberation and work on the issues and apologized to the Committee for Council failing to provide the Committee with guidelines and priorities. He expressed discomfort with the City receiving $100,000 of the grant for administrative purposes and asked the City Manager to look at the 1991 Budget and find alternate ways to fund CDBG staff. Mayor Kirkpatrick spoke in favor of the CDBG administration becoming a part of the City budget and commented on the geographic guidelines versus programatic guidelines. She stated Resolution 90-73 was emotionally difficult for Council to deal with and spoke in support of the amended resolution. Councilmember Horak suggested that the CDBG funding issues be addressed during the 1991 budget process. The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to adopt Resolution 90-73 as amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak to adopt Ordinance No. 57, 1990 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Maxey requested Item #16, Resolution 90-77 Urging the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) to Include Fort Collins in the New Requirement for Higher Oxygen Content in Gasoline, be withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road requested Item #10, Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 40,. 1990, Amending Chapter 1 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Relefing to Emergency Management, and Item #18, Resolution 90-79 Authorizing the Financial Officer to Invest a Portion of the City of Fort Collins' Cash Balances in the Colorado Diversified Trust, a Local Government Investment Pool, be removed from the Consent Agenda. Consent Calendar This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and I energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends -36- June 5, 1990 ' approval of the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this calendar be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be considered separately under Agenda Item #24, Pulled Consent Items. 6. Consider approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of May 1. IVA A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 51, 1990 Adopting the 1988 Uniform Mechanical Code as amended. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 52, 1990 Adopting the 1988 Uniform Plumbing Code as amended. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 53, 1990 Adopting the 1990 National Electric Code as amended. At its regular April 26th meeting, the Building Review Board voted unanimously to endorse the 1988 editions of the Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, and 1990 edition of the National Electric Code with minor local amendments for Council adoption. ' These Ordinances, which were unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 15, adopt the three companion codes to the Uniform Building Code with local amendments. 8. Second Readinq of Ordinance No. 55, 1990, Amendinq Section 2-476 of This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 15, moves the Department of the City Clerk from the Office of Administrative Services. The City Clerk will become part of the Executive/Legislative service area and will report directly to the City Manager. The Charter provides for the appointment of the City Clerk by the City Manager, with confirmation by the City Council. 9. Second Readina of Ordinance No. 56. 1990 Adopting the 1988 Uniform Building Code as Amended. Published at three-year intervals, the Uniform Building Code series has been the model for, Fort Collins building codes for the past thirty years. In November of 1989 an ad hoc committee of the Building Review Board, comprised of architects and engineers, commercial and residential contractors, a member of the Commission on Disability and local code officials, was established to review these publications and local amendments proposed by staff and other interested parties. The ' committee met ten times from November 14, 1989 to April 10, 1990. The Building Review Board held two public hearings to receive comment on -37- June 5, 1990 10. proposed code items on March 29, 1990 and April 12, 1990. Notices I were mailed to all contractors and local design professionals. At its regular April 26th meeting, the Building Review Board voted to recommend adoption of the Uniform Building Code 1988 Edition with local amendments with the exception of one item relating to closer guardrail spacing. Staff recommended inclusion of this item by Council action. On First Reading on May 15, this Ordinance was unanimously adopted as amended to include the staff recommended text on guardrail spacing. Management. This ordinance was tabled during the April 17, 1990 City Council Meeting with the recommendation that it first be reviewed by the Council Health and Safety Committee. On April 23, Police Services staff members met with the Health and Safety Committee. Members of Health and Safety requested that staff review two changes to the proposed ordinance: 1) that the Mayor be included as a member of the Disaster Council; and 2) that the Mayor rather than the City Manager have the authority to declare disaster emergencies. Staff reviewed both requests with the City Attorney's Office and determined: 1) nothing in either state or local law precludes the Mayor's involvement in the Disaster Council; 2) City ordinance should be consistent with state statute and designate the City Manager as the person charged with authority to declare disaster emergencies. The ordinance was subsequently revised to include the Mayor as a member of the Disaster Council. The Disaster Council's duties involve the direction and control of City departments during an emergency, including responsibility for keeping the City Council apprised of the situation. Driving Enforcement Program. Police Services has been awarded a grant from the Colorado Division of Highway Safety totalling $33,000. These monies are provided from fees assessed against convicted drunk drivers across the state. These funds will be used to support the already existing DUI enforcement program within the Department. The grant will provide for the majority of the salary for the DUI officer who is assigned to the lead on drunk driving enforcement. I me June 5, 1990 12. 13. This Ordinance appropriates $33,000 in grant funds for expenditure in Police Services' DUI Enforcement Program. The proposed ordinance will increase the cash rate charged developers for satisfaction of raw water requirements from $1,100 to $1,300 per acre foot. The cash rate is adjusted periodically to reflect the current price of raw water. In November of 1988 the City contracted with James M. Montgomery Engineers to prepare a wastewater treatment master plan to project treatment needs over the next 20 years. In October of 1989, the City Council adopted a resolution forming the Wastewater Master Plan Committee to review the master plan and issues related to financing future wastewater treatment expansions. The Committee prepared and distributed its report in May of 1990. The committee report recommends that the City modify wastewater plant ' #2 to increase its capacity by 6.6 million gallons per day by the end of 1993. In addition, it is recommended that staff work with other treatment agencies to discuss and encourage development of a regional wastewater treatment facility to be constructed within the next 8 to 10 years. Toward that end, the committee recommended that land that could be used for a regional facility be purchased now while sites are available. Staff has located a 160 acre parcel of land located approximately 2 miles east of I-25 along the Poudre River. A contract for purchase of the land has been entered contingent upon approval by City Council. The proposed resolution authorizes purchase of the land. Ptarmigan, Windsor, Timnath and adjacent property owners have been notified of the City's intent to purchase the property as a possible wastewater treatment site. 14. In 1986, the Water Utility purchased a Monitrol Monitoring and Control Base system from Hewlett Packard for monitoring the operation of Water Treatment Plant No. 2., The purpose of the software was to monitor all water treatment operations of the plant such as turbidities, temperatures, pH levels, valve positions, flows, etc. At the time, the software was only available in the Basic programming language which limited access to one user at a time. It was planned that in the ' future the software would be upgraded for multiple users using the Unix operating system. The department had purchased an HP 9000 -39- June 5, 1990 15. 16. 17. computer to accommodate this future capability and to provide other I computer applications within the department. The upgraded version for a Unix system is now available from Hilco Technologies. 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 $.98 to $1.01 per 1000 gallons and the sewer rate from $.98 to $1.05 per 1000 gallons. The last sewer rate increase was in 1987. 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. The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) has proposed to increase the effectiveness of the oxygenated fuels regulation by requiring higher oxygen content in gasoline sold in the Denver Metro area during the winter. The Fort Collins Air Quality Task Force believes the AQCC proposal should be extended to all Front Range communities and has recommended that City council support this position. The resolution urges the AQCC to include all Front Range communities in the new requirement. The City Facilities Master Plan will address both of the themes expressed in Council's 1990 Budget goals; namely: enhancing the fiscal health of the City while improving the quality of services, and comprehensive planning for future growth and development of Fort Collins. The City Facilities Plan will identify short term and long range space needs by department in response to the projected growth of the City and related City services required and will identify several options to meet the projected space needs with cost benefit analyses of the I options. -40- June 5, 1990 ' 18. Resolution 90-79 Authorizing the Financial Officer to Invest a Portion of the City of Fort Collins' Cash Balances in the Colorado Diversified Trust, a Local Government Investment Pool. 19. Adoption of this Resolution will allow the City to pool funds with other governmental entities (current local participants are the Poudre Valley Hospital District, Poudre R-1 School District, and Larimer County) under the laws of the State of Colorado and in conformance with Ordinance No. 108, 1988. This type of investment meets all requirements of the City's Cash Management and Investment Policy in that it is safe, liquid, has a competitive yield and is legal. Non -uniformed classified personnel hired by the City of Fort Collins are covered by the City of Fort Collins General Employees Retirement Plan (the "Plan") and by Social Security. The General Employees Retirement Committee has studied and recommends several amendments to Plan. The amendments include (1) a three per cent per year cost of living adjustment for current retirees, (2) a death benefit to the estates of employees who are fully vested in the plan, are age 55 or older, and die prior to retirement, (3) a revision to the definition of "Beneficiary" to provide additional choices, (4) a lump sum distribution of pension benefits to any retiring or vested employee ' separating from City employment provided their benefits do not exceed $100 per month and (5) a variety of "housekeeping" items which improve the readability or administration of the plan. WE The applicant and property owner, Rex Burns, has submitted a written petition requesting annexation of approximately 45.65 acres located west of Overland Trail and south of Drake Road. 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 be given of the hearing. The hearing will be held at the time of first reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances. Not less than thirty days of prior notice is required by Colorado law. 21. Resolution 90-82 Making an Aaaoi'ntment to the Urban Growth Area Review Board. A vacancy currently exists on the Urban Growth Area Review Board due to the resignation of Sanford Kern. Applications were solicited, and Councilmembers Kirkpatrick and Horak conducted interviews on May 24. Because Mr. Kern's term was due to expire on July 1, 1990, the interview team is recommending that Lloyd Walker be appointed to -41- June 5, 1990 22. complete the remainder of Mr. Kern's term and to serve a successive t term until July 1, 1994. Recognizing the long-term needs and current limitations at the Lincoln Center, the Choices 95 Capital Improvement Committee considered construction of a Performing Arts/Conference Center. Further study was deemed necessary before recommending funding. During the 1990 budget session, funds were approved to conduct the feasibility study. 23. Routine Deeds and Easements. Deed of dedication from James W. Day, Patricia M. Day, Robert L. Lee and Judy C. Lee located on the west side of Lemay Avenue needed for a stormwater detention pond in accordance with the Greenbriar Drainage Basin Master Plan. Monetary consideration: $69,262. b. Powerline easements from Diane S. VanLoo, 1605 Peterson Place, needed to replace a streetlight and to install an electric oval vault. Monetary consideration: 8' X 5' for vault - $80; 3' X 4' for streetlight - $24 c. Powerline easement from Kerry B. Flint, 409 East Lake Street, needed to underground existing overhead electric services. Monetary consideration: $10. Powerline easements from Frank B Peairs and Fran Longo-Peairs, 400 Parker Street, needed to replace an existing streetlight, to install an electric oval vault, and to install a secondary vault. Monetary consideration: 8' X 4' for vault - $65; Secondary Vault $10; 5' X 5' for streetlight - $50 Powerline easement from Ray W. Hein Family Investment Co, a Colorado General Partnership, 520 Deines Court, needed to install a 5' X 10' electric oval vault. Monetary consideration: $100 Powerline easement from Mark L. Korb and Christine A. Korb, 1223 W. Mountain Avenue, needed tq underground existing overhead electric services. Monetary consideration: $10. Powerline easement from Fort Collins Lodge No. 19, Independent Order of Odd Fellows Building Association, a Non -Profit Corporation, 141 W. Mountain Avenue, needed to install 4 pad mount transformers to underground existing overhead electric services. Monetary consideration: $864 ' -42- June 5, 1990 ' h. Waterline easement from Terry M. and Terry A. Nett, 3700 Arapahoe Drive, needed to complete the waterline loop in the Arapahoe Hills Subdivision area so that customers will have better service and fire protection. Monetary consideration: $2,000 i. Easement from Fort Collins Properties, South College and Drake, needed for the completion of the last phase of the combined Princeton Road Waterline and Storm Sewer Project. Monetary consideration: $23,725 j. Powerline easement from Robert J. Theodoratus and M. Kathleen Theodoratus, 1601 Peterson Street, needed to underground existing overhead electric services. Monetary consideration: $10. Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk. Item #7. A. 0 C. I Item #8. Item #9. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk. Item #10. Emergency Management. Item #11. Item #12. -43- June 5, 1990 Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to ' adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 40, 1990, Amending Chapter 1 of the Code of the City Fort Collins Relating to Emergency Management. Adopted on First Reading Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This ordinance was tabled during the April 17, 1990 City Council Meeting with the recommendation that it first be reviewed by the Council Health and Safety Committee. On April 23, Police Services staff members met with the Health and Safety Committee. Members of Health and Safety requested that staff review two changes to the proposed ordinance: 1) that the Mayor be included as a member of the Disaster Council; and 2) that the Mayor rather than the City Manager have the authority to declare disaster emergencies. Staff reviewed both requests with the City Attorney's Office and determined: 1) nothing in either state or iocal law precludes the Mayor's involvement in the Disaster Council; 2) City ordinance should be consistent with state statute and designate the City Manager as the person charged with authority to declare disaster emergencies. The ordinance was subsequently revised to include the Mayor as a member of the Disaster Council. The Disaster Council's duties involve the direction and control of City departments during an emergency, including responsibility for keeping the City Council apprised of the situation." Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, stated the ordinance granted too much power to the City Manager. Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to adopt Ordinance No. 40, 1990 on First Reading. Councilmember Maxey noted the Health and Safety Committee's recommendations had been incorporated into the ordinance. The vote on Councilmember Maxey's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 40, 1990 on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. L -44- June 5, 1990 ' Resolution 90-77 Urging the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) to Include Fort Collins in the New Requirement for Higher Oxygen Content in Gasoline. Adopted Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) has proposed to increase the effectiveness of the oxygenated fuels regulation by requiring higher oxygen content in gasoline sold in the ,Denver Metro area during the winter. The Fort Collins Air Quality Task Force believes the AQCC proposal should be extended to all Front Range communities and has recommended that City council support this position. The attached resolution urges the AQCC to include all Front Range communities in the new requirement. BACKGROUND The oxygenated fuels regulation requires that gasoline sold on the Front Range must contain 2.OY oxygen by weight from November 1 through February 28 each winter. The AQCC is required by state statute to review this program annually. The Commission is considering a proposal to increase the oxygen content to 2.6Y in Denver Metro counties and will hold a public ' hearing on the proposal June 21 in Denver. The Air Quality Task Force has reviewed the matter and has sent Council members a letter recommending that Council support a strengthened oxygenated fuels program for all Front Range communities. Staff agrees with this recommendation. The air quality benefit is significant, the cost is low, and the increased oxygen content is acceptable for City fleet operations. Implementation is the responsibility of the state Health Department and Oil Inspection Section, and no City staff work is required for implementation. The attached resolution has been drafted along the lines of the Air Quality Task Force recommendation. It urges the Air Quality Control Commission to adopt higher oxygen content requirements throughout the AIR program area. The AIR program area is the area along the Front Range where automotive emission inspection in required." Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt Resolution 90-77. Councilmember Maxey asked if the resolution was premature. Air Quality and Hazardous Materials/Waste Coordinator Brian Woodruff stated ' that the resolution will be more effective if it is presented to the Air Quality Control Commission during its public hearing and stated the Commission will make the decision how to change the oxygenated fuels -45- June 5, 1990 program. He stated that the Commission's recommendation would not limit I the City in developing its own program and that the Commission will take the City's recommendation under advisement. The vote on Councilmember Mabry's motion to adopt Resolution 90-77 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 90-79 Authorizing the Financial Officer to Invest a Portion of the City of Fort Collins' Cash Balances in the Colorado Diversified Trust, a Local Government Investment Pool, Adopted Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "FINANCIAL IMPACT All City funds are eligible for investment in the pool. An administrative fee is charged based on the complexity of the transaction. This fee is netted against the total yield on the City's investments. On securities of similar term and risk the investment pool should yield slightly higher due to the size of the investments. The higher yield that is anticipated will be adequate to offset the fee and will provide a greater net return than funds invested outside the pool. Therefore, it is not necessary to budget and appropriate money to pay the administrative fee for the investment pool. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Adoption of this Resolution will allow the City to pool funds with other governmental entities (current local participants are the Poudre Valley Hospital District, Poudre R-1 School District, and Larimer County) under the laws of the State of Colorado and in conformance with Ordinance No. 108, 1988. This type of investment meets all requirements of the City's Cash Management and Investment Policy in that it is safe, liquid, has a competitive yield and is iegal. BACKGROUND The use of Local Government Investment Pools (LGIP) has been authorized since 1983. The iegal structure of the pool is established by Colorado statutes. The City did not participate sooner because early pools were geared to meet the needs of entities with smaller portfolios who did not pursue active portfolio management. First Interstate Bank of Fort Collins, N.A. has recently organized an LGIP, the Colorado Diversified Trust, that meets the requirements of entities with larger portfolios that desire to pursue active management. Any governmental entity in the State of Colorado ' -46- June 5, 1990 can participate in an LGIP once participation is authorized by the governing body. This Resolution serves that purpose. There are several advantages to a pooled investment trust. Larger investment purchases can be made which increases the yield. There is greater administrative efficiency because the clerical function is the responsibility of the LGIP. And, the City's participation is flexible so that funds may be transferred in and out of the LGIP to maximize yield and to meet the cash needs of operating and reserve funds. Not all funds will be invested in this pool. Investment will be based on the liquidity needs of individual City funds. Use of this investment pool will help the City attain the objectives of its Cash Management and Investment Policy and provide greater flexibility in investments without risking the safety of the funds." Councilmember Edwards made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to adopt Resolution 90-79. Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, questioned the total amount of the investment and the number of staff needed to manage the investment portfolio. Finance Director Alan Krcmarik commented on the goal to diversify the portfolio and stated the initial investment would be conservative. He ' stated that First Interstate Bank was the City's depository bank and noted that the bank must maintain specific types of collateral to protect the City's money. r The vote on Councilmember Edwards' motion to adopt Resolution 90-79 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Staff Reports City Manager Burkett introduced Linda Gula as Council support and Stet Schanze as a new management assistant in the City Manager's Office. Councilmember Reports Mayor Kirkpatrick stated she will be attending the American Public Power Association meeting during the weekend of June 9. -47- June 5, 1990 Ordinance No. 54, 1990, Designating I the Avery House Historic Landmark District. Adopted on Second Reading Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On April 4, 1990, the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) held a public hearing concerning the proposed local historic district designation of the Avery House and Avery Carriage House properties (328 West Mountain Avenue and 108 North Meldrum Street, respectively). At that hearing, the Commission adopted a Resolution recommending to Council that historic district designation of the properties be accomplished, pursuant to the provisions and public notification requirements of Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. This Ordinance, which was adopted 6-0 on First Reading on May 15, makes the designation as an historic landmark district" Councilmember Edwards withdrew from discussion and vote on this item due to a perceived conflict of interest. Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to adopt Ordinance No. 54, 1990 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. (Councilmember Edwards withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. Appeal of the May 7, 1990 Final Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board 1Denying an Administrative Change to Add a Drive-thru Lane, Service Window, and Landscaping to the Giant Video Store in the Cimarron Plaza P.U.D.. Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On May 7, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 7-0 to deny an administrative change to the Cimarron Plaza P.U.D. to allow a drive-thru lane, service window, and additional landscaping for the present Giant Video store. This denial was based on the finding that the drive-thru lane would negatively impact the landscaping along Shields Street, and that A17 Development Criteria #27, 33, and 36 of the Land. Development Guidance System were not satisfied. ' K0 June 5, 1990 ' The appellant cites Section 2-48 (1) and 2-48 (2) of the City Code as the basis for the appeal. The appellant alleges that the Board abused its discretion, in that its decision was arbitrary and without the support of competent evidence in the record. The appellant further alleges that the Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. The background information contains the appellant's specific allegation of error and a summary of the facts contained in the record on appeal which support those allegations. 1. Historic Summary: The Cimarron Plaza Preliminary P.U.D. was approved on October 28, 1985. This Preliminary P.U.D. designated the subject parcel as one of the satellite pads, (Building E) which consisted of a 4,000 square foot fast food restaurant, with drive-thru lane. On June 27, 1988, the Planning and Zoning Board approved an Amended P.U.D. allowing Building E to be converted to a 4,500 square foot retail store (Giant Video). This amended P.U.U. represented an increase in floor area and a deletion of the drive-thru component. On February 26, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Board denied an administrative change to add a drive-thru lane, service window, landscaping, and order board. On May 7, 1990, the applicant again sought approval to allow the drive-thru lane, service window, landscaping, but ' with no order board. It was staff's recommendation that the request be approved. The Planning and Zoning Board, however, again denied the request by a vote of 7-0. It is the decision of May 7, 1990 that is being appealed. 2. Summary of the Appeal The appellant alleges that the Planning and Zoning Board viewed the loss of approximately 1,200 to 1,300 square feet of sod without recognizing the value of the added above grade landscaping and berming. By placing a greater emphasis on the quantity of sod versus the quality of additional landscaping and berming, the appellant alleges the Board acted arbitrarily. The appellant alleges that the proposal to add the drive-thru lane and service window is similar to other fast food restaurants that have been approved through the P.U.D. process. It is further alleged that the proposal is better than those approved for fast food restaurants since there is no illuminated menu board and less traffic. By denying the request, the appellant alleges that the Board acted arbitrarily. The appellant also alleges that since the Board approved a fast food restaurant with drive-thru lane at this location, as a preliminary P.U.D., in 1985, it is arbitrary to deny a ,drive-thru feature under present conditions. Finally, the appellant alleges that the Board, in citing A17 Development Criteria #27, 33, 36 of the Land Development Guidance System, failed to -49- June 5, 1990 properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. I These criteria are as follows: Criteria #27: "Are the elements of the site plan (e.g., buildings, circulation, open space, and landscaping, etc.) designed and arranged to produce an efficient, functionally organized, cohesive planned unit development?" Criteria #33: "Does the design and arrangement of buildings and open space areas contribute to the overall aesthetic quality of the site configuration?" Criteria #36: "Is the street and parking system designed to contribute to the overall aesthetic quality of the site configuration?" 3. Scope of Council Consideration: The issues that Council must resolve in this appeal are as follows: A. Did the Board abuse its discretion, in that its decision was arbitrary and without the support of competent evidence in the record? B. Did the Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of Code and Charter and the Land Development Guidance System?" City Attorney Roy explained the appeal procedure. He stated it was an appeal on the record of the proceedings before the Planning and Zoning Board. He stated Council will determine the sufficiency of the grounds on appeal and whether the allegedly grounds conform to the Code. New evidence is not permitted at the Council Hearing. Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to hear the appeal based on the sufficiency of the grounds. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. City Planner Ted Shepard outlined the appeal history beginning in 1985 and noted the building was originally planned, as a restaurant with a drive -through pad. He noted Arrowstone Development Corporation received final approval for the Giant Video Store and explained the 500 square foot increase along with the deletion of the drive -through lane. He noted that in February of 1990, Giant Video applied for an administrative change to add the drive -through lane on the building's east side and noted the matter was taken to the Planning and Zoning Board .for advisement. He noted the ' Planning and Zoning Board denied the request and noted the primary issue is -50- June 5, 1990 ' whether the area between Shields and the building can accommodate drive -through lane without impacting the streetscape along Shields. Councilmember Horak asked if the Planning and Zoning Board made a decision or a recommendation. Ted Shepard stated the Planning and Zoning Board made a recommendation. Councilmember Horak asked if recommendations could be appealed to Council and expressed concern that Council will make a recommendation to staff, who can make a decision and asked if the decision could be appealed. City Attorney Roy stated the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board can be appealed to Council and noted the staff decision can not be appealed to Council. Donald Slack, 7935 East Prentice Avenue, Suite 103, Englewood, appellant, gave a brief background presentation regarding the drive -through request at Cimarron Plaza and noted the changes that were identified in the denial process. He described the Planning and Zoning Board's second denial of the revised drive -through request and cited the Board's reasons for denial. He stated that the addition of miscellaneous trees and shrubs will act to screen the new paving, headlight glare, and the utility transformer and was not accounted for in the trade-off and noted that quantity was accepted over quality. He stated the visual trade-off was positive and noted a ' boardmember stated that the paved area was effectively screened. He described the strategic landscaping to screen headlight glare and stated that passer-by traffic can not see the drive -through from the street. He noted the inclusion of site landscape plans of four other recently approved drive -through proposals and stated the deletion of the order board was a compromise in order to gain approval. He stated the Board was arbitrary with its decision and stated that the Land Development Guidance System criteria had been met in the original approval of the site plan. Jim Martell, Arrowstone Development representative stated he believed the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board was an abuse of discretion and arbitrary and noted that the drive -through was originally approved on the preliminary site plan. He stated there was no significant change between the preliminary and final plan that would justify a denial and noted the administrative change was a decision by the Planning staff. He explained that Planning staff recommended that the change be approved by the Planning and Zoning Board and stated there was no difference between this drive -through request and other drive-throughs in, Fort Collins. He noted the similarity between the landscape site plans included in Council's packet and the Giant Video drive -through plan and noted how the mitigation impacts had been made compatible. He requested Council reverse the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. David Jansen, President, Giant Video, noted the drive -through request was an attempt to service the customer's needs. -51- June 5, 1990 Councilmember Horak expressed concern that Mr. Jansen was presenting new I evidence. City Attorney Roy noted that new evidence is not to be introduced and stated that new argument can be entertained providing it is based on factual evidence that was previously presented to the Planning and Zoning Board. David Jansen stated that Giant Video's primary goal was to service the customers and the construction of the drive -through was an attempt to accomplish that goal and stated that the board denied the drive -through without merit. He stated he believed that Giant Video had complied with all of the Code requirements. Councilmember Edwards asked about the appellant's allegation that preliminary plans became obsolete upon final approval. Ted Shepard stated that when a preliminary plan with a valid approval is received, it is approved under the vested rights ordinance for three years and stated that final plans are modified to meet current market needs. He noted the building permit is issued on the final plan along with the certificate of occupancy and stated the preliminary plan does not have a carry over effect. Councilmember Edwards asked if the LOGS contained specific information regarding plans prior to final approval. Ted Shepard noted the LOGS stated that final plan is the plan which a building permit is issued and the site inspection is performed. City Attorney Roy stated that in the final analysis, Council's decision has the same effect as the Planning and Zoning Board's decision, that being a recommendation. He stated that generally the Planning and Zoning Board has final authority to approve or disapprove plans, the LOGS provides that the Planning Director has the discretion to seek a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Board. He stated the Planning and Zoning Board's function is limited to a recommendation which is final and can be appealed to Council and noted that Council assumes the same role in this situation and stated through its decision, is making a recommendation to the Planning Director. Councilmember Winokur asked about criteria for determining administrative decisions. City Attorney Roy explained amendments to final plans contained in the LOGS and stated it was up to the Planning Director to use those standards to decide if changes are major or minor. He stated since the Planning Director saw it as a minor change, it went to the Planning and Zoning Board for a recommendation and noted that the Planning Director had the discretion to decide with or without requesting-a.recommendation. ' -52- June 5, 1990 ' Councilmember Mabry stated that the report that went to the Planning and Zoning Board was incorrect and noted that originally it was approved, but the report the recommendation is restated, "Whereas staff finds that the revised administrative change request is improved over the February plan and the proposed additions have been effectively mitigated and there is no negative impact along Shields Street frontage, staff therefore recommends approval." He questioned the Planning and Zoning Board's action. City Attorney Roy stated that the agenda item requested a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Board and noted that the Planning Director's staff made a recommendation to him and to the Planning and Zoning Board. He stated the Planning Director wanted the Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation on whether he should follow his staff's recommendation. Councilmember Winokur asked the reasons behind the Planning Director seeking a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Board. Planning Director Tom Peterson noted the staff discussions about whether the change was substantial to the plan. He stated he believed it was enough of a change in character in the application over the original approval to go to the Planning and Zoning Board for recommendation. Councilmember Winokur asked if the changes were minor and could have been resolved administratively. ' Tom Peterson stated it was enough of a change to seek the Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation and noted that similar changes have been handled in the same manner. Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to recommend that the Planning Director approve the administrative change. Councilmember Mabry noted that Council and staff look to the Planning and Zoning Board for advice and gave them final review authority knowing that the right to appeal exists. He stated there were components of planning legislation which Council looks to the business professionals to make decisions and stated he believed the Giant Video Appeal involved a technical adjustment. He added that the Planning Director believes that the change effectively mitigates any problems resulting from the drive -through and stated that he believed Council should listen to the advice of the professional and concur with the decision. Councilmember Edwards stated he believed the reasons that were cited by the Planning and Zoning Board for denial of the recommendation were not sufficient and spoke in favor of the motion. Councilmember Winokur noted that staff and the Planning Director sought the advice of the Planning and Zoning Board and stated he believed the Planning and Zoning Board did not abuse its discretion. He stated the Planning and Zoning Board did a valid job of interpreting the Code exercising its ' judgement and stated he would not support the motion. -53- June 5, 1990 Mayor Kirkpatrick spoke against the motion and commented on the subjectivity of the Planning and Zoning Board's decision. She stated that subjectivity does not mean the decision was arbitrary and stated she believed the Planning and Zoning Board was accurate in pointing out the difficulties of this planned unit development. The vote on Councilmember Mabry's motion to recommend to the Planning Director approve the administrative change was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Edwards, Mabry, and Maxey. Nays: Councilmembers Azari, Horak, Kirkpatrick, and Winokur. THE MOTION FAILED. Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to recommend to the Planning Director that the administrative change be denied. Councilmember Azari stated that she believed that a drive -through at Giant Video would create an unsafe area on Shields Street and spoke in support of the motion. Councilmember Edwards spoke against the motion and commented on the confusion between an action and a recommendation. Councilmember Horak stated the process should be improved and noted the importance of knowing who is in charge of making the final decision. Mayor Kirkpatrick commented on the Planning and Zoning Board's inability to distinguish between an action and a recommendation and she stressed the importance of how appeals are presented to Council in the future. The vote on Councilmember Winokur's motion to recommend to the Planning Director that the administrative change be denied was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Horak, Kirkpatrick, and Winokur. Nays: Councilmembers Edwards, Maxey, and Mabry. THE MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Kirkpatrick directed the City Attorney to prepare for Council consideration on June 12 a resolution containing the findings of fact consistent with Council's decision and stated the matter would be continued for Council's final decision upon consideration of that resolution. Resolution 90-84 Authorizing the Abatement of Penalty Interest in the 1989 Consolidated'Special Improvement District Adopted Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "FINANCIAL IMPACT L -54- June 5, 1990 ' It is anticipated that adequate funds will be available from the payment of assessments in the districts of from other funds appropriated by the City Council to pay all the principal and interest due on the special assessment bonds issued by the City for Pro vincetowne/Portner Special Improvement District #81 ("SID #81") and refunded through the issuance of bonds for the 1989 Consolidated Special Improvement District. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 27, 1990, the Financial Officer has recommended that the City Council abate a portion of the penalty interest that has accrued on certain assessments owed on property in SID #81. Adoption of this Resolution will reduce penalty interest accruing on the assessment levied on the Brittany Knolls North, Inc. property for SID #81 only. BACKGROUND: The City Code was amended by Ordinance No. 27, 1990 to permit Council to abate by resolution, all or any portion of an assessment (principal, accrued interest, and penalty interest) in special improvement districts under certain circumstances upon the recommendation of the Financial Officer. The Financial Officer has recommended that the Council abate a portion of ' the penalty interest accruing on the second assessment installment for SID #81 levied on property owned by Brittany Knolls North, Inc. known as Phase II and Phase III of the Brittany Knolls P.U.D. Terms of the abatement are: 1. Penalty interest for the period 1111189 to 8131190 will be calculated at 1% per month. 2. The owner will pay 50% of the penalty interest accruing from 1111189 to 6130190. 3. The owner will pay 1O0Y of the penalty interest accruing from 711190 to 8131190. The amount of penalty interest waived is calculated as follows: Phase II Interest at 18Y for 8 months: $7,131.63 50Y of interest at 12Y for 8 months: 2,377.21 Amount waived: $4,754.42 Interest at 18Y,for 2 months: $1,782.9O Interest at 12% for 2 months: 1.188:60 ' Amount waived: 594.30 -55- June 5, 1990 Total penalty interest waived for Phase II: $5,348.72 Phase III Interest at 18Y for 8 months: $30,615.27 50Y of interest at 12Y for 8 months: 10,205.09 Amount waived: $20,410.18 Interest at 18Y for 2 months: $ 7,653.82 Interest at 12% for 2 months: 5,102.55 Amount waived: 2,551.27 Total penalty interest waived for Phase III: $22,961.45 Total penalty interest waived: $ 5,348.72 22,961.45 $28,310.17 If the delinquent assessments are not paid on or before August 31, 1990, the terms of the waiver will no longer apply and the property will be listed on the 1990 tax sale. The Financial Officer recommends this partial waiver of penalty interest to allow the property owner to refinance the property to construct interior streets that would facilitate the sale of lots in Phase II thereby generating cash to pay assessments. Brittany Knolls North, Inc. has also agreed that the City should offset assessments with the remaining proceeds of the street oversizing note issued to NSP Company and assigned to Brittany Knolls North, Inc. The Financial Officer believes that for these reasons it is in the City's best financial interest to grant the partial waiver of penalty interest." Councilmember Mabry withdrew from discussion and vote on this item due to a perceived conflict of interest. Finance Director Alan Krcmarik described the history behind SID 86 and commented on the remaining balance. He described the waiver of penalty interest and abatements for the properties and commented on the associated dollar amounts. He stated he believed it was in the financial interest of the City, lowers the risk, and reduces the amount of money the City may be called upon to pay in from the special reserve. Councilmember Maxey commented on waiving $34,000 in interest and asked how much the City is receiving in interest. Alan Krcmarik stated the Fuqua penalty interest is $13,004.26. r -56- June 5, 1990 Councilmember Edwards suggested the item be tabled to a later date since Council had little time to review the materials. Alan Krcmarik stated the issue was time sensitive due to transfers of money of closings scheduled for May 6, 1990. Councilmember Maxey made a motion to table Item #29 until after Item #35. THE MOTION DIED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND. Councilmember Winokur asked about the reasons for the waiver and commented on the properties being reallocated and the issue of penalty interest. Alan Krcmarik stated that there was an appeal in SID 86 and pointed out that the properties in question were not part of the appeal. Councilmember Winokur asked how the interest money is used. Alan Krcmarik stated that all payments on SIDS are placed in the bond fund to pay interest and principal on the bonds. Councilmember Azari made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt Resolution 90-84. The vote on Councilmember Azari's motion to adopt Resolution 90-84 was as follows: Yeas: Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. (Councilmember Mabry withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey to adopt Resolution 90-89. Yeas: Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. (Councilmember Mabry withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. Items Relating to Collective Bargaining/Arbitration for Police Employees Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "FINANCIAL IMPACT The estimated, unbudgeted cost for a July 10 special election is $15,914. Funds would need to be transferred from Operating Contingencies. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On May 29, the City Clerk received an initiative petition requesting that ' Council submit a proposed ordinance on collective bargaining/arbitration for police employees to a vote of the registered city electors at a special -57- June 5, 1990 election. The City Clerk's office has examined the petition and has ' determined it has been signed by the requisite number of registered electors (at least 1,244 registered city electors, 15% of the total number of ballots cast at the 1989 regular election) and contains the required particulars and affidavits. The following items are presented for Council consideration: A. Motion to Accept Certification of Initiative Petition. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 60, 1990 Relating to Collective Bargaining/Arbitration for Police Employees; OR C. Resolution 90-85 Calling a Special City Election for July 10, 1990, Establishing Polling Places for the Election, and Referring a Proposed Ordinance Relating to Collective Bargaining/Arbitration for Police Employees to a Vote of the Registered City Electors. Article X of the City Charter requires the Council to either adopt the Proposed Ordinance, or refer it to a vote at a special election to be held within 90 days. In the event that Council decides to refer the measure to the voters, enabling legislation calling a special election for July 10 has been prepared. There are several constraints upon the scheduling of the election. Under state law, no special city election can be held within the 32 days before and after the August 14 Primary Election or the 32 days before and after the November 6 General Election. To comply with this statutory requirement, as well as the Charter requirement that a special election be held within 90 days of the date of the certification and presentation of a valid initiative petition to the City Council, the election must be held before July 13. Polling places for city elections must be set by the Council. The short timeframe for completing administrative details for the election mandates the use of fewer polling locations in this case. Staff and the Election Board recommend that precincts be consolidated at combined polling places for the 16 consolidated precincts shown on the attached 1990 precinct map. Many usual polling places are not available during the summer. Schools are inaccessible because of projects such as asbestos removal and gymnasium floor refinishing. In addition, three election judges are needed for each polling place, and arranging for judges could be extremely difficult during vacation months. Funds will be requested to allow for extensive public information about polling place locations for the election." City Manager Burkett' recommended Council adopt Resolution 90-85. City Clerk Krajicek gave a brief presentation outlining the initiative petition process and explained the options available to Council. Councilmember Azari made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to I accept certification of the initiative petition. June 5, 1990 ' Scott Goff, 800 East Prospect, Fraternal Order of Police representative, commented on unions. The vote on Councilmember Azari's motion to accept certification of the initiative petition was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to adopt Resolution 90-85. Councilmember Maxey asked about citizens going to vote at the incorrect precinct. City Clerk Wanda Krajicek stated that measures will be taken to publicize the sixteen polliing places to be used for this election and noted that signs will be posted in the traditional polling places directing citizens to the proper polling place. Scott Goff urged Council to adopt Ordinance No. 60, 1990 on First Reading and described the merits of the ordinance. He stated the Police Department employees want a working contract to establish consistency. Councilmember Horak asked about the petitions being pulled up to the day of the election. City Attorney Roy stated once Council has taken formal action and submitted by Resolution to the electorate, only Council can repeal the resolution and stated the Police Department could withdraw the petitions prior to Council taking formal action to submit it to the electorate. He noted that after Council passes the resolution, the Police Department can not unilaterally withdraw the petitions without Council's decision to repeal the resolution. Mayor Kirkpatrick asked about cancelling the election one week prior to its scheduled date. City Clerk Wanda Krajicek stated that by July 3 nearly 100% of the election preparation will be completed and noted that almost 100% of the expenses for the election will be incurred. Councilmember Winokur stated that Council can adopt the ordinance or submit it to the voters as circulated. City Clerk Wanda Krajicek stated that Council must decide at the next regularly scheduled meeting if the ordinance is to be submitted to the electorate within 90 days.' Mike Thornton, President, Fraternal Order of Police; stated Ordinance No. 60, 1990 was written to resolve the conflicts between the Police employees, City Council, and staff and noted the Police Department's desire to have a I&S610 June 5, 1990 workable solution for all parties ordinance. He urged Council consider and adopt the Councilmember Horak spoke in support of the resolution and letting the voters decide the issue. Councilmember Winokur commented on the initiative before Council and commented on due process as outlined in the Charter. He stated he believed the issue should be placed before the citizens at a special election. Mayor Kirkpatrick commented on the options regarding the collective bargaining ordinance and expressed disappointment in the communication breakdown between Council and the Police Department. She spoke against the ordinance and noted her only option was to support the election. The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to adopt Resolution 90-85 was as follows: Yeas: Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 90-88 Urging the Defeat of the Proposed Collective Bargaining Ordinance, Adopted Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with a review and analysis of the Collective Bargaining Ordinance proposed by the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP). My remarks are focused on the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed ordinance rather than discussing the merits of collective bargaining for the City of Fort Collins. The conclusion of my analysis is that the Collective Bargaining/Arbitration Ordinance proposed for Police employees is not in the best interest of the City or its citizens. BACKGROUND: MAJOR ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE a. A17 sworn members of the Police department (except for Lieutenants and others in a higher rank), the Community Service Officers, dispatchers, and first -line dispatch supervisors would constitute a BARGAINING UNIT. b. The Bargaining Unit would elect a BARGAINING AGENT which is an employee organization that would negotiate the terms and conditions of an employment contract. 1 .m June 5, 1990 c. Members of the Bargaining Unit would be required to pay fees to the Bargaining Agent (employee organization) as a condition of employment. d. The City would be required to release a member of the Police department from regular duties, with full pay and benefits, to carry out Bargaining Agent activities in dealing with the City. e. Salaries, rates of pay, benefits, and working conditions (such as hours of work) and other terms of employment would be subject to the collective bargaining process. f. For members of the Bargaining Unit, present levels of salaries, benefits and entitlements could not be reduced unless agreed to in the collective bargaining process. g. Bargaining would be done by the Bargaining Agent (Police employee organization) and the City (City Council members, City Manager, Police Chief and Employee Development staff). h. Any proposed contract would be submitted to the City Council for approval. If rejected by the Council, the contract would be submitted to the electorate at an arbitration election. i. If the Bargaining Agent and City could not reach contract agreement within 30 days of initiating negotiations, all unresolved issues would be submitted to an advisory fact finder. The fact finder service would be selected by the Bargaining Agent and costs would be shared equally between the Bargaining Unit and the City. j. The term of a contract could not exceed three (3) years; if the term exceeds one (1) year, the contract would have to contain provisions to re -open negotiations on specifically agreed upon items. k. Any issues unresolved by mediation or arbitration would be placed on a ballot for the electorate to resolve; the City must pay all election costs. ADVANTAGES FROM THE PROPONENTS PERSPECTIVE A request was sent to the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) that initiated the petition as well as the Fort Collins Police Association (IBPO) (see Attachments A & B) to describe from their point of view, what they believe to be the benefits and advantages of the proposed ordinance. No comments were returned from the Fort Collins' FOP and IBPO. However, a letter from the Colorado Fraternal Order of Police was sent to the City Manager (see Attachment C) Nevertheless, in an effort to provide an objective appraisal of the ordinance, proponents are likely to view the major benefits as follows: -61- June 5, 1990 a. A collective bargaining agreement would comprehensively cover all aspects of employment and working conditions and cannot be changed unilaterally. b. A collective bargaining agreement would stabilize the employment relationship in the Police department and avoid strikes and other work disruptions. c. It would provide fair and equitable wages and benefits for Police employees. d. It would provide a public voice in the determination of wages and benefits for Police employees. e. The City Council would no longer be the sole decision -maker regarding public safety policy and service issues. The employer (City Council) and employee (Police employee organization) would have to reach agreement or resolve issues through an election. LIMITATIONS AND POLICY IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE The adoption of such an ordinance would not only alter a number of the City's current policies and practices, but would also increase the City's cost of providing the same level of service. For example: a. The ordinance would establish two processes for setting total compensation for City employees. Currently, the City Council sets the level of pay and determines benefits for all City employees. If the ordinance is adopted, salaries and benefits for a selected group of employees in the Police department would be based on a negotiated agreement between the Bargaining Agent and the City. If the City Council did not support the salary and benefit provisions, these would be submitted to the voters in an election. Consequently, the city would be required to use two different processes for setting total compensation for City employees. b. Costs would be increased. (See Attachment D) Apart from the potential costs of a particular agreement, the proposed ordinance includes several provisions that would increase the city's costs: •1. All costs of all arbitration elections would be paid by the city. 2. The city would have to pay full salary and benefits of a Police Officer whose primary responsibility would be to represent the Bargaining Unit on day-to-day contract administration activities; any police work would be secondary and only as time permits. In 1 1 1 -62- June 5, 1990 ' other words, the taxpayers would be paying full salary and benefits to a Police Officer whose activities would support the bargaining unit activities rather than the general public. 3. All Bargaining Unit employees, whether or not they are members of the employee organization (Union), would be required to pay fees and expenses to support collective bargaining as a condition of employment. This payment would be required even if they did not agree with the Bargaining Unit (Union) or endorse its positions or otherwise support it in any way. 4. The collective bargaining, fact finding, mediation and arbitration hearing processes would increase the city's costs for staff time and services of labor/management consultants and/or attorneys. c. The "City's Rights" clause is inadequate. The list of "City's Rights" in the ordinance is fairly abbreviated. Most jurisdictions have a more comprehensive listing of employer (City) rights. Generally, employer rights include hiring, classification, promotion, staffing levels, assignments, scheduling, discipline, and discharge. d. Some Police employee groups are excluded. ' The ordinance states that the Bargaining Unit would include all sworn members of the Police Department (excluding Lieutenants and above), Community Service Officers, dispatchers and all first -line dispatch supervisors. Several positions would not be included in the Bargaining Unit -Records Management Assistants and Supervisors, Crime Scene Technician, Crime Analyst, Property Evidence Technician, and all Clerical/Secretarial positions. Consequently, two different processes would be used for setting total compensation for employee groups within a single department. e. Supervisors are included in the Bargaining Unit. Sergeants and other first line supervisors are included in the Bargaining Unit. A police officer could be negotiating compensation and working conditions for a supervisor that assigns work responsibilities to and reviews performance of him/her. This is a conflict of interest and is inconsistent with the National Labor Relations Act which specifically exempts supervisors from bargaining units due to this kind of conflict. f. The incentive to negotiate is minimal. Effective collective bargaining structures allow adequate time for both ' parties to present, thoroughly discuss, and carefully consider the parties' original and counter offers and the underlying interest before -63- June 5, 1990 J h submitting unresolved issues to fact finding, mediation, and an arbitration election. It is unclear how productivity improvements and new approaches to providing police service would/could be considered. The ordinance states that an agreement would address wages, salaries, rates of pay, hours, working conditions, and other conditions of employment. While the ordinance may not preclude addressing productivity improvements, quality improvements, and innovative customer approaches, the ordinance fails to acknowledge these elements which are important in how the City provides services to its citizens. It is possible that any changes and improvements to service delivery would have to be negotiated as part of a labor agreement if they were considered to be "working conditions" or terms of employment. Litigation could be extensive and expensive. The language of the proposed ordinance contains a number of ambiguities and raises numerous questions about the process. These issues are significant and it is anticipated that many, if not all, would need to be addressed by the courts. For example: 1. It is not clear as to when and how many times a contract issue could be presented to the voters in an Arbitration Election -- when either party does not agree or only after Council consideration? 2. It is not clear as to how many alternatives would be presented to the voters in Arbitration Election -- whether the fact finders recommendation could be something other than each party's last best offer is unclear in the ordinance. 3. The ordinance is ambiguous as to how the ballot language would need to be written when the contract is presented to voters for an Arbitration Election -- would the entire contract need to be summarized? 4. It is not clear if the City Council must simply accept or reject the contract in its entirety when both the Bargaining Agent and the City representatives agree on the language of the contract, or if City Council would have an opportunity to write into the contract its own language. 5. The ordinance is ambiguous as to how many times the components of the contract and the contract itself could go to an Arbitration Election. 6. Although the ordinance states that the Arbitration Election "shall not count as a special election," 'it is 'not clear whether this provision conflicts with the City Charter. -64- June 5, 1990 ' 7. Although the ordinance states that the city "shall accord all the rights of labor other than: the right to strike...", the present language does not explicitly state that these employees cannot strike. 8. It is not clear the degree to which the ordinance limits the City Counci7's ability to determine service levels and related appropriations. It is unclear whether classified Police employees, who are presently terminated only "for cause" would have to be or could be terminated for non-payment of the fees and expenses of collective bargaining. In conclusion, the proposed ordinance contains numerous ambiguities and technical defects. Further, it fails to protect the interests of the City of Fort Collins and its citizens. Finally, the ordinance represents a significant departure from collective bargaining frameworks utilized by many public employers throughout the United States. Consequently, I would recommend that the City Council adopt the attached resolution." City Manager Burkett gave a brief presentation and focused on the issues ' contained in the resolution. He stated the proposal will not reduce conflict or improve communication and noted it was not a collective bargaining proposal. He stated the proposed initiative ignores the objectives of the City and goals of the Police Department and described the changes it will make to City government. He stated the proposed union will not be accountable to the Police Chief, City Manager, or City Council and urged Council adopt the resolution opposing collective bargaining. Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards, to adopt Resolution 90-88. Mayor Kirkpatrick spoke in support of the resolution and spoke against the collective bargaining ordinance. She commented on the annual cost increases. Councilmember Edwards spoke in support of the motion and stated he did not agree with the basic premise of the collective bargaining ordinance. He stated that the tax payers will absorb the cost of collective bargaining. Councilmember Mabry spoke against the collective bargaining ordinance and stated the ordinance was not a reasonable way for the City to operate. He stated the issues which brought about the need to draft the collective bargaining ordinance need to be addressed and noted the importance of resolving those issues. He encouraged the voters to defeat the ordinance and encouraged Council to take action to address the issues. ' -65- June 5, 1990 Councilmember Azari spoke against the resolution and against Council taking ' a position after a measure has been referred to the voters. She commented on the communication issues and urged that more time be taken to discuss the issues. The vote on Councilmember Mabry's motion to adopt Resolution 90-88 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Edwards, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, and Maxey. Nays: Councilmembers Azari, Horak, and Winokur. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 61, 1990, Requesting Termination of the Fort Collins -Loveland Airport Authority Adopted on First Reading Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no direct financial impact on the cities of Loveland and Fort Collins. It should be noted, however, that the Fort Collins -Loveland Airport had an outstanding obligation to the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland for $8,326 which was to be due on demand. The demand for that payment was not requested, and there are not sufficient funds in the current airport budget to make such a payment if it were demanded. If the Airport Authority is abolished, this debt will not be recouped by the two cities. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On May 9, 1990 the Fort Collins -Loveland Airport Authority unanimously elected to terminate its lease of the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport. Thirty days notice expires on June 9, 1990, at which time the cities of Fort Collins and Loveland will officially resume management responsibility of the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport. As the Airport Authority will no longer have an Airport facility to operate, it is prudent for the two cities to jointly abolish the Fort Collins -Loveland Airport Authority. BACKGROUND: Authorization to create and abolish airport authorities exists in Article 3, Title 41, C.R.S. This ordinance requesting termination of the Airport Authority is a requirement of that statute, and a copy will be filed with the Director of the Division of Local Government of the State of Colorado. The filing of the ordinance necessarily results in the termination of the Authority. A nearly identical ordinance is being considered by the City of Loveland on I June 5." -66- June 5, 1990 Councilmember Maxey withdrew from discussion and vote on this item due to a perceived conflict of interest. City Manager Burkett noted the ordinance was in response to the Airport Authority's request for action. Councilmember Azari made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt Ordinance No. 61, 1990 on First Reading. Joe Phillips, Airport Authority Member, supported the ordinance and commented on the financial impact of abolishing the Airport Authority. He noted that the debt could be repaid out of the Airport Authority budget by the end of 1990. Councilmember Azari encouraged Council to adopt the ordinance. Councilmember Winokur thanked Mr. Phillips and Airport Authority members for their hard work on the Authority. The vote on Councilmember Azari's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 61, 1990 on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, and Winokur. Nays: Councilmember Mabry. (Councilmember Maxey withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. ' Items Relating to the Construction of a Commercial Air Terminal, Parking Lot, and Match an FAA Grant for Air -side Development of Infrastructure at the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "FINANCIAL IMPACT This $135,000 appropriation will match an appropriation from the City of Loveland and supplement an FAA Grant for up to $162,500. There is currently $2,318,763 available in General Fund Undesignated Reserves. This appropriation would reduce that balance to $2,183,763. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 62, 1990 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts to the Capital Projects Fund to Construct a Commercial Air Terminal, Parking Lot, and Match an FAA Grant for Air -side Development of Infrastructure at the Fort Collins -Loveland ' Municipal Airport. (contingent upon negotiation and execution of an intergovernmental agreement between the cities of Loveland and Fort Collins); OR -67- June 5, 1990 B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 62, 1990 Appropriating Prior ' Year Reserves in the General Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts to the Capital Projects Fund to Construct a Commercial Air Terminal, Parking Lot, and Match an FAA Grant for Air -side Development of Infrastructure at the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport. Option A appropriates $135,000 to build this Airport improvement project and contains a clause making the appropriation contingent upon the execution of an agreement with the City of Loveland to share sales, use and property tax revenues associated with the Airport. Option B is identical to Option A except it does not contain the contingency clause. BACKGROUND: The decision to recommend this ordinance was not an easy one for staff. A variety of issues were considered in making this decision, including the fact that this was possibly premature due to the fact that the Airport Strategic Plan is not yet complete. In the final analysis, there are three basic reasons why staff decided to recommend this appropriation to Council: 1. Confidence that commercial service will be a success, thus qualifying the Airport for at least $300,000 per year in FAA funds to be used for Airport improvements; 2. Continental Express' willingness to commit to a solid five-year lease of the terminal facility even if service is discontinued, guaranteeing $65,000-$75,000 will be returned to the cities; and A contingent factor in the appropriation ordinance (Option A) which will require a new intergovernmental agreement with the City of Loveland to address future apportionment of certain taxes collected by the City of Loveland from activity at the Airport. Total investment to build this improvement project is approximately $432,500. Of that, the two cities will each invest $135,000, and the Federal Aviation Administration has pledged to grant up to $162,500. Likewise, there is a significant investment for Continental Express Airlines. In a March 22; memo to Steve Burkett, Continental Express indicated that its start-up costs for this operation are $120,100, of which $9,000 will be a sunk -cost. Additionally, Continental will allocate the use of a $3.5M aircraft to the area, and face annual operating costs of $927,000. Also, Continental Express will guarantee payment to the cities for lease rates of $65,000 to $75,000 over the term of the five-year lease. In considering this, the following benefits and risks were examined: no June 5, 1990 ' BENEFITS: 0 Communities have a direct link into the nation's air transportation system. 0 Improves Fort Collins' competitive position as a conference center. 0 Another attractive amenity to discuss with companies being recruited to northern Colorado. 0 If 10,000 enplanements are achieved per year, the Airport would receive an annual grant from the FAA of at least $300,000. (This will require a 10% local match.) 0 If the service is successful, it could be the catalyst for further commercial service and development at the Airport. RISKS: 0 If the service fails, the cities have a 3,800 square foot facility with no immediate reuse potential presently identified. This is mitigated somewhat by guaranteed lease payments of $65,000 to $75,000 over the five-year lease agreement, as well as by the location of the terminal, near the current Fixed Base Operator buildings and primary Airport activity. ' 0 If the service fails, the full public investment will not be recouped, either directly or indirectly. 0 If the service fails, the cities may lose credibility as it relates to the Airport. Ultimately staff decided that the likely benefits, particularly the $300,000 of FAA funds, outweighed the risks. The second item considered was Continental Express' commitment to the cities' investment. During negotiations, Continental expressed willingness to commit to a five year agreement with the cities, provided that at the end of the first year of service, Continental Express could terminate service if the average monthly load factor had not reached 30%. Staff appreciated Continental's interest in a five year investment, but was not comfortable with making improvements for a tenant that would not commit to a lease for more than twelve months. It was at that point that Continental Express came forward with a' commitment to continue lease payments for the full five years for not more than $15,000 per year. That commitment guarantees a return to the cities of'up to $75,000, even if the service is terminated by the airline prior to the end of the five year lease. This element demonstrated a stronger commitment on the part of the airline to ensure the success of the venture. The final element of the staff recommendation (Option A) relates to the ' possibility of negotiating a new intergovernmental agreement with the City June 5, 1990 of Loveland.. The physical Airport has been an issue the City is asked to make the Airport, the City of F about making investments a all sales, use, and props Section 3 of the appropria shall be subject to and intergovernmental agreement which addresses the future City of Loveland: location of the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal for the City of Fort Collins on every investment at the Airport. Since Loveland's annexation of ort Collins has continually expressed a concern ' the Airport while the City of Loveland retains rrty tax revenues associated with the Airport. tion ordinance requires that "the appropriation preceded by negotiation and execution of an between the cities of Loveland and Fort Collins apportionment of certain taxes collected by the 1) Sales and use tax revenues premises commonly described as Airport premises; and collected from activities on the the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal 2) Personal and real property tax revenue collected from activities and property located on the premises." On May 29, 1990 staff met with Loveland City Manager Mike Rock to discuss a proposal to credit all tax revenue collected from the Airport property to offset Airport expenses and reduce the subsidies both cities are providing each year. Staff had hoped agreement could be reached to recommend the proposal to both city councils jointly. The City of Loveland, however, is not comfortable with dedicating revenue from the property to the Airport without first offsetting its cost of service. Thus, Loveland was not willing to agree to the proposal and staff was not able to identify sufficient common ground to make a joint recommendation on the issue. It is still a critical piece of the appropriation, as it is a reflection of the City of Fort Collins' concern in the existing partnership arrangement. Commercial air service is a positive step for the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport. The three key elements of the staff recommendation explain staff's commitment to this project and to the Airport. This opportunity represents a first step for the Airport as it moves toward financial independence, and a significant opportunity for the two communities to come together on the future of the Airport." Councilmember Maxey withdrew from discussion and vote on this item due to a perceived conflict of interest. City Manager Burkett presented background information and explained staff's recommendations. He explained the joint ownership and projected investment returns and explained the lease" payment procedure. He described entitlement funds for the commercial use and activity at the airport and explained staff's reasons for recommending Option A. . Assistant to the Director of Administrative Services Julia Novak reviewed the site and lease issues and explained the $135,000 appropriation related to the infrastructure improvements. She noted the terms and conditions of the revised ordinance. -70- June 5, 1990 ' Pat Farnum,. Mayor, Pro-tem, Loveland, read a letter concerning Loveland receiving direct tax revenues from the Airport and urged Council to vote for Option B. Roger Bates, Loveland Councilmember, stated he believed that commercial service with Continental Express was a wise business decision for both Fort Collins and Loveland and spoke against the contingency agreement. Earl Wilkinson, Chamber of Commerce representative, spoke in support of Option B and suggested an amendment that the City of Fort Collins will not spend additional money until an intergovernmental agreement is reached. Ed Stoner, 225 South Meldrum, Fort Collins Inc., commented on Continental's concessions to the City's requests and the reduced customer costs associated with commercial air service. He stated commercial air service made good business sense for both cities encouraged Council to separate the issues to achieve progress. Dennis Heap, vice-president general manager, western region Continental Express, spoke on the issues of scheduled air service to the Fort Collins/Loveland Airport. He spoke of the proposed five year agreement and explained Continental's financial investment plan to support scheduled air service. John Schofield, 1801 Lakeshore Circle, urged adoption of Option B. ' Peter Salg, representing the Convention and Visitors' Bureau, spoke in support of commercial air service and noted the positive impacts of air service to Fort Collins. Barbara Schofield, 1801 Lakeshore Circle, urged Council to go ahead with the terminal. John Huisjen, 318 Canyon, asked about future contracts with entities other than Continental. Barbara Morgan, representing Northern Colorado Division Continental Airlines, spoke in support of Continental servicing northern Colorado. Councilmember Mabry asked about the relocation of the terminal. Julia Novak noted the storage locations of gasoline and jet fuel and noted the concern associated with placing. the terminal near the fuel farm. She noted the former airport manager recommended terminal development be near the corporate lots and noted that Mr. Kennedy believed that the north location was a better place to construct the terminal. She mentioned the safety concerns, and minimal additional costs. Mayor Kirkpatrick asked if the Airport had adequate fire protection. I Julia Novak stated the City of Loveland is not required to build a fire station to serve the Airport for the proposed commercial air service at the -71- June 5, 1990 airport and noted the Airport has a fire and rescue vehicle and trained I personnel on site. Councilmember Winokur asked how much airport debt remained and asked if the equity was even between the two cities. Alan Krcmarik stated that approximately $2,000,000 out of the original $2,360,000 debt remained outstanding on the Airport and stated the equity between Fort Collins and Loveland was close. Councilmember Winokur asked the City Manager if he believed that the $135,000 expenditure was being spent the best way possible for economic development. City Manager Burkett stated that he believed that there were economic development issues that will generate a similar return and noted that the City has invested millions of dollars in the Airport. He stated the Airport represents the best opportunity to begin to receive investment return with respect to service to the community. Councilmember Edwards asked about the certainty that the Airport is eligible to receive $300,000 annually from the FAA for maintenance. Julia Novak stated that the $300,000 was a minimum level of funding guaranteed every year by the federal government and noted that the Cities must show that there are $300,000 worth of qualifying projects. She noted the $300,000 must be capital improvements that qualify under the FAA guideline entitlement program. Councilmember Edwards expressed concern about accepting the guarantee at face value and asked if the projected capital improvements qualify for the grant. Julia Novak stated that the proposed capital improvements will all qualify under the FAA program. City Manager Burkett commented on discussions with Loveland staff regarding the relative value of commercial air service to the two cities and stated he believed since the Airport was inside Loveland city limits, there was more economic benefit to the City of Loveland in terms of sales and use tax. He stated he was proposing that the generated revenues go to support the Airport, which reduces the subsidy provided by both cities and commented on $1,000,000 in capital costs from the airport over the next five years. Councilmember Winokur asked about the process associated with the Airport strategic plan and other capital projects. City Manager Burkett commented on the strategic plan evaluating the options for future governance of the Airport and stated he preferred an Authority assuming the responsibility of the Airport. He encouraged that the ' Authority operate and finance the Airport independent of both cities and -72- June 5, 1990 ' noted the possibility of the County becoming involved in the Airport. He commented on the City of Loveland providing the majority of the Airport support, while the City of Fort Collins assumes a smaller portion of the responsibility. He stated the 1991 Budget will take the Airport investment needs into consideration and stated he was not comfortable recommending $500,000 for capital expenditures at the Airport. Councilmember Mabry asked about the dilemma between the two cities and commented on the good faith between Loveland and Fort Collins. He stated he believed that the issue of good faith should include a time frame. Pat Farnum, Mayor Pro-tem, Loveland, stated the City of Loveland did not believe that it has the advantage because the Airport is within the Loveland city limits and noted that statistics indicate that 90% of the Airport users come to Fort Collins. She stated she believed that the Airport was an advantage for the region and noted that the City of Loveland has been paying the Airport service costs. She stated the two cities will share the Airport profits and stated the City of Loveland has a responsibility to maintain the Airport services. She stated the City of Loveland wants to discuss the Airport issues with the City of Fort Collins and stressed the importance of the two cities discussing the Airport as soon as possible. She spoke in support of the two cities establishing a positive working relationship. Councilmember Winokur asked if the City of Loveland interested in an ' independent Airport Authority with respect to the strategic plan. Pat Farnum, stated the City of Loveland does not want to soley operate the Airport and noted Loveland was willing to discuss options. She noted the importance of Mr. Kennedy's strategic plan. Roger Bates, Loveland Councilmember, stated he was unaware of any definitive time frame plans and stated that Loveland staff was anxious to review the strategic plan. He stated the City of Loveland viewed the Airport operation as a partnership between the two cities. Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to adopt Ordinance No. 62, 1990 Option B on First Reading. Councilmember Mabry referred to the Airport as a joint asset between Loveland and Fort Collins and expressed the need to separate the issue of providing for air service from the ownership issue. He encouraged Council to accept the commitment from the City of Loveland and resolve the Airport issues. Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, commented on Continental's funding involvement with the new Denver airport and asked about the seriousness of Continental's commitment to funding the Fort Collins Airport. ' Councilmember Azari expressed appreciation to the Loveland Councilmembers for attending the meeting and stated the contingency clause to the issue of Continental Express was unnecessary. She spoke in support of air service -73- June 5, 1990 in this area and construction of a new terminal and spoke in favor of Option B. Councilmember Edwards stated air service will be a benefit to northern Colorado and stated the risks are minimal. He stated that he believed there would a reasonable return on the investment and expressed concern regarding increased urban growth with respect to air service conflicts. He urged the City of Loveland and City of Fort Collins address the partnership issues. Councilmember Horak commented on how closely the issues were related and expressed concern that Fort Collins will have no leverage. He spoke against spending $135,000 at the Airport. Councilmember Winokur expressed thanks to the Loveland Councilmembers for attending the meeting and commended Councilmember Azari for her hard work on the Airport issues. He expressed concern about the future of the Airport and stressed the importance of proper Airport management. He spoke against using funds from the undesignated reserves to fund the Airport and stressed the need for the strategic plan to provide direction. Mayor Kirkpatrick expressed discomfort with the Airport issue and expressed concern about subsidizing, fire service, legal fees, and annexation costs but stated she would support the ordinance on First Reading. She stated she would not support Ordinance No. 62, 1990 on Second Reading unless there is an amendment indicating that no additional monies will be expended at the Airport until a new intergovernmental agreement is reached. She stated it was not her first choice for economic development in Fort Collins and stated she believed this expenditure will cost a potential future fee waiver. The vote on Councilmember Mabry's First Reading (Option B) was as Edwards, Kirkpatrick, and Mabry. (Councilmember Maxey withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. motion to adopt Ordinance No. 62, 1990 on follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Nays: Councilmembers Horak and Winokur. Ordinance No. 63, 1990, Authorizing the` Lease of Certain Property at the Fort Coll'ins- Loveland Municipal Airport by Rocky Mountain Airways, Inc.,d/b/a Continental Express Airlines Adopted on Second Reading as Revised Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "FINANCIAL IMPACT Leasing necessary portions of the Airport Terminal Facility to Continental Express Airlines will provide approximately $75,000, payable monthly, over Five years, to the Fort Collins -Loveland, Municipal Airport to offset -74- June 5, 1990 expenses related to the air terminal facility, as well as general operations at the Airport. Additionally the lease provides a mechanism for the Airport to collect landing fees related to use of the runway facility. These revenues will also be available for the airport operations to offset expenses and maintain the airfield. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Adoption of this Ordinance will authorize the Mayor to sign a lease with Rocky Mountain Airways for five years. BACKGROUND: The ordinance sets forth significant business issues of concern to the City of Fort Collins in negotiating a lease with Continental Express Airlines. The ordinance provides the basic guidelines that, unless they are fully met, the Mayor could not sign a lease with the airline on behalf of the City of Fort Collins. The most significant issue of concern to the City is the guarantee that Continental Express will be obligated to the cities for approximately $75,000, payable monthly, over a five year period, regardless of whether air service is discontinued. Additionally, air service cannot be discontinued unless, after one year of service, Continental Express has experienced load factors of less than 30Y utilizing its Beech 1900, 19 passenger aircraft. The lease also provides for the collection of landing fees, which will be set annually by the Councils of the two cities. The exact figure of these landing fees has not yet been negotiated, but the final figure will be included in the first lease. Subsequent revisions will be made by the two Councils." I Councilmember Maxey withdrew from discussion and vote on this item due to a perceived conflict of interest. Councilmember Azari made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mabry, to adopt Ordinance No. 63, 1990 as revised on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, and Winokur. Nays: None. (Councilmember Maxey withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 90-86 Establishing a Negotiating.Team to Work with the City of Lovel'and to Develop a New Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Loveland Relating to the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport, No Action Taken Following is staff's memorandum on this item: -75- June 5, 1990 "FINANCIAL IMPACT ' This resolution has no direct financial impact on the City of Fort Collins. A new intergovernmental agreement could, however, reduce the annual subsidy to the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 1986, the City of Loveland annexed the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport, as well as several industrial sites and existing businesses located around the Airport property. Although the two cities have been equal partners in the municipal airport since 1981, the annexation of the Airport caused only one partner to receive the direct benefits (tax dollars) associated with activities on the jointly owned Airport property. BACKGROUND: The cities of Fort Collins and Loveland have both made a sizeable investment in the property known as the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport. In 1982, the City of Fort Collins issued debt to develop corporate lots and make infrastructure improvements on the Airport property. The purpose of this development was to encourage additional economic development on the Airport property. In 1986, the City of Loveland annexed the Airport property and agreed to conduct a feasibility study to acquire Fort Collins' share of the jointly held asset. No steps have been made in acquiring Fort Collins' interest in the Airport, and the fact that now only one partner (the City of Loveland) receives the direct benefits associated with the Airport has caused the partnership to become unbalanced. The fact that the Airport is located in the City of Loveland means that the City of Loveland benefits directly from the Airport while the City of Fort Collins only benefits indirectly. The industrial lots surrounding the Airport are Loveland's primary area for future economic development, and the Airport was annexed as a way to access those areas. Attached is a proposal which was discussed with Loveland City Manager Mike Rock on Tuesday, May 29, 1990. He has advised us that he is not willing to make any concessions regarding revenues derived from the Airport property until Loveland's cost of service is taken into consideration. As the two City Manager's could not find sufficient common ground to make a joint recommendation to both City Councils, it appears that this issue would be best handled by elected officials from both communities working together to This resolution sets forth the reasons it is appropriate to negotiate an intergovernmental agreement with the City of Loveland, and appoints two Councilmembers to negotiate the agreement." Councilmember Maxey withdrew from'"discussion and vote on this item due to a perceived conflict of interest. 76- June 5, 1990 Councilmember Edwards suggested the City Manager be responsible for resolving the issues and establish a good working relationship between the two City Managers and stated he was not convinced Councilmember negotiating would be effective. Councilmember Azari made a motion, seconded by Mayor Kirkpatrick, to adopt Resolution 90-86. Councilmember Azari stated she believed that staff was not able to resolve the airport issues between the two cities. Councilmember Horak stated it was important for the negotiating team to have direction and suggested a work session to establish the areas needing to be negotiated. Councilmember Azari encouraged a joint worksession between the City of Loveland and the City of Fort Collins. Councilmember Mabry spoke of determing the needs of Fort Collins prior to meeting with the City of Loveland. Councilmember Winokur encouraged that Council meet with the City of Loveland to discuss commercial air service. ' Councilmember Azari withdrew her motion to adopt Resolution 90-86. Mayor Kirkpatrick stated a worksession will be set up with the City of Loveland as soon as possible. City Manager Burkett stated staff will draft a provision to be included in the ordinance on Second Reading, stating that after the initial investment with Continental Express, no additional expenditures will be made until an intergovernmental agreement is reached. Items Appropriating Funds from Undesignated General Fund Reserves Postponed Until June 12, 1990 Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "FINANCIAL IMPACT Approval of Ordinances A, #B, #C, and #D would appropriate $460,808 from General Fund undesignated reserves reducing the projected 1990 balance from $2,318,763 to $1,857,955. Approval of Ordinance E would reduce the General Fund reserve for buildings and improvements from $1,235,633 to $1,217,633. -77- June 5, 1990 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Rather than going through a complex mid -year process for appropriating from General Fund undesignated reserves, Council, at an earlier worksession, suggested that staff bring forth any issues that need to be funded in 1990 so that each issue could be discussed and decided individually. The following Ordinances appropriate monies from General Fund for the specified purposes: A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 64, 1990, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts to the Recreation Fund and the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for Computer Hardware and Software Upgrades. This Ordinance appropriates $174,800 for replacement or upgrade of existing personal computer equipment to meet minimum recommended hardware standards and to provide replacement word processing software for General Fund departments that have not been able to accommodate these costs within their current 1990 budget. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 65, 1990, Appropriating Prior Year Undesignated Reserves in the General Fund for Changes to the Financial Management Information System. This Ordinance appropriates $113,906 for programming modifications and additional disk storage so that the financial management information system will meet requirements and can be completed on schedule. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 66, 1990, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Appropriated Amounts to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for Replacement of Box Office Computer Ticketing System. This Ordinance appropriates $137,102 and authorizes the purchase of a new computer system from Artsoft, Inc., to replace the Lincoln Center Box Office ticketing system. D. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 67, 1990, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Printing and Publication of Development Services Policy Agenda Items. This Ordinance appropriates $35,000 to support the printing and publication of documents related to Council policy agenda items being prepared by Development Services: E. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 68, 1990, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for Replacement of Backstage Rigging Equipment. In addition to the appropriations from undesignated reserves, staff recommends that Council appropriate $18,000 from the General Fund reserve 78- June 5, 1990 FUNDING REQUEST: Funds are requested for the following General Fund departments to upgrade or replace existing equipment. The following information is based on departmental responses in February, 1990. A $5,000 contingency is added to address any oversights. A total of 87 PC's will be replaced, 51 will be upgraded with 40mb hard drives and 94 copies of word processing software supplied. Replacement Upgrades Software Legislative/Executive: City Council $ 29,500 $ - $ 1,600 City Manager 1,500 1,000 - City Attorney 1,500 1,000 600 City Clerk 1,500 1,500 200 Administrative Services: Employee Development 1,500 2,000 600 Finance 18,000 6,000 1,400 General Services 1,500 500 800 Development Services: Building Inspection 12,000 1,500 1,800 Economic Development - - 400 Engineering 3,000 2,000 2,000 ' Planning 12,000 1,000 2,400 Natural Resources 3,000 1,000 600 CLRS: Cultural Services $ 1,500 $ 1,000 $ 200 Library 3,000 500 600 Recreation 13,500 2,000 2,800 Parks 1,500 500 800 Police Services 21,000 4,000 2,000 Contingency 5,000 - - Grand Totals $130,500 25,500 18,800 ORDINANCE 8 On May 2, 1989, Council approved an Ordinance authorizing the $700,000 lease/purchase of hardware and software for the new Financial Management Information System. Resolutions were also approved authorizing the City to purchase the computer hardware from Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) and the software from Moore Governmental Systems, Inc. Subsequently, on July 18, 1989, the original Resolutions were amended based on contract negotiations with Moore and purchase negotiations with DEC. The final negotiated cost estimates for computer hardware and software modules were: ' Fund Accounting module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 82,620 Payroll/Personnel modules. . 116,928 M June 5, 1990 - Purchasing module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46,560 - Check Reconciliation module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13,900 - Accounts Receivable Billing module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27,760 - Budget Preparation module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65,640 - Fixed Assets module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27,760 - Mainframe hardware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210,296 - Other hardware and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66,000 - Contingency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42,536 - Total Estimated Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 700,000 A normal part of the process of completing a major software installation involves changes to the system. The City made the decision to purchase the system based on City requirements and the ability of the Moore system to satisfy those requirements, including modifications. The total cost of the system was estimated to be $700,000, but it was difficult to accurately estimate the cost of all modifications needed to the base system without completing the final design analysis. During the fall of 1989 and continuing into 1990, the City and Moore worked to finalize the City's requirements for the Fund Accounting, Payroll, Personnel, Check Reconciliation and Purchasing modules. This requires tailoring Moore's base system to meet the specific needs of the City. The final analysis work has now been completed and the number of additional programming hours required of Moore has been established. Disk drives were also included in the original cost estimate for computer hardware. It is now apparent that original estimates of data storage requirements were low. Two additional disk drives are needed. OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERED: Rather than requesting additional appropriations, two other options were considered: (1) the null alternative, and, (2) using money earmarked for other modules. Following is a brief analysis of each alternative and the impacts. 1. Null alternative. This option assumes that some or all of the modifications to the system are not made and additional disk storage is not purchased. The disk storage space must be purchased or the system will not function properly even if no modifications are made to the software. If the software, modifications are not made, many of the functions would be relegated', to PC applications. Since many of these are currently residing on PCs, the new system would be no better than the old one in terms of integration, better reporting and duplication of work. In particular, the lack of integration could result in questionable data integrity. 2. Use money earmarked for future modules. Since the system is an integrated system, it is important that all modules function effectively and efficiently with each other. Using°money earmarked for 1 Um June 5, 1990 ' future modules would require additional money to implement such modules or that existing systems be converted to "stand -atones", losing the capabilities of a fully integrated system. Another impact is the potential problem of approval by the leasing company ("lessor"). The lessor has loaned $700,000 to the City based on the assumption that all modules would be purchased. Any changes in assumptions must be approved. FUNDING REQUEST: Additional funding in the amount of $113,906 will be needed for the system. Staff has negotiated the cost of the modifications to the lowest reasonable amount. The two disk drives will cost $23,000 and the programming modifications, including a $10,000 contingency will cost about $91,000. The original offer by Moore to make the modifications was nearly $132,000. The majority of the modifications are considered "essential" to accommodate the way the City does business with a few considered "desirable" to greatly enhance the City's financial management and reporting capabilities. Following is summary of the cost of the changes itemized by major component: - Fund Accounting module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .S 17,000 - Payroll/Personnel modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23,885 ' - Purchasing module. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13,600 - Report writer for Purchasing module. .13,600 - Additional hardware disk drives. .22,731 - Contingency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,000 - Total additional funding needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$113,906 It is important to point out that these types of modifications are normal in designing new major computer systems. It is highly probable that staff will be back at a later date to request funds for modifying other modules. There is simply no way to accurately predict the actual cost of extensive modifications until the contract programmer and City users begin work on the modification requests. ORDINANCE C The Lincoln Center has experienced an increasing number of malfunctions with its computerized box office system. The system has a history of hardware and software problems which began when the company that produced the software went out of business. Last fall the Center "lost" its entire database on one occasion, "lost" 113of the Center's Showstopper Season patron's orders when printing' its series tickets, and "crashed" five times in December while printing Children's Series tickets. In one show this season, the system printed 2 tickets to the same 7 seats resulting in 7 ' unhappy patrons receiving refunds. The ICS department has analyzed the system and believes it is close to a total failure in which case the Center will lose all its patron and financial records. ff June 5, 1990 Digital Equipment Corporation has donated most of the hardware valued at $38,000, necessary to use with this new software package. Together, the new hardware and software will allow Lincoln Center to avert an emergency situation and to improve service to the public. Staff is requesting a supplemental appropriation of $117,102 for a new system provided by Artsoft Inc. and $20,000 for a six-month contractual position in the ICS Department to assist in installation and data conversion. Of this request, $727,622 would be a one-time appropriation and $9,480 would be needed annually for Lincoln Center to fund the ongoing maintenance support and additional phone line charges the system requires. Box Office Computer Total Software Cost (Artsoft) $68,824 Hardware (in addition to donation) 32,565 Hardware Maintenance (3 year contract - Digital) 3,233 Computer Analyst (6 month contract) 20,000 TOTAL ONE TIME EXPENSE $124,622 ONGOING Software Maintenance (per year) $ 8,280 Phone Line Charges 1,200 TOTAL ONGOING EXPENSES S 9.480 Contingency ORDINANCE D $134,102 3,000 $137,102 The 1989-90 Council Policy Agenda assigned a number of projects to divisions within Development Services. Work on such projects requires that preliminary and final reports be made available to the public as part of a citizen participation process. To make copies of staff recommendations and final approved documents available to the public will require the printing and publication of the recommended and final Policy Agenda items. Staff anticipates the following projects will require printing as part of the policy review and approval process Printings Protect Preliminary Final Estimated Cost Harmony Corridor Plan Yes Yes $ 8,500 LOGS Audit Yes Yes 5,000 Environmental Management Framework Yes No 5,000 Wetlands & Wildlife Habitat Policy No 'Yes 7,000 Natural Areas Policy Plan Yes Yes 6,000 1 M. June 5, 1990 East Side/West Side Implementation Ordinance Yes Yes 3.500 $ 35,000 The base budgets of affected departments did not include costs associated with printing documents associated with Policy Agenda items. The existing Development Services budget does not have designated/undesignated reserves sufficient to meet the anticipated printing and publication costs. The 1990 Development Services budget set aside $20,912 for printing requirements of six departments. A17 funds are committed to continuing printing requirements such as brochures, permits, forms, agenda packets, mass mailings, procedural manuals, plans, reports, etc. The Policy Agenda items listed above are in addition to the current budget and are the basis for this request for a supplemental appropriation. ORDINANCE E After a thorough review of stage equipment by Terry Palmer Stage Services, it has been determined that 12 years of heavy usage has taken its toll on the Center's rigging equipment. Eight areas of concern were identified by Stage Services which raise questions about the safety of some backstage equipment. The eight problems are: dry splintering of the rope; stretch beyond 3/4" minimum thickness: outer core of wire rope loosening from inner core leading to shock rating exceeding safe levels; bent, non-functioning spreader bars and nut plates; bent stop block; wire rope sagging, trim chain repair; and corrosion of headblock area. This Ordinance appropriates $18,000 from General Fund reserves for buildings and improvements for the replacement of backstage rigging equipment." Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to postpone Item #36 A-E and Item #37 until later in the meeting. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 90-87 Making Appointments to Various Boards and Commissions, Postponed Until June 12, 1990 Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Vacancies currently exist, or shortly will exist, on various boards and commissions due to resignations from boardmembers and the expiration of term of members of boards and commissions. June 5, 1990 Advertisements were placed with the local media in March, and applications were accepted through April. Council received copies of the applications and Council teams interviewed the applicants in May and June. Recommendations for appointments to the following boards and commissions will be made by the Council interview teams: Building Review Board Cable TV Board Commission on Disability Commission on the Status of Women Cultural Resources Board Downtown Development Authority Golf Board Housing Authority Human Relations Commission Landmark Preservation Commission Library Board Liquor/Massage Licensing Authority Natural Resources Advisory Board Parks and Recreation Board Personnel Board Planning and Zoning Board Retirement Committee Senior Advisory Board Storm Drainage Board Water Board Zoning Board of Appeals The attached Resolution contains the names of those individuals recommended for appointment by the Council interview teams. As of the printing of this agenda, several interviews had not been completed. Council liaisons will announce the remaining recommendations prior to adoption of the Resolution. In keeping with Council's direction to phase out alternate memberships, many of the vacant alternate positions are not being filled." Other Business Resolution 90-90 Approving a Professional Services Agreement with Rocky Mountain Consultants in the Amount of $46,838 for Engineering Design Services for the Lincoln Street Interceptor Sewer, Adopted Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "FINANCIAL IMPACT Although this project was not anticipated in the 1990 Budget, funds are available in the Wastewater Fund contingency for design. Additional funds will need to be appropriated for the construction phase once project cost estimates are available. 1 M June 5, 1990 ' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recent heavy rainstorms have created problems with a 24" interceptor sewer located between the Poudre River and the Green Bay Foods pickle factory. The interceptor was installed in the early 1940's in a steep embankment behind the pickle factory. During the storms, the embankment was eroded to expose the sewer main. On May 29, concrete debris at the top of the embankment slid down and damaged the interceptor causing raw sewage to be spilled into the River. That break was repaired by Wastewater Division crews, but portions of the main remain in serious jeopardy. The main is being monitored by City crews and a plan has been developed for responding to additional breakage. Working on the interceptor is very hazardous if the river flows are high. However, high flows also diluted the spill so that no impacts to aquatic life have been identified. The interceptor was scheduled for replacement in 1992 in the five year capital projects plan. Because of the vulnerability of the main and the potential for impacts on the river should any additional leaks occur, the main should be replaced as soon as possible. The resolution would authorize award of a professional services agreement to Rocky Mountain Consultants in the amount of $46,838 for design of the project. It is expected that design could be completed within 10 to 12 weeks of Council approval. Bidding and construction of the new main would require about 4 months, with completion of the project by about January 1. Total project cost is estimated at about $360,000. A more accurate estimate will be developed by RMC once an appropriate route for the main is selected. At that time, staff will bring an agenda item to City Council requesting an appropriation for the construction engineering portion of the contract with RMC ($28,880) and the cost of construction. Funds for the design phase are available in contingency. Rocky Mountain Consultants were selected in January of 1990 for design and engineering of the Harmony Road Water Transmission Main and other projects requiring similar qualifications. An RFP was issued in November of 1989 and ten firms submitted proposals. RMC, RBD Engineers, and Greenhorne and O'Mara were interviewed. RMC was selected as the firm most qualified to perform this type of work. The Lincoln Street Interceptor is a project requiring similar qualifications compared to the Harmony Water Main." Water and Sewer Director Mike Smith gave a brief presentation on the design of the Lincoln Street sewer and explained the effect of the rainstorms on the sewer intercepter. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards, to adopt Resolution 90-90. Yeas:;. Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Kirkpatrick noted the 5th anniversary of Tom Sutherland's capture in Lebanon and noted she wanted to send a message with Council support to ' Beirut. QZ. June 5, 1990 Councilmemb_er Winokur requested the City Attorney look at the appeals I procedure in the Code and return with an agenda item relating to administrative amendments and the formal decision process. Adjournment Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mabry, to adjourn the meeting to 6:15 p.m. on June 12, 1990. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. The meeting adjourned at 1:20 a.m. 1.4 AI Ptayor am