Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-10/15/1985-RegularOctober 15, 1985 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council -Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, October 15, 1985, 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: Clarke,. Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Staff Members Present: Shannon, Huisjen, Krajicek, Lewis Agenda Review: City Manager Interim City Manager Rich Shannon asked that Item #19, Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 1985 Expressing the Consent of the City to the Inclusion of Land Within the Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, be removed from the agenda and pointed out there was a revised version of Item #26, Resolution Making an Appointment to the Zoning Board of Appeals, on the table. Consent Calendar This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this calendar be "pulled" off_ the Consent Calendar and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be considered separately under Agenda Item #38, Pulled Consent Items, except items pulled by anyone in the audience or items that any member of the audience is present to discuss that were pulled be staff or Council. These items will be discussed immediately following the Consent Calendar. M 5. This ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 1. The DDA Board in a unanimous vote recommended the appropriation of $50,000 from the bond proceeds to Larimer Community Services, Incorporated to aid in street and utility improvements on Pine Street in conjunction with the building of a multi -purpose community services building. -1- October 15, 1985 7. Q a Second Reading of Ordinance No 113 1985 Vacating a Portion of Dennison Avenue. This ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 1. The street design in Four Seasons was changed by the recent approval of Four Season Fifth Filing. As a result a small portion of Dennison Avenue must be vacated to accommodate the new street layout. The portion of the street being vacated is to be retained as a utility easement. With this condition the utilities have no problem with the vacation. This ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 1. The Developer is requesting the vacation of a portion of the blanket easement to accommodate a revised building design. All utilities have been contacted and have indicated no problems with the vacation. This ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 1. The access off of Pennock Place for this development was to occur across from the access for Riverside Shopping Center, Filing I. In the review process the access for Riverside Shopping Center, Filing I was moved 5 feet to the west. The engineers for Riverside Shopping Center were not notified of this change and thus it was not accommodated in their design at the time. The new easement has been accepted by Council to realign the access and now, this vacation will complete the realignment of the easement to accommodate the revised access. All utilities have been contacted and have indicated no problems with the vacation. This ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 1. Rossborough Park site was purchased in 1980. This 9.7 acre neighborhood site is located in southwest Fort Collins at Dunbar Avenue and Casa Grande Blvd., west of South Shields Street and south of Swallow Road. Part of the purchase agreement states that the City .-will reimburse the developer for street, sidewalk, street light and curb and gutter improvements adjacent to the park site. These improvements were not anticipated to be completed this year when the 1985 Parkland budget was prepared. Consequently, funds for this reimbursement were not budgeted. However, the street construction has now been completed on Casa Grande Blvd., and the developer has -2- October 15, 1985 10. 11. 12. 13. requested payment. The City's share is $15,502, which is available in Parkland Fund Prior Year Undesignated Reserves. This ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 1. The Cultural Resources Board is initiating this request for local landmark designation for the Old Post Office, located at 201 S. College Avenue. The property owner has not given consent to designate this property. A public hearing was held by the Board on September 18, 1985, at which the Board unanimously voted to recommend designation of this property. Approval of this Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 1, will set the fees for the Storm Drainage Utility for 1986. The average combined monthly capital and 0&M increase for 1986 is 6.5%. This ordinance was adopted on First Reading on October 1 by a 6-1 vote and will increase the Street Oversizing Fees for the 1986 Budget. The Commercial and Industrial fees are increased according to the formula reviewed and approved by Council during the 1985 Budget review. The Residential fee is being raised an additional $5 per D.U. to offset the cost of providing landscaped medians which are now a standard for arterials. This ordinance was adopted unanimously on First Reading on October 1. The Recommended 1986 Budget, as presented, includes an increase in monthly water service fees of approximately nine (9) percent and an increase in monthly sewer.,service fees of approximately four (4) percent. The nine percent increase in water service fees and the four percent increase in sewer service fees are necessary in order to ensure that sufficient revenue is generated to meet anticipated expenses and to comply with City financial policies. -3- October 15, 1985 14. Second Reading of Ordinance No 122 1985 Appropriating Funds for the SAINT Program. 15. On July 15, 1985, the administration of the SAINT (Senior Alternatives in Transportation) program was transferred from the Transportation Services Fund to Parks and Recreation in the General Fund. In order to provide for the proper matching of revenues to expenses, all expenses incurred in 1985 have been transferred to the General Fund and all unused appropriations in the Transportation Services Fund have been frozen. All revenue received has also been recorded in the General Fund. Adoption of this ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 1, will provide the proper appropriations in each fund affected by the transfer of the program. This Ordinance was adopted on First Reading on October I by a 6-1 vote and appropriates the 1986 Annual Budget and sets the mill levy. 16. Items Relating to 1986 Downtown Development Authority Budget A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 1985, Appropriating Revenue in the DDA Fund. 17. This ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 1 and is the Annual Appropriation Ordinance for the Downtown Development Authority, totalling $225,887. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 1985 Setting the Mill Levy for the Downtown Development Authority for 1986. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 1 and sets the 1986 mill levy for the Downtown Development Authority at 5 mills, the same as the levy determined for 1985. Three items are being considered in regard to lots 29 through 40 of the Replat of a Part of Fairway Estates where Fred Schmid Appliances is planning to build a new store. a. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 1985, Vacating the East 40 Feet of the Frontage Road as Platted. b. Dedication of Right -of -Way for Snead Drive. c. Dedication for five easements for Utilities, Pedestrian Way Access, Drainage, and a Bridle Path. -4- October 15, 1985 on 19. 20. After the sale of three Mercedes buses in 1983 for $10,498, the funds were incorrectly deposited in the Transfort Miscellaneous Revenue account. In order to correct this mistake and meet the conditions of the UMTA grant, this amount needs to be appropriated from Transfort Capital Reserves, transferred to the Capital Projects Fund, and appropriated for expenditure. The Water Conservancy Act of the State of Colorado requires that lands receiving or using water supplied by the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Windy Gap Waters) be located within the boundaries of said subdistrict. In the past, the procedure for inclusion of new annexations into.the subdistrict was very complicated. In 1984, the General Assembly enacted a statute which authorizes the City to include land within the Municipal Subdistrict simply by the passage of the ordinance attached. Accordingly, if the Council should determine that it is in the best interest of the City that lands annexed to the City after July 6, 1970 now be included within the boundaries of the municipal subdistrict, the staff would recommend adoption of the ordinance. On October 1, 1985, the Council heard on appeal of the August 26, 1985 Planning and Zoning Board decision to deny approval to the Maple Street Apartment R-M Site Plan Review. The Council voted 7 to 0 to sustain the Planning and Zoning Board decision, thereby upholding the denial. 21. Routine Easement. The following is a routine powerline easement which has been approved by the affected departments and legal staff: Powerline easement granted by Stephen E. Slezak, located at the rear of 205 S. Meldrum, consisting of 500 square feet (10' x 501), needed to relocate overhead secondary electric services. Consideration: $1. Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk. -5- October 15, 1985 Item #5. Item #6. Second Reading of Ordinance No 113 1985 Vacating a Portion of Dennison Avenue, Item V. Item #8. Item #9. Item #10. SE Pc Item #11. Item #12. SE O� Item #16. A. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk. Item #17. A. Hearing ..anri First Raarlinn of n,•il;nen n 117 inn, Item #18. i In October 15, 1985 I Item =19. Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Southridge Greens Sinking Fund Adopted on Second Reading Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "This Ordinance was adopted on First Reading on October 1 by a 5-2 vote and appropriates $313,500 from prior year reserves to meet debt service requirements on.the 1982 Bond Anticipation Notes." Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to adopt Ordinance No. 121, 1985 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Horak, Knezovich, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmembers Estrada and Ohlson. THE MOTION CARRIED. Inducement Resolution Setting Forth the Intention of the City of Fort Collins to Issue Industrial Development Revenue Bonds For the Tulakes Associates Project in the Amount of $920 000 Adopted Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "Executive Summary AMOUNT OF BOND PROCEEDS REQUESTED: $920,000 TITLE OF PROJECT: Tulakes Associates LOCATION OF PROJECT: Seven Lakes Business Park, 2330 East Prospect. USE OF PROCEEDS: The construction of a .10,500 square foot building addition devoted to offices, research and manufacturing facilities for the production of ion beam power supplies and related components. -7- October 15, 1985 Background Pursuant to Senate Bill No. 108, the City of Fort Collins is eligible to apply for unlimited allocations from the Statewide balance beginning September 1, 1985 for the remainder of the year, although there is no assurance that funds will be available during this period. As of October 1 there was a balance of $170 million in the State pool. This balance changes daily, and Jim Harmon will contact the Division of Local government for the current balance on October 15, prior to Council consideration of the item. Enclosed for your review is a copy of the application for the inducement of City of Fort Collins Colorado Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (Series 1985) for Tulakes Associates, a Colorado General Partnership, in the amount of $920,000. The project consists of the construction of a 10,500 square foot building addition. Enclosed also is a copy of the comments which the Planning Department has with regard to the project. Staff has reviewed the application using criteria established by Resolution 84-92, adopting Industrial Development Revenue Bond Policies and Criteria. The IDRB Criteria Evaluation Sheet is also enclosed. IDRB CRITERIA EVALUATION APPLICANT: Tulakes Associates PROJECT: Tulakes Associates AMOUNT REQUESTED: $920,000 voints Total Maximum Earned Multiplier Points Points CREATION OF JOBS Amt. of Debt Issued/Job 2 1 2 2 Types of Jobs 2 1 2 2 Job Market 2 1 2 2 Annual Payroll 2 4 8 8 Sub -Total 14 14 m October 15, 1985 I INCREASE IN TAX BASE Assessed Value 2 4 8 8 Gross Sales/ Sales Tax 0 2 0 4 Sub -Total 8 12 STIMULATION - BUSINESS INVESTMENT Construction Value 1 2 2 4 Export Sales 2 4 8 8 Domestic Expen. 2 4 8 8 Sub -Total 18 20 COMPLEMENT TO EXISTING PROGRAMS & FACILITIES Consistency 2 1 2 2 Community Resp. 2 4 8 8 Sub -Total 10 10 FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY Debt Coverage 2 4 8 8 Net Worth 2 2 4 4 Sub -Total 12 12 TOTAL POINTS CRITERIA 62 68 BONUS POINTS Downtown Revitalization no 0 5 Historic Preservation no 0 4 Energy Conservation * 2 10 Financial Guarantees yes 3 3 Targeted Industries ** yes 10 10 Sub -Total 15 32 TOTAL POINTS 77 100 *Note: Application states that energy conservation will be utilized, but no detail of conservation measures is provided. **Note: Project occupants satisfy criteria for targeted industries established by the Chamber of Commerce Targeted Industries Council." Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to adopt Resolution 85-188. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. p- ­. October 15, 1985 THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Ohlson asked how the two bonus points for energy conservation were awarded. Jim Harmon replied that to receive any points the applicant must do something in addition to the requirements of the energy conservation measures in the commercial building code. He noted these additions included berming against exterior walls, insulated glazing on the windows and energy savers on all mechanical systems. Tom Metier, attorney representing the applicant, and Paul Reader and Jerald Isaacson, developers, spoke to the financial aspects of the project. Mr. Isaacson noted the costs per square foot were higher due to the fact that this was an addition and that there was a large amount of finish space in this portion of the addition. He pointed out that additional property had to be purchased to satisfy parking requirements. The vote on Councilmember Clarke's motion to adopt Resolution 85-188 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Inducement Resolution Setting Forth the Intention of the City of Fort Collins to Issue Industrial Development Revenue Bonds For the Mountain Avenue Associates Project in the Amount of $600 000 Adopted Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "Executive Summary AMOUNT OF BOND PROCEEDS REQUESTED: $600,000 TITLE OF PROJECT: Mountain Avenue Associates LOCATION OF PROJECT: 126-136 West Mountain Avenue USE OF PROCEEDS: The' acquisition, re -development and renovation of two buildings on West Mountain Avenue. The developing partnership intends to return the store fronts of the buildings to their original appearance and create a covered pedestrian accessway from Mountain Avenue to the parking lot on the north. Background Pursuant to Senate Bill No. 108, the City of Fort Collins is eligible to apply for unlimited allocations from the Statewide balance beginning -10- October 15, 1985 September 1, 1985 for the remainder of the year, although there is no assurance that funds will be available during this period. As of October 1 there was a balance of $170 million in the State pool. This balance changes daily, and Jim Harmon will contact the Division of Local government for the current balance on October 15, prior to Council consideration of the item. Enclosed for your review is a copy of the application for the inducement of City of Fort Collins Colorado Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (Series 1985) for Mountain Avenue Associates, a Colorado General Partnership, in the amount of $600,000. The project consists of the acquisition, renovation and re -development of two buildings located at 126-136 West Mountain Avenue. The developing partnership intends to return the store fronts of the buildings to their original appearance and create a covered pedestrian accessway from Mountain Avenue to the parking lot on the north. A landscaped plaza will be developed as well. The streetscape will be changed to incorporate trees and new sidewalk treatments. 2,400 square feet of new, luxury office space will be created in the rear building. In total, approximately 10,000 square feet of main level space and 3,000 square feet of lower level space will be renovated. Based on existing leases and letters of intent the project is 67 percent leased or pre -leased at this time. The project has applied to the Downtown Development Authority for assistance in rehabilitating the alley. Enclosed also is a copy of the comments which the Planning Department has with regard to the project. Staff has reviewed the application using criteria established by Resolution 84-92, adopting Industrial Development Revenue Bond Policies and Criteria. The IDRB Criteria Evaluation Sheet is also enclosed. IDRB CRITERIA EVALUATION APPLICANT: Mountain Avenue Associates PROJECT: Mountain Avenue Associates AMOUNT REQUESTED: $600,000 Points Total Maximum Earned Multiplier Points Points CREATION OF JOBS Amt. of Debt Issued/Job 2 Types of Jobs 2 -11- October 15, 1985 Job Market 2 1 2 2 Annual Payroll 2 4 8 8 Sub -Total 14 14 INCREASE IN TAX BASE Assessed Value 2 4 8 8 Gross Sales/ Sales Tax 2 2 4 4 Sub -Total 12 12 STIMULATION - BUSINESS INVESTMENT Construction Value 0 2 0 4 Export Sales 0 4 0 8 Domestic Expen. 2 4 8 8 Sub -Total g 20 COMPLEMENT TO EXISTING PROGRAMS & FACILITIES Consistency 2 1 2 2 Community Resp. 2 4 8 8 Sub -Total 10 10 FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY Debt Coverage 1 4 4 8 Net Worth 2 2 4 4 Sub -Total 8 12 TOTAL POINTS CRITERIA 52 68 BONUS POINTS Downtown Revitalization yes 5 5 Historic Preservation yes 4 4 Energy Conservation no 0 10 Financial Guarantees yes 3 3 Targeted Industries no 0 10 Sub -Total 12 32 TOTAL POINTS 64 100 " Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to adopt Resolution 85-189. -12- October 15, 1985 Tom Metier, attorney representing the applicant, introduced Ted Davis who spoke to the ownership of the buildings in question. Mr. Davis spoke to the vacancy rate in the downtown area and noted the project was not speculative and was largely pre -leased. The vote on Councilmember Stoner's motion to adopt Resolution 85-189 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance Relating to the Issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, Series 1985, in the Principal Amount of $1,350,000 for the Purpose of Loaning Funds to J&E Enterprises to Finance the Alpine Manufacturing Inc Project Adopted on First Reading, Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "Executive Summary The Ordinance provides for the issuance of $1,350,000 in Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, 1985, for J & E Enterprises for the purpose of financing improvements related to acquiring, developing, constructing and equipping an office and manufacturing building (the Alpine Manufacturing, Inc. Project). Background On October 1, 1985 City Council approved Resolution 85-170, setting forth the intention of the City of Fort Collins to issue industrial development revenue bonds in the amount of $1,750,000 for J & E Enterprises, the Alpine Manufacturing, Inc. Project. Since the time of the Inducement Resolution, the applicant has reduced the amount of their request to $1,350,000. On October 4, 1985, the City applied to the Statewide Balance for allocation of $1,350,000 for this project. The applicant is now requesting authority to issue the bonds. Bond proceeds will be used for the purpose of acquiring, developing, constructing and equipping a 50,000 square foot office, distribution and light manufacturing building. The building will be leased to and occupied by Alpine Manufacturing, Inc., which manufactures and markets plastic and metal components for the electronics and computer industry. The project is located within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area, approximately one half mile north of Highway 14 and just west of Summitview Drive." Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to adopt Ordinance No. 130, 1985 on' First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. -13- October 15, 1985 THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution Making an Appointment to the Zoning Board of Appeals Adopted Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "A vacancy currently exists on the Zoning Board of Appeals due to the resignation of Leonard Szopinski. The Council liaison has conducted interviews for the vacancy. A recommendation for the appointment will be forwarded under separate cover." Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to adopt Resolution 85-190 inserting the names of Lloyd Walker and Jane Thede as the regular members and Dave Lawton and Mark Leis as the alternate members. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED City Manager's Report Interim City Manager Rich Shannon reported on the progress on the H.E.L.P. Program. Recess Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to recess the meeting until 7:30 p.m. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Secretary's note: Councilmember Horak was not in attendance until 8:30 p.m. Citizen Participation A. Proclamation Naming November 4-10 as Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Week was accepted by a representative of United Veterans Service Organizations of Colorado. B. Proclamation Naming October 21-27 as SCA Week was accepted by Terri Foppe; 612 Whedbee, and other members of SCA. C. Proclamation for World Peace Day on October 24 was forwarded to the appropriate persons. -14- October 15, 1985 D. Presentation of Plaque to the Fort Collins Police Department for Fort Collins' Participation in the 1984 DUI Enforcement Program. Paul Helzer, Colorado Department of Highway Safety presented the plaque to Division Chief Dave Feldman and Lt. C.J. Davis. E. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to John E. Arnold for His Service as City Manager. Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to adopt Resolution 85-191. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. (Councilmember Horak absent). THE MOTION CARRIED. City Manager John Arnold expressed his appreciation and thanks for the honor. Appeal of Fire Board of Appeals' (Building Board of Appeals) Action Concerning Indoor Fireworks Displays, Fire Board of Appeals' Decision Reversed Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "Executive Summary On August 6, 1985 the Fire Board of Appeals overruled a Fire Authority decision to deny Fort Ram, a local nightclub, a permit to conduct nightly indoor fireworks displays. This is a policy issue which transcends the technical requirements of the Fire Code, and as such, should be considered by Council. Allowing these displays produces a hazard we cannot control with our existing resource level and which may conflict with other City policies. We believe that it would be impractical to develop and enforce regulations that may not be effective in insuring the safety of patrons and employees. We expect enforcement problems would multiply if these displays were to be used in other nightclubs. Background After our discovery of this illegal use of fireworks, a violation of Section 78.102(B) of the Fire Code, during a routine bar inspection on July 13, 1985, representatives of Fort Ram indicated their desire to obtain a public display permit. In researching this issue, our staff observed a small display during the day and a full display at night, reviewed the information supplied by Fort Ram, and contacted experts at several State and Federal agencies, as well as other fire departments. This research found that the display would only be safe if an extensive set of precautions were taken and enforced. Informal opinions of several experts 21611 F ... -, , . October 15, 1985 confirmed our belief that these devices were not appropriate for indoor use on the scale that Fort Ram proposed. This research culminated in our refusal of a permit on July 30, 1985, and Fort Ram's initiation of an appeal to the Fire Board of Appeals. On August 6, 1985, the Fire Board of Appeals met to hear both our reasons for denial of the permit request and Fort Ram's case for reversal. After hearing testimony, the Board witnessed a small display during the day at the Fort Ram building. At that time they directed our staff to promulgate regulations for the indoor display and to issue a permit. Reasons for Denial of the Permit Request Fireworks Are Unsafe - Because of the inherent hazards of fireworks, all use of fireworks are prohibited within the City. While our local fire and injury experience has not been as severe as other jurisdictions without similar restrictions, we continue to have fireworks injuries and fires. Fort Ram has presented no evidence that the proposed displays are not fireworks, or that they are not dangerous --- only that safety is enhanced if proper precautions are followed. Regulations - The Fire Board of Appeals stipulated that the Fire Authority develop regulations to permit safe indoor displays. Our experience with crowd -control and hazardous substances control in the past has not been favorable; and with the number of people involved, the frequency of the displays, and the nature of the occupancy, the odds of a mishap or injury almost guarantee an adverse incident. Even with a uniformed firefighter at each performance, it would be impossible to insure complete safety. Health Hazards - When the fireworks devices ignite, they produce a quantity of visible smoke and unseen products of combustion. The chemicals used in the devices are potassium nitrate, strontium nitrate, and magnesium powder. In cooperation with the Larimer County Health Department, we have obtained a NIOSH (National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health) study which indicates that similar pyrotechnic theatrical devices contribute to illnesses similar to bronchitis. Our research also shows that the use of magnesium in fireworks devices is prohibited by the U. S. Consumer Safety Products Commission. In this case Fort Ram may be able to keep the level of health hazard within tolerable ranges, but we cannot predict the effects due to accidents, or the effect of the small amounts generated on people who have respiratory ailments or a higher sensitivity to these chemicals. This concern is also echoed by Larimer County Health Department (see attached statement). Public Assembly Problems - Public assembly buildings such as large dance halls, nightclubs, and restaurants, pose unique fire protection problems. These include overcrowding, darkness, excessive noise, and the possible impairment of occupants due to overuse of alcohol. The -16- October 15, 1985 Fire Code also prohibits the use of open flames, except for food preparation or under special approval of the Chief. The fireworks display proposed by Fort Ram produces an open flame and flash. It has been our practice to allow open flame use only under limited circumstances, such as theatrical performances. Liability - Allowing these displays with the knowledge that there is a potential for injury or damage that we have only limited ability to control, may subject us to lawsuits if an injury or damage were to occur. We are seeing more cases where public agencies are being involved in legal action, due to their reluctance to enforce or adopt public safety codes. (See opinion by City Risk Manager.) Conclusion While the Fire Code prescribes regulations for many hazardous situations, it in no way binds us to allow a needless hazardous situation to exist, when it is within our power to maintain the degree of public safety we now enjoy. Poudre Fire Authority as an enforcement agency, cannot effectively regulate these displays, and their use is contrary to other City policies and Fire Code requirements. Representatives of Fort Ram have indicated that these displays greatly enhance their business and that it is common practice in other jurisdictions. We have found no other fire departments that endorse these types of displays. (See statement from Denver Fire Department). We do not believe Fort Ram has demonstrated that the displays are safe under all foreseeable conditions. Poudre Fire Authority requests that Council reverse the Fire Board of Appeals decision to grant a permit and support the Fire Marshal's original decision to deny such a permit." Poudre Fire Authority Chief John Mulligan stated the reasons for the appeal and asked that Council overturn the Fire Board of Appeals decision. Ramsey Myatt, attorney representing Fort Ram, introduced Kevin Sheesley, manager, and Tre Prater, assistant manager, and described the display and the safety measures taken. He stressed the display was a light display rather than a fireworks display and that no incidents of any kind have occurred since they were begun. He spoke of the substantial financial impact the displays have made on business at Fort Ram and asked Council to uphold the Fire Board of Appeals decision. Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to reverse the decision of the Fire Board of Appeals and deny the permit for the pyrotechnic display at Fort Ram: Councilmember Knezovich noted the Code clearly prohibits fireworks. He felt this display fell under the definition of fireworks and that the Code should be upheld. -17- October 15, 1985 Councilmember Clarke expressed concern about the danger and fumes in the flash powder used in the displays. He felt Fort Ram had other options to get the same effects. Councilmember Stoner noted the Fire Board of Appeals had voted 5-0 to allow the displays after an on -site visual inspection. He felt rules could be promulgated to insure the safety of Fort Ram patrons and that the Fire Board Authority decision should be sustained with additional liability coverage. Councilmember Estrada expressed safety and health concerns and noted he would vote against allowing the displays. The vote on Councilmember Knezovich's motion to reverse the Fire Board Appeals decision was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Knezovich, Rutstein. Nays: Stoner and Ohlson. (Councilmember Horak absent) THE MOTION CARRIED. (Secretary's Note: Councilmember Horak returned to the meeting at this point.) Resolution Accepting an Agreement for Performance of Professional Services of an Executive Search Firm to Locate a new City Manager Adopted Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "This Resolution authorizes the Mayor to enter into an agreement with an executive search firm to recruit candidates for the City Manager position and participate in the selection process. The resolution authorizes a separate agreement which details the duties and responsibilities of the firm and sets up a time table for completion of the search. A sub -committee of the Council will review the proposals, interview the firms and recommend one to the full Council. The resolution names the search firm that the full Council agrees on and authorizes a specific fee and the maximum expenses that the City will incur. These figures will vary depending on which firm is selected." Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to adopt Resolution 85-192 inserting the name of Jensen-Oldani at a cost of $13,500 plus reasonable expenses not to exceed $6,000. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich; Ohlson, Rutstein and Stoner. Yeas: None. _ THE MOTION CARRIED. -18 October 15, 1985 Resolution Appointing a Citizen's Advisory Panel for the City Manager Search Adopted Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "This Resolution appoints a panel of citizens to participate in the City Manager selection process. The members of the panel will be selected by the Mayor with input from the members of the Council. Council expects to appoint a panel of 7 members who will participate in the development of the profile.for the successful candidate and in the final interview process. Following interviews with the final candidates, each panel member will provide a written report to the Council on their perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate and how well they meet the requirements of the position profile." Mayor Rutstein announced the following names selected for the panel Dick Suinn David Neenan Sue Walston Ernie Chavez Barbara Dean Alan Apt Ann Azari Ron Walling Ruth Rumley Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to amend the Resolution in the fifth Whereas to add the phrase "and their individual relative ranking of these finalists" after the words "strengths and weaknesses of the finalists". Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to adopt Resolution 85-193 inserting the names as read by Mayor Rutstein and as amended by Councilmember Knezovich. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to hold a call -in forum and a Public Hearing on October 22 at 7:30 p.m. to gain public input on the City Manager selection process and profile development process. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Ohlson, Rutstein and Stoner. Nays: None. (Councilmember Knezovich abstained) THE MOTION CARRIED. -19- October 15, 1985 Resolution Authorizing the Expenditure of Funds for the Dissemination of Information on the Corridor Adopted as Amended Following is the staff memorandum on this item: "On September 17th, Council authorized the expenditure of $999 for the dissemination of information on the Corridor. An additional S3000 is requested at this time to cover expenses including printing of a brochure, a four ,page feature in.the Triangle, production of a cable cast call -in program and slides for Council talks to service clubs and other organizations. It is the intent to provide a variety of useful public information, to reach as many potential voters as possible, and to stimulate informed discussions." Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to adopt Resolution 85-194. Interim City Manager Shannon stated the $3,000 would cover the remainder of the direct expenses associated with this issue. He noted the funds for staff time were budgeted and did not need to be authorized but would be disclosed after time sheets have been calculated. Sherry Furuli, 2355 Hampshire, noted her opposition to the use of City funds for the brochure. Jim Woodward, 430 Garfield, felt there was no need for the brochure since the information was available from other sources. He asked that expenditures be limited to the money already authorized. Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, noted he found the brochures objectionable. John Deland, 400 South Grant, noted his opposition to this expenditure and felt the tone of the brochure was in favor of the purchase rather than objective. Councilmember Clarke noted he felt a four page feature in the Triangle was overkill and that the broadcast of the Sierra Club call -in forum and the slide presentation could be funded for less than $3,000. He suggested another $999 might be'authorized. Councilmember Ohlson pointed out that the decision had been made not to broadcast the Sierra Club debate. Councilmember Horak asked why the Sierra Club did not want their call -in debate broadcast. Acting Community Development Director Linda Hopkins replied that the Sierra Club had not yet requested the use of any of the City's call -in equipment. -20- October 15, 1985 Councilmember Horak suggested something be worked out with the Sierra Club to at least be able to rebroadcast their debate if not televise it live. Councilmember Horak suggested another $500 be authorized to allow the printing of a few additional brochures and to fund the taping and rebroadcast of the Sierra Club debate. Councilmembers Ohlson and Stoner agreed the $500 was a friendly amendment to their original motion. The vote on Councilmember Ohlson's motion to adopt Resolution 85-194 as amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, and Stoner. Nays: Mayor Rutstein. THE MOTION CARRIED. Items Pertaining to the Revision of Chapter 3A of the City Code Tabled to November 5 Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "Executive Summary A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 1985, Repealing & Re-enacting Chapter 3A of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Regarding Appeals Procedure. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 1985, Making Changes ,to the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Bring Various Chapters of the Code in Conformity with Chapter 3A. The procedure for appeals to City Council from the decisions of certain boards and commissions of the City is contained in Chapter 3A of the City Code. In order to remove some existing ambiguities and inconsistencies and to expound upon the desired procedure for appeal, a revision of Chapter 3A is being proposed. In addition, Council is being asked to consider complementary changes in other chapters of the Code that relate to the affected boards and commissions, so that all references within the Code to a right of appeal will incorporate the procedure described in Chapter 3A. Background The proposed revision to Chapter 3A of the City Code is designed to clarify and to some extent, change —,the procedure for taking appeals to City Council. In addition to removing some existing ambiguities and inconsistencies, the intent of -the revisions is to leave as much discretion and authority as possible with the respective boards and commissions and to discourage any potential abuse of the appeals process by prospective appellants, while still affording Council the right of review and final decision. -21- October 15, 1985 The following comments pertain not only to the proposed revisions to Chapter 3A of the Code but also to suggested revisions of certain other sections of the Code pertaining to the affected boards and commissions. Modifications have been made and, in some instances, language added so as to provide internal consistency within the Code, that is, all references to a right of appeal will specifically incorporate the provisions of Chapter 3A. One affected board or commission for which no revision has been suggested is the Landmark Preservation Commission. It should be noted that additional language in Chapter 69 pertaining to this Commission will be submitted to the Council for later consideration. This delay is due to the fact that other unrelated changes to this same Chapter are presently under consideration by staff, and it is the consensus of staff that all changes to the Chapter should be submitted for Council's consideration at the same time. The following comments are organized according to the respective sections of the Code. Changes which appear self evident are not addressed in this summary. Instead, those changes are highlighted which may be less evident from Council's review of the proposed Ordinance itself. Chapter 3A APPEALS PROCEDURE {3A-1. Certain appeals to be taken to City Council. The boards and commissions from which an appeal may be taken to City Council are those which function in a quasi-judicial capacity. The Parks and Recreation Board, which is included in the existing ordinance, has been deleted, since its function is advisory in nature. The Fire Board of Appeals has been added to the list. The advisability of including the Building Board of Appeals and Fire Board of Appeals has been the subject of some debate among staff, since the subject matter with which they deal is highly technical. Nonetheless, our conclusion is that they should be included in order to afford an administrative review of their decisions as an alternative to court action. {3A-2. Definitions. The definition of "party -in -interest" does not include members of staff. It should be noted, however, that in the companion revisions of the individual sections of the Code referring to the Building Board of Appeals and Fire Board of Appeals, the chief building official and fire chief have been given standing to appeal matters that affect public safety. Their inclusion as parties who may appeal the decisions of those particular boards is based upon the premise that, in matters that may adversely affect public safety, the heads of these departments should have some administrative recourse and, once again, should not be . in the awkward position of having to bring suit against the board. 22- October 15, 1985 2. A definition of "new evidence" has been added which distinguishes changes in the proposal itself from bona fide new considerations regarding the acceptability of the proposal. The type of new evidence which may constitute grounds for appeal is further clarified in the following section. (3A-3. Appeal of final decision permitted. This section recites the grounds upon which an appeal may be taken and divides those grounds into two categories: various types of error and "new evidence," as defined above. Such evidence must not have been available at the time of the initial hearing and must be relevant to the reasons for the decision of the board or commission. (3A-10. Procedure at the hearing. Council's deliberation is divided into two parts: a consideration of the purported grounds for appeal and, if the grounds are sufficient, a decision on the merits. If any portion of the grounds is new evidence, the matter will automatically be referred back to the board or commission. (3A-11. Alternative actions available to Council. If no new evidence is offered by the appellant, the alternatives available to Council would still include upholding, overturning or modifying the decision of the board or commission. If no new evidence exists, however, the alternative of returning the matter to the board or commission would be eliminated. The reason for this recommendation is that there seems to be no point in returning the matter to the board or commission if nothing has changed since their review of the matter. Instead, it seems appropriate at that point for Council to exercise its own discretion and substitute its judgment regarding the merits of the application or proposal. "Companion" Code Sections Chapter 2, Article 1V, (2-13 (Planning and Zoning Board) The existing language merely refers to Council's power to overrule decisions of the board. The revised language refers to the right of Council to review such decisions. This change would authorize the other alternative actions available to Council. Additionally, reference is made to the appeals procedure described in Chapter 3A. Chapter 38, (38-2, Sec. 204(h) (Building Board of Appeals) This section is added so that reference to the right -of -appeal to Council is included within the Code provisions pertaining to the Uniform Building Code as well as in Chapter 3A itself. As indicated above, the chief building official is included as a party who has standing to appeal a decision which, in his judgment, adversely affects public safety. -23- October 15, 1985 Chapter 64, (64-26 (Building Board of Appeals) This section refers to the procedure for appealing an action of the building official to the Building Board of Appeals in the first instance. The purpose of this revision is to correct an error in the existing reference to the particular Code section which describes this appeal process. Chapter 50, (50-4 (Fire Board of Appeals) The existing Code provision provides a period of 15 days within which an appeal from the Fire Board may be taken, which period of time is inconsistent with Chapter 3A. This longer period of time has been deleted from the existing ordinance through the revision and, once again, the fire chief has been given standing to appeal certain decisions. Chapter 73, (73-119 (Building Contractor Licensing Board) No reference to a right of appeal from the Building Contractor Licensing Board presently exists within this chapter. A new paragraph is added to conform to the provisions of Chapter 3A. Chapter 93, (93-5 (Storm Drainage Board) Reference in this section to the right of appeal from the Storm Drainage Board to City Council was repealed in 1982, although this board was still included in Chapter 3A as a board from which an appeal may be taken. A paragraph affording the right of appeal is inserted again in order to be internally consistent within the Code. Also, the kinds of decisions which may be appealed from this board are limited to those which are authorized under two particular paragraphs of the code, since it is only at these times when the board is acting in a quasi-judicial, rather than an advisory, capacity. Chapter 118, Article 2 (118-21 (Zoning Board of Appeals) This paragraph adds the right of appeal to Council to this section." Due to the lateness of the hour, Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to table Ordinance No. 131, 1985 and Ordinance No. 132, 1985 on First Reading until November 5. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. -24- t October 15, 1985 Ordinance Authorizing the Issuance of $9,000,000 Sales and Use Tax Revenue Bond Anticipation Notes for the Pool/Rink Project and Appropriating the Proceeds, Adooted on First Reading Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "Executive Summary This Ordinance provides the financing for the Pool/Rink Project approved by voters May 1, 1984. The. Sales and Use Tax Revenues Bond Anticipation Notes (BAN) sale was negotiated with United Bank of Fort Collins and their correspondent, Morgan Guarantee Trust Company of New York at 68% of Morgan's Prime Interest Rate to be adjusted as the Prime Interest Rate changes. Currently prime is at 9.5% resulting in an interest rate on the BAN of 6.46%. The BAN is due in five years. Background Staff approached United Bank of Fort Collins to provide an interim line of credit for the project while permanent financing was being prepared. United Bank's Correspondent expressed a desire to make a proposal on the permanent financing and was given permission to do so. Morgan presented the City with a very favorable interest rate and no fee, other than out-of-pocket legal expenses. By issuing the BAN the City saves a substantial amount of issuance expenses by not having to prepare official statements, printing bonds, and legal expenses connected with the official statements. ' The interfund loan from the Water Fund established to allow the project to proceed in August will be repaid with interest and then cancelled. The Ordinance also appropriates the proceeds of the BAN in the Capital Projects Fund for the project." Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to adopt Ordinance No. 133, 1985 on First Reading. Councilmember Knezovich asked what growth percentages were used to make the sales and use tax projections. Interim City Manager Shannon replied 5% for 1985, 5% for 1986, and 8% for the subsequent three years. Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, expressed concern about the variable interest rates in the BAN. Finance Director Jim Harmon ..responded that the scenario proposed was the most competitive rate offered to the City. -25- October 15, 1985 The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to adopt Ordinance No•133, 1985 on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution Directing the City Manager to Award Final Bid Packages and Continue with Construction on the Indoor Pool/Ice Arena Adopted Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "Executive Summary All major bid packages (except some capital tools/equipment/furnishings) have been received. Current figures indicate the facility can be constructed as designed within the project budget. There are items from the capital equipment list which are not being recommended for purchase at this time, thus increasing the contingency. The budget is $7,998,040 with a contingency of $801,960, totalling $8,800,000. This information supports continuation of the project as currently proposed. (See Attachment 1) Background On July 2, the Council directed the Staff to modify the project bids scheduling for the Indoor Pool/Ice Arena. This modification included delaying the awarding of the footings/foundations/structural steel bid packages until the Council had an opportunity to review the Project further. This review would occur on August 6, 1985. The bid packages that had already been received--overlot grading, utilities, bridge, site concrete, paving, door frames, and brick were to continue. On August 6, the Council authorized the awarding of bids for the footings/foundations/structural steel and continuing the Project as planned. The Council would review the final major bids - -architectural, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, landscaping, and capital tools and equipment --before authorizing Staff to proceed into final phases of construction. CONSTRUCTION BIDS: The bids received on October 4, 1985 were very favorable. The projected costs were $4,736,170 and the received bids were $4,646,473 providing a savings of $89,697. The Staff expects further savings by reviewing the construction bids for items that can be deleted without substantially altering the quality. An example is the sheet rock bid, higher than expected. A review of the plans indicates some areas (like the mechanical space) may, not require that type of wall or ceiling finish. Total savings from these types of negotiations are estimated at $75,000. W.I:1 October 15, 1985 Some of the savings in the project have been offset by increased utility/site costs and Development Fees. PROJECT CONTINGENCY: There have been no significant changes to the construction portion of the budget since the last major review in August. There remains, however, the potential to increase the project contingency by delaying (and possibly deleting) the purchase of some of the capital equipment/tools and office equipment. Items that had previously been listed include: 8/6 10/15 1. Transferring payment $133,600 $164,500 of development fees 2. Office equipment $ 21,300 $ 26,000 3. Capital Tools & Equipment $396,100 $191,325 4. Elevator Equipment $ 35,000 $ 23,000 5. Ceramic Tile on $ 45,000 N/A Pool Deck $631,000 $404,825 The Staff recommendation is to enlarge the Contingency as much as possible. This could be done by: (See Attachment 2) 1 - Work to reduce the current bids by $75,000 2 - Defer the purchase of many capital tools/ equipment to September 1986 $187,425 3 - Defer the purchase of some office equipment to September 1986 $ 26,000 TOTAL $288,425 Staff does not recommend delaying the elevator installation. The Contingency in Attachment A is shown at $801,960. For a project of this size, it is realistic to expect up to $420,000 of that to be needed for change orders during the course of construction. This represents about 5% of the project budget. Per the Capital Project Management Control System, any change order exceeding $20,000 will be reported to Council and anychange order exceeding $50,000 requires Council approval. SCHEDULE The projected "Substantial Completion" is January 28, 1987 and "Contract Completion" is March 31, 1987. This extension is due to the time delays in awarding the bid packages for footings/foundations/structural steel/ architectural/electrical and general trade items. -27- October 15, 1985 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE: Included as Attachment 3 is an updated statement for operation and maintenance. FINANCING: See Agenda Item on Pool/Ice Arena financing. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION We recommend 1. Proceeding as designed; 2. Authorizing the bid awards; 3. Delaying the purchasing of some capital tools/equipment and office furnishings; and 4. Reviewing the Contingency in September 1986 to: a) identify the use of some of the remaining funds for operation and maintenance; or b) authorize purchase of some capital tools/equipment and office furnishings; or c) continue to hold intact for further review." Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to adopt Resolution 85-195. Interim City Manager Shannon gave an update on the project and the various bid packages, noting they had come in approximately $100,000 under the estimates. He noted another $75,000 could be expected to be pared off the costs through negotiations. Luke Santangelo, 708 Smith, noted he was opposed to the proposed cut in seating and noted he felt the other proposed cuts would not impair the facility or its viability. Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, asked that further cuts be made to the project. John Wigdahl, 1548 Adriel Court, president of the Fort Collins Ice Skating Association, outlined plans for events at the ice arena. Lynn Rideout, 3183 Worthington, past secretary of the Fort Collins Ice Skating Association, expressed appreciation and thanks for the work that has gone into the project. Councilmember Knezovich stated his subsidy figures for the first five years on the complex amount to $1,938,117.34. October 15, 1985 Councilmember Horak noted he felt it was well worth the investment to have this facility for the community. The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to adopt Resolution 85-195 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmember Knezovich. THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Councilmember Ohlson pointed out that Council had earlier informally decided to delay the formal appointment of board and commission members for two weeks to allow public input on the prospective appointments. He asked that this process be used in the future. Mayor Rutstein noted the Colorado Municipal League was asking for representatives to their newly -formed Urban Issues Committee. Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to appoint Councilmembers Knezovich and Estrada as the City's representatives to the Urban Issues Committee. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Adjournment Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to adjourn the meeting to 6:30 p.m. on October 22. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. ATTEST: City Clerk -29- New �". ..a...