HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-08/07/1984-RegularAugust 7, 1984
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 5:30 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on
Tuesday, August 1, 1984, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the City
of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Coun-
cilmembers: Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, and Stoner.
Absent: Councilmember Rutstein.
Staff Members Present: Shannon, Eckman, Krajicek, Lewis, L. Hopkins, C.
Smith, Hays, P. Barnes.
Agenda Review: City Manager
' Deputy City Manager Shannon stated staff was requesting that Item #13,
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 1984, Transferring Funds
from the Rolland Moore Park Development Project to the Lee Martinez Park
Improvements Project for Farm Development, be removed from the Consent
Calendar for discussion. He asked that Item #19, Items Relating to the
Creation of Horsetooth Road Special Improvement District No. 83, be moved
to be considered as the last item on the agenda. He explained that some
signatures were still needed and that there was a possibility that this
item would be tabled for two weeks if the signatures were not received.
Councilmember Stoner requested that Item #10,'Hearing and First Reading of
Ordinance No. 99, 1984, Vacating a Portion of Tract E of the Vineyards
at Stonehenge, P.U.D., Filing One; Item #11, Hearing and First Reading of
Ordinance No. 100, 1984, Vacating the 5th Filing of Stonehenge P.U.D.; and
Item #12, Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 1984, Vacating a
Portion of Stonehenge P.U.D., Sixth Filing, be withdrawn from the Consent
Calendar.
Consent Calendar
This Calendar is intended
to allow
the City Council to spend its time and
energy on the important
items on
a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends
approval of the Consent
Calendar.
Anyone may request an item on this
'
calendar be "pulled" off the Consent
Agenda items pulled from the Consent
Calendar and considered separately.
Calendar will be considered separately
.6
August 7, 1984
under Agenda Item #27, 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 by staff or Council. These items will be dis-
cussed immediately following the Consent Calendar.
4. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 93, 1984, Annexing Approximately 80.0
Acres Known as the Graese Acres Annexation.
This ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 17.
The applicants, Norbert F. and Anita Belle Graese, are seeking to
annex approximately 80.0 acres of property located east of South Lemay
Avenue (County Road 13) and north of County Road 32. The annexation is
a voluntary annexation and achieves its one -sixth contiguity require-
ment through common boundaries with the Halcyon Annexation, the
Emerson Acres Annexation, and the Blehm Annexation.
5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 94, 1984, 12nin Approximately 80.0
Acres Known as the Graese cres nnexatton to the R- -P, Low Density
Planned Residential District.
This ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 17. '
The applicants, Norbert F. and Anita Belle Graese, are seeking to zone
approximately 80.0 acres of property located east of South Lemay
Avenue (County Road 13) and north of County Road 32, to the R-L-P, Low
Density Planned Residential, zoning district with a condition that all
development on the property be processed as a planned unit develop-
ment.
6. Second Readini of Ordinance No. 95, 1984, Appropriatin Parkland Funds
ro ea�ndesignated Reserves or a Handic� ayground at
Moore Park and New Play Equipment at Leisure Park.
This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 17 and
appropriates $10,000 to the handicap playground at Moore Park and
$10,000 for playground equipment at Leisure Park. Funds for these
projects are available from prior year reserves in the Parkland
Fund.
7. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 96, 1984, Vacating a
Portion of an Easement in the Replat of Lots 156, 157 and 158 of
A revision of building envelopes as approved in the second replat of
Lots 156, 157, and 158 of Parkwood East and Tract "B" of Parkwood East
Second Filing, requires a relocation of this easement. '
-70-
August 7, 1984
No utilities exist in this easement and provision is made in the
Second Replat for the utilities.
8. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 97, 1984, Vacating Ease-
ments ocated on Hi and of
Plan.
Council passed, on Second Reading, Ordinance 46, 1983, which was
intended to vacate these same easements through Hill Pond. Unfor-
tunately, either through a typographical error or misreading, one of
these easements was listed as being in Book 1627, Page 967 when it
should have read - Book 1627, Page 962.
This ordinance will, in fact, vacate the area originally intended to
be vacated by Ordinance No. 46, 1983.
9. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 98, 1984, Vacating Ease-
ments and Riqhts of Way on the Amended Plat of Rockwillow. a Multi -
The Planning and Zoning Board approved on May 30, 1984, a plat of
' Stuart Street Medical Park, a Planned Unit Development, which re-
places, in it's entirety, the Amended Plat of Rockwillow, a Multi -
Family P.U.D.
No utilities were placed in the easements provided by the former
plat. -
10. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 99, 1984, Vacating a
Portion of Tract E of the Vineyards at Stonehenge, P.U.D., Filing
One.
Tract E of Filing One was originally intended as the location of a
tennis court. The tennis court was relocated eastward in the approved
plat of The Vineyards at Stonehenge, Filing II, serving as a buffer
between Filing II and the original single family homes in Stonehenge.
11. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 100, 1984, Vacating the 5th
Filf q of Stonehenge P.U.D.
The Vineyards at Stonehenge, Filing II, recently approved by the
Planning and Zoning Board, replats the area of Stonehenge, Fifth
Filing, P.U.D. Therefore, vacation of the Fifth Filing is needed to
vacate public right-of-way and easements which will no longer be used
in the recorded locations, but will be relocated to serve lots created
' by the plat for The Vineyards at Stonehenge Filing II.
-71-
August 7, 1984 t
12. Hearin and First Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 1984, Vacating a
'o in tone enae P. ..Sixth Fi inn.
The Vineyards at Stonehenge, Filing II, recently approved by the
Planning and Zoning Board, replats the portion of Stonehenge Sixth
Filing, as described in this vacation.
13. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 1984, Transferring
Funds rommthe it�� oore ar eve opmel t roject to t��
nez varK Improvemen
In April 1981, Fort Collins' voters approved a $5,065,000 Community
Parks Bond Issue, intended for the completion, acquisition, and
improvement of community parks. The projects presented to the citi-
zens, along with their initial budget allocations, were as follows:
City Park Renovation (8 acres) $ 375,000
Edora Park Expansion (10 acres) 335,000
Land Acquisition for a future community park 660,000
Lee Martinez Farm Development 330,000 $460,000
Lee Martinez Park Improvements (10 acres) 130,000
Rolland Moore Park Development (68 acres) 3,195,000
Cost to Issue Bonds 40,000
$5,065,000
The initial budget allocations were based upon our original conceptual
planning estimates, and the necessity for establishing budgets for
accounting purposes. It was our intent to eventually transfer any
excess funds from one project to another, as the projects themselves
became more precisely defined. As of August 1, 1984, all of the above
named community park projects are complete, except for the Lee Mar-
tinez Farm, and the close-out of Rolland Moore Park.
Staff is requesting that Council authorize the transfer of $300,000
available in the Rolland Moore Park Development Project budget to the
Lee Martinez Park Improvement Project budget for construction of the
farm. Approval of this transfer will allow for construction of the
farm to begin this fall (probably September) with an anticipated
completion scheduled for late spring of 1985, pending weather -related
delays. Landscaping work will continue through 1985. The farm should
be open to the public in June 1985.
14. Items Relating to Vacation of a Right -of -Way in Southridge Greens.
a. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 1984, Vacating a
42 Foot Wide Right of Way in Southridge Greens Phase One.
b. Dedication of 54 Foot Wide Replacement Right -of -Way.
-72-
August 7, 1984
Subsequent filings in Southridge Greens have required a realignment of
Greenridge Lane (later changed to Southridge Greens Boulevard) -to meet
City minimum design standards. Therefore, a wider right-of-way than
originally planned is required.
This ordinance vacates the original 42 foot right-of-way, and a new 54
foot right-of-way is being dedicated to replace the area vacated by
this ordinance.
15. Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into an Amendment to the
Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County Relating to Library
services PnT ecT�to ef�si ena timer ounty.
Due to an error made in computing the number of cardholders from the
unincorporated areas of Larimer County who use the municipal librar-
ies, the Library Services Agreement in effect for 1984 needs to be
amended. The number of patrons using the Fort Collins Public Library
in 1984 was estimated at 18,293. It has since been determined that the
correct estimate of the number of such patrons is 9,677.
This error has resulted in an underpayment to Estes Park and an
overpayment to Fort Collins and Loveland. The effect on the City of
Fort Collins is to reduce the total amount due from the County to the
City from $87,806 to $77,952. Thus, there is a decrease in the amount
of money that the City will receive from the County for providing
library services to residents of the unincorporated areas of the
County in 1984 in the amount of $9,854.
16. Resolution Authorizin the Exchan e of Real Estate to Accommodate the
onstruction o t e im er ine rospect Intersection ro7ect.
The Timberline/Prospect Intersection project is the first step toward
bringing the intersection up to arterial street standards.
The consideration for the agreement is based on an exchange of a .9
acre City tract (property not needed by Light and Power for the
Timberline/ Prospect Substation) for a .9 acre parcel of land owned by
Calvin Johnson needed for Timberline Road and bridge, and the Spring
Creek Drainage Channel. In addition to the exchange, the City will
relocate the existing buildings to a site contiguous to the parcel
taken. This is necessary since the realignment of Spring Creek would
destroy the buildings. The estimated cost of $14,000 to accomplish
the relocation is less expensive than purchasing the buildings.
Light and Power will be compensated
' exchange from the Timberline/Prospect
the fair market value appraised price
-73-
for their participation in this
Intersection Project budget at
of $1.25/sq. ft.
August 7, 1984
17. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Intergovern-
mental Agreement with the State Department of Highways Providing for
the Maintenance of Traffic Signs and Signals Within the City.
The State of Colorado currently reimburses the City of Fort Collins
for the maintenance of traffic signs and signals on the state highways
within the city limits at the rate of $135/month per traffic signal
and $840/mile/year for traffic signing. This rate was established in
the City/ State contract dated July 6, 1982.
The State Legislature has adopted a new maintenance rate to be applied
equally to all cities. The new rate is $237 per traffic signal. The
City currently operates 33 traffic signals on State highways within
the City. In the next two years it is anticipated that three more
signals will be added to this contract.
18. Routine Deeds and Easements.
The following are routine deeds and easements which have been reviewed
and approved by the affected staff and legal department.
a. Five easements for the Foothills Water Transmission System Phase
IV, which is the final part of a four -phased project to provide
more reliable service and fire protection within the west side
pressure zone. Construction is scheduled for September. The
easements are summarized as follows:
1) Deed of Easement from James E. and Rosie C. Walker Consider-
ation: $676 (based on 33e per square foot.
2) Deed of Easement from Wilbur and Jerre Sue Vos. Consideration:
$817.81 (based on 33¢ per square foot).
3) Deed of Easement from Thomas W. Hyland. Consideration:
$716.16 (based on 204 per square foot).
4) Deed of Easement from Kathryn C. Wallis. Consideration: $109
(based on 64 per square foot).
5) Deed of Easement from Ella J. Glantz. Consideration: $1,154
(based on 64 per square foot-T.
b. Easements from Edward and Mark Mullaney for dedication of a 20
foot right-of-way and a 25 foot embankment easement, along the
south side of Prospect Road from Shields Street west to the east
boundary of the amended plat of Victoria Lakes P.UD. Investwest,
-74-
1 August 7, 1984
the developer of Victoria Lakes P.U.D., has purchased the right-
of-way and embankment easement for the widening of Prospect Road
from their property to Shields Street, to coincide with the
widening of Prospect Road (along Investwest's property) from the
Mullaney property to Heatheridge. This will allow construction to
proceed this season. The project will provide some much needed
relief for a congested area.
c. Dedication by the City of a 20 foot easement for fire access in
Southridge Greens. The Fire Authority requires two points of
access to a subdivision. Greenridge at Southridge Greens P.U.D.
has only one point of access on Southridge Greens Boulevard. This
access, across City -owned property, will provide the second point
of access to Greenridge at Southridge Greens P.U.D.
Ordinance on Second Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #4. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 93, 1984, Annexing Approximately
80.0 Acres Known as the Graese Acres Annexation.
' Item #5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 94, 1984, Zonin Approximately
80.0 Gres Known as the raese Acres nnexation to t e ow
Density Planned Residential District.
Item #6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 95, 1984, Appropriating Parkland
Funds from Prior -Year Undesignated Reserves for a Handicap
Playground at Moore Park and New Play Equipment at Leisure
dark.
Ordinance on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #7. Hearing and First Readi,of Ordinance No. 96, 1984, Vacating a
>so�tion of an asement in t e Replat of Lots 6 , anted 15 f
ar wood East and of Fact B, Par wood East Second Fi ing.
Item #8. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 97, 1984, Vacati
Easements Located on Hill Pond Master Plan.
Item #9. Hearing and First Readin of Ordinance No. 98, 1984, Vacating
asements and ig�its of ay on t e me�>5 aT ooci a
Item #10. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 99, 1984, Vacati
Portion of Tract E of the Vineyards at Stonehenge. P.U.D.. Fi
-75-
0
August 7, 1984
Item #11. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 100, 1984, Vacating
the 5th Filing Stonehenge P.U.D.
Item #12. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 1984, Vacating a
Portion of Stonehenge P.U.D., Sixi Filing.
Item #13. Hearin and First %adin of Ordinance No. 102, 1984, Trans -
erring unds from t e o and Moore Par Deve opment Project to
the Lee Martinez Park Improvements Project for Farm Development.
Item #14. A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 1984, Va-
cating a 42 Foot Wide Right of Way in Southrid a Greens Phase
ne.
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson,
to adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar.
Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, and
Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Public Hearing and Items Relating to
FY 1984-85 Community Development
Block Grant Programs and Projects
Funded by Program Income from the
1982-83 and 1983-84 CDBG Program Year
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"A. Resolution Adopting FY 1984-85 Community Development Block Grant
Program.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 104, 1984, Appropriating
Unanticipated Revenue in the Community Development Block Grant Fund.
C. Resolution Approving Reprogrammed Funds from the 1983-84 Community
Development Block Grant Program For Use During 1984-85 Program Year.
D. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 1984, Appropriating
Unanticipated Revenue in the Community Development Block Grant Fund.
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program is an ongoing grant
program funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) and administered by the City of Fort Collins. Fort Collins is an '
Entitlement recipient in HUD's CDBG Program and will receive $798,000 for
-76-
IAugust 7, 1984
the 1984-85 CDBG Program Year. Each year the City Council adopts a resolu-
tion which details the program and projects that will be funded during the
coming Federal Year.
The City's Community Development Block Grant Program administration
office placed legal advertisements in the Coloradoan during the month of
May, 1984 to solicit requests for programs and projects to be funded by the
$798,000. The City received the following requests for funds totalling
$1,730,343.92.
Applicant
Project
Request
1)
Housing Authority
Affordable Housing
$ 150,000
Energy & Landscaping
60,000
2)
Housing Authority
& Neighbor -to-
In -Fill Project
Neighbor
Phase II
191,000
3)
Herb Carlson
Affordable Housing
Low-Income/Handicapped
141,000
Rehabilitation
62,000
'
4)
DMA Plaza, Inc.
Covered Parking
48,000
5)
Commission on
Architectural Barrier
Disability
Removal Program
20,000
6)
Carolyn Goodwin
Bennett House
7,870
7)
Poudre Fire Auth.
Smoke Detectors
5,000
8)
Core Area
West Side Neighborhood
Neighborhood
Plan
25,000
Neighborhood
Revitalization
17,880
9)
Chamber of Commerce
Target Industries
Revolving Loan
75,000
10)
Poudre River Trust
Area Plan & Feasibility
Study
30,000
11)
Larimer Community
Larimer Community
Services, Inc.
Services Building
115,038
12)
Sunshine School, Inc.
Land Acquisition
& Development
92,469
-77-
August 7, 1984 '
13) Larico Youth Homes Treatment Facility 12,132
14) Community Rehab. Community Loan Closet
Service for Larimer for Neurologically
County Impaired 38,806
15) Home Helps, Inc. Home Health Care 25,183
16) Neighbor -to -Neighbor Housing Production
Assoc. Training 62,817
Housing Counseling 17,914
17) Handicapped Infor- Independent Living
mation Office Skills/Employment 17,167.92
18) Public Works Dept./ Bus Shelters 9,525
Engineering Services Handicapped Access.
for Library Park 40,800
Other City Facilities 25,000
Elm Street Improvement
-Wood to Loomis 78,000
19) City of Fort Collins Housing Rehabilitation 165,000
CDBG Housing Rehabilitation '
-Administration 62,903
CDBG Program - Admin. 134,884
TOTAL $1,730,343.92
Copies of the above applications were forwarded to City Council for review.
On Wednesday, July 11, and Thursday, July 12, 1984, the CDBG Citizens
Steering Committee met for the purpose of listening to each applicant who
had submitted proposals for CDBG funds. This gave each applicant an
opportunity to further explain their proposal in person to the Committee.
The meetings offered an excellent opportunity for applicants to clarify
their proposals and for the Committee to ask questions.
On July 18th, the CDBG Steering Committee met to formulate a recommendation
to the City Council.
A list was formulated of proposed projects and. projected use of CDBG
Entitlement funds. The Committee analyzed all written requests and deter-
mined low, medium and high priorities. The Committee then selected the
projects and programs determined to be consistent with the City's CDBG
Policies Plan; to have the most benefit to the City's three neighborhood
strategy areas; and best fit the three national objectives. After a
complete review of each recommended project; the Steering Committee .
voted unanimously to formulate the following recommendations:
'�Z•L
...,;,.,., .....ram. _ . _I ..
1
Applicant
Program/
Project
Commission on
Architectural
Disability
Barrier Removal
Housing Authority/
Neighbor -to-
In -Fill Project
Neighbor
Phase II
Neighbor -to-
Housing Prod.
Neighbor
Assoc. Training
Neighbor -to -
Neighbor
Housing Counseling
Housing Auth. Affordable Housing
Handicapped Independent Living
Information Off. Skills/Employment
Poudre River Area Plan
Trust
August 7, 1984
Funding Funding
Request Recommendation
$ 20,000
191,000
62,817
17,914
150,000
17,168
30,000
Core Area Neighborhood
Neighborhood Revitalization 17,880
City of Ft.
Collins CDBG Administration 134,884
City of Ft. Housing Rehabilitation 165,000
Collins
$ 20,000
180,000
28,835
17,914
150,000
8,584
12,000
17,880
134,884
165,000
City of Ft. Housing Rehabilitation
Collins Administration 62,903 62,903
Total $798,000
Representatives of the CDBG Citizens Steering Committee will attend the
Council meeting to answer any questions that may arise concerning their
recommendations and/or review process.
At the July 24, 1984, City Council Worksession, the CDBG Citizens Steering
Committee presented their recommendations on projects to be funded by the
City's FY 1984-85 CDBG Entitlement Grant of $798,000. The City Council
asked staff to identify other potential funds from CDBG Program Income
and/or the Contingency budget which could be used to fund additional
projects next year.
_79-
August 7, 1984 1
As of June 30, 1984, Program Income for the 1982-83 and 1983-84 Program
Years has been received totalling approximately $143,000. Since these
funds were received from housing related projects, $135,000 of this
income was reflected in the City's Housing Rehabilitation Application as an
additional source of funding for the 1984 budget. At that time, Staff's
application indicated $55,000 of Program Income would be allocated to the
City's Rental Rehabilitation Demonstration Program to rehabilitate approxi-
mately 11 rental units. The additional $80,000 was to be allocated to
rehabilitate approximately 5 owner -occupied units. This would make avail-
able approximately $8,000 of Program Income to fund additional projects
next year. This will be discussed with Council at a later date."
Deputy City Manager Shannon noted the CDBG program could be viewed as
having three different "pots" of money. The first is the 1984-85 alloca-
tion, $798,000; the second is program income, $143,000; and the third is
contingency which�ltas built up to $126,000. He suggested a portion of the
contingency line item might be used to fund additional projects if Council
wished. He stated it was important to maintain a contingency fund but
suggested it might safely be reduced to about $70,000. If Council followed
that suggestion, there would then be approximately $56,000 available from
contingency to be reprogrammed.
Lou Stitzel, 521 E. Laurel, CDBG Steering Committee representative, ex-
'
plained the process used to evaluate each proposal and noted they were all
worthy requests. She noted that although the stated goal of the Committee
was to have 50% of the funds allocated for housing, the extreme need for
housing in the community had increased that percentage.
Councilmember Knezovich agreed that housing was an urgent need but sug-
gested there was also a real need for day care centers, etc.
Ms. Stitzel suggested there might be other funding sources for some of the
requests that were not funded. She noted one of the functions of the
Steering Committee might be to assist the various groups in achieving their
goals through other means. She suggested many Colorado foundations might
be sources.
Councilmember Knezovich felt it was unrealistic to expect groups to find
other funding sources and felt CDBG funds were perhaps the only hope for
most of those requesting money.
Lyn Boyer, Chairperson of Larimer Community Services, Inc., spoke in
support of their request for CDBG funds in the amount of $115,038. She
noted the funds would be used for site development. She spoke of their
fund raising efforts and noted they had raised $429,231 so far. She
detailed their project plans and asked for favorable Council consideration I
of their request.
:E
1
August 7, 1984
Diane Brown, representing the loan closet for the neurologically impaired,
noted the monies they had requested were needed to operate the high-tech
loan closet. She spoke of the need for this equipment which would be
communication aids, environmental control systems, electronic feeders,
customized wheelchairs, etc. She stated the monies would be used directly
for the purchase of such equipment and would not be used for salaries,
administration, or planning. She asked that a portion of the contingency
be allocated towards this program.
John Giem, 1904 Westfield Drive, spoke in support of the loan closet
proposal and noted his experiences with his son who suffers from cerebral
palsy.
Lloyd Bjorlo, 2712 Aberdeen Court, introduced his disabled son, Pete, who
suffered major brain injury in an auto accident. He spoke in support of
the loan closet proposal and noted its usefulness to persons with similar
injuries.
At this time Council recessed for dinner. Discussion on this item resumed
after Citizen Participation.
rCitizen Participation
A. Proclamation Naming August as Multiple Sclerosis Month was forwarded to
the appropriate persons.
1
Charles D. Patton, 1229 Teakwood Drive, questioned Council's decision to
award the Water Treatment Plant design contract to Black & Veatch. He
asked for an explanation on how the decision was made.
Mayor Horak instructed staff to meet with Mr. Patton to attempt to resolve
his concerns and to explain the process used to evaluate and award profes-
sional services contracts.
Wayne Shortridge, 3000 Alamo Avenue, City employee, appeared to ask Council
to reconsider enforcing the smoking policy instituted by City Manager John
Arnold and later withdrawn.
CDBG cont.
Councilmember Ohlson asked the purpose of the $12,000 study proposed by the
Poudre River Trust.
EM
August 7, 1984
Gene Mitchell, Poudre River Trust representative, replied the study would
provide introductory and final land use planning that would be adopted as a
guideline for all applications for land use along the Poudre River between
College Avenue and Mulberry as it proceeds to the interstate. He noted the
document was the foundation necessary to go forward with future plans for
land use along the river.
Eldon Ward, planning consultant, spoke of the study noting $12,000 was not
enough, but added this was not the type project taken for its high profit.
He noted he was committed to doing a good job with the resources available.
Councilmember Knezovich stated the Poudre River was the one remaining asset
the City had not developed and asked what the additional $18,000 in the
Poudre River Trust request would buy.
Mr. Mitchell replied $18,000 would buy nine months advancement in the time
schedule for producing_a visual arts center on the Poudre.
Mayor Horak asked about the consultant selection procedure.
Mr. Mitchell replied that use of federal funds required a certain selection
process. He noted Eldon Ward was aware of that process and stated if the
process eliminates Mr. Ward, his work will be reconfigured to complement
the plan done by the consultant selected.
Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to
adopt Resolution 84-119.
Councilmember Knezovich stated the $70,000 suggested for contingency would
leave $56,000 for reprogramming. He suggested cutting the reserve to
$50,000 and encouraged Council to look at the proposals of the Poudre River
Trust, the LCSI, and the loan closet proposal when allocating the addi-
tional contingency funds.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to
amend Resolution 84-119 to add the following section:
Community loan closet $20,000
Public housing landscaping 15,000
Larimer Community Services, Inc. 27,000
$62,000
He noted this would leave $64,000 in contingency.
Councilmember Ohlson noted the $20,000 to the community loan closet would
fund the first ten items on their priority list and added he felt the
$15,000 allocated to public housing landscaping would make the housing more
acceptable to the neighborhoods from an aesthetic standpoint.
-82-
IAugust 7, 1984
Councilmember Clarke regretted the fact that $27,000 was all that could be
allocated to the LCSI project. He expressed strong support for the project.
Councilmember Knezovich noted he did not find the public housing in his
neighborhood offensive and questioned the need for additional landscaping.
He suggested this be incorporated into the current affordable housing
program. He felt the percentage of the total funds available that was
proposed for housing related projects was too much. He suggested the funds
be reallocated to the LCSI building.
Councilmember Elliott felt the $20,000 allocation to the loan closet was
excellent and agreed with the $27,000 proposed for LCSI. He also supported
the $15,000 suggested for public housing landscaping.
Councilmember Stoner questioned the landscaping allocation and supported
the LCSI funding. He suggested the $15,000 proposed for landscaping be
given to the loan closet proposal.
The vote on Councilmember Clarke's motion to amend Resolution 84-119 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson,
and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The vote on Councilmember Elliott's motion to adopt Resolution 84-119 as
amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak,
Knezovich, Ohlson, and Stoner_. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Ordinance No. 104, 1984 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to
adopt Resolution 84-120. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak,
Knezovich, Ohlson, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott,
to adopt Ordinance No. 105, 1984 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, and Stoner. Nays: None.
I
THE MOTION CARRIED.
M19
August 7, 1984
Appeal of Zoning Board of Appeals
Decision (ZBA #1541). Tabled
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"On June 14, 1984, the Zoning Board of Appeals considered a variance
request for a sign located at 2821 Remington Street. This request, heard
as Appeal #1541, was denied by a vote of five to zero. Petitioner Fred
Gardner is appealing this decision.
The property at 2821 Remington is an office building located in the HB
(highway business zone), which allows certain signs as a permitted acces-
sory use. On January 18, 1984 Mr. Gardner, a licensed sign contractor and
owner of Gardner Signs, was issued a permit to install a tenant directory
freestanding sign on the property. Subsequent to its installation, the
zoning office inspected the sign and found that the sign was not installed
in compliance with the terms of the sign permit application or the code
provisions regulating this type of sign. The zoning office then contacted
Mr. Gardner and informed him that there was a violation which needed to be
corrected. On May 1, 1984, after a considerable time had passed and no
action had occurred to correct the problem, the City issued a written
violation notice to Mr. Gardner requiring that if corrective measures were
not taken within ten days, a court summons would be issued. On May 15,
1984, Mr. Gardner submitted an application for a zoning variance in hopes
of obtaining approval from the ZBA to leave the sign as originally in-
stalled.
The need for the variance request arises from the fact that the sign is
located within 50 feet of a driveway and is taller than 42 inches above the
adjacent street elevation while only being setback 3 feet from the right-
of-way line. The code requires that a sign within 50 feet of a driveway
which is taller than 42 inches must be set back at least 15 feet from the
right-of-way line.
Mr. Gardner indicated that he interpreted the code to mean that the 42 inch
height requirement was measured from the grade level directly under the
sign, not the adjacent street level, and thus they designed the sign to be
42 inches above grade. This would normally be acceptable because the grade
level directly under the sign is almost always the same as the adjacent
street level due to the absence of hills in Fort Collins. However, the
sign at this location was installed on top of a 2-1/2 foot high berm,
or grade change, making the sign 6 feet above the adjacent street eleva-
tion. The code would allow a 6 foot high sign as long as it is set back 15
feet, or located more than 50 feet from the driveway.
There are basically two reasons why the sign code requires the height of a
sign to be measured from the adjacent street elevation rather than the
grade level under the sign:
sm
-11
I
August 7, 1984
1. prevents property owners from intentionally building tall berms on
which to put a sign for the purpose of elevating their signs higher
than the code allows.
2, prevents signs from impeding traffic visibility relative to ingress and
egress when located within 50 feet of a driveway or intersection.
On June 14, 1984, the Zoning Board of Appeals considered the variance
request for 2821 Remington. Staff pointed out to the Board that the
hardship is self-imposed since the petitioner erected the sign in violation
of the code, and that there is plenty of lot frontage available which means
that the sign could be placed further north so that it would be more than
50 feet from the driveway. Another possibility would be to leave the sign
where it is and make it higher so that there is free air space under the
sign to provide visibility. The Board felt the code was very specific
saying "above the adjacent street elevation" and that it couldn't be
interpreted otherwise. The Board then denied the variance request by a
vote of five to zero.
City Council will be reviewing the decision made by the Zoning Board of
Appeals a based upon the minutes of the board and any new evidence sub-
mitted and will be deciding whether to sustain, reverse, or modify the
decision, or send the matter back for further hearing and review by the
Zoning Board of Appeals."
Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes gave a brief slide presentation outlining
the reasons for the variance request and showing the location of the
sign.
Fred Gardner, Gardner Signs, 900 North College, noted his company felt they
were in compliance with the Code and stated the location of underground
utilities had forced his installers to place the sign closer to the curb
cut. Their original intent had been to place the sign between the two
landscaped areas. He stated the sign was low profile and non -offensive
and was there to act as a directory. He stated he felt the current loca-
tion was a logical place to locate the sign. He presented petitions from
the surrounding area containing the signatures of 10 persons who felt the
sign was attractive, non -obtrusive, and not a safety hazard to vehicular
traffic.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Mayor Horak, to table the
decision on this appeal until the appellant (Gardner Signs) can provide
proof that there are utilities located 50 feet from the curb cut and thus
establish proof that a hardship exists.
Mr. Gardner noted the hardship was in needing to orient the sign closer to
the south entryway. He noted he would provide proof of the location of the
utilities.
fM
August 7, 1984 '
Councilmember Knezovich objected to tabling the matter and felt it could be
dealt with at this time.
The vote on Councilmember Clarke's motion to table this consideration of
item was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Ohlson,
and Stoner. Nays: Councilmember Knezovich.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Vacating a Portion of Tract E
of the Vineyards at Stonehenge, P.U.D.,
Filing One, Adopted on First Reading
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"Tract E of Filing One was originally intended as the location of a tennis
court. The tennis court was relocated eastward in the approved plat of The
Vineyards at Stonehenge, Filing II, serving as a buffer between Filing II
and the original single family homes in Stonehenge."
Councilmember Stoner asked the record to show he did not vote or partici-
pate in the discussion of the next three items. '
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott,
to adopt Ordinance No. 99, 1984 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, and Ohlson. Nays: None. (Council -
member Stoner withdrawn)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Vacating the 5th Filing of
Stonehenge P.U.D., Adopted on First Reading
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"The Vineyards at Stonehenge, Filing II, recently approved by the Planning
and Zoning Board, replats the area of Stonehenge, Fifth Filing, P.U.D.
Therefore, vacation of the Fifth Filing is needed to vacate public right-
of-way and easements which will no longer be used in the recorded loca-
tions, but will be relocated to serve lots created by the plat for The
Vineyards at Stonehenge Filing II."
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott,
to adopt Ordinance No. 100, 1984 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, and Ohlson. Nays: None. (Council -
member Stoner withdrawn)
-86-
1
August 7, 1984
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Vacating a Portion of Stonehenge
P.U.D., Sixth Filing, Adopted on First Reading
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"The Vineyards at Stonehenge, Filing II, recently approved by the Planning
and Zoning Board, replats the portion of Stonehenge Sixth Filing, as
described in this vacation."
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to
adopt Ordinance No. 101, 1984 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, and Ohlson. Nays: None. (Council -
member Stoner withdrawn)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Transferring Funds from the
Rolland Moore Park Development Project to
the Lee Martinez Park Improvements Project
for Farm Development. Adopted on First Readin
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"In April 1981, Fort Collins' voters approved a $5,065,000 Community Parks
Bond Issue, intended for the completion, acquisition, and improvement of
community parks. The projects presented to the citizens, along with their
initial budget allocations, were as follows:
City Park Renovation (8 acres) $ 375,000
Edora Park Expansion (10 acres) 335,000
Land Acquisition for a future community park 660,000
Lee Martinez Farm Development 330,000
Lee Martinez Park Improvements (10 acres) 130,000 $460,000
Rolland Moore Park Development (68 acres) 3,195,000
Cost to Issue Bonds 40,000
$5,065,000
The initial budget allocations were based upon our original conceptual
planning estimates, and the necessity for establishing budgets for account-
ing purposes. It was our intent to eventually transfer any excess funds
from one project to another, as the projects themselves became more pre-
cisely defined. As of August 1, 1984, all of the above named community
August 7, 1984
park projects are complete, except for the Lee Martinez Farm, and the
close-out of Rolland Moore Park. The actual costs of the completed pro-
jects using the Bond Issue Funds are as follows:
City Park Renovation $375,000
Edora Park Expansion 335,000
*Land Acquisition for a future community park 706,450
Lee Martinez Park Improvements 126,553
Cost to Issue Bonds 39,920
*In 1982, the City acquired the 99 acre Fossil Creek Community Park site,
using the originally budgeted $660,000, plus $46,450 in interest earnings;
plus water certificates valued at $219,550, which need to be repaid.
Because the Rolland Moore Park project was the flagship of the entire
community park bond program, and because there were a number of potential
construction problems, the Moore Park original budget allocation was set
sufficiently high to insure that any funding delays during construction
would be avoided. Our departmental goal was to save at least $300,000 from
the Moore Park budget, and to use that money for the Lee Martinez Farm
project. The completion of the farm was deferred until the progress at I
Moore Park was such that we were confident that the $300,000 could, in
fact, be saved.
At the meeting of November 15, 1983, Council adopted Resolution 83-162,
authorizing an agreement for planning services associated with the develop-
ment of the Lee Martinez Park Farm. The agreement with Gefroh Associates,
Inc., was to prepare complete construction plans, specifications, and
bidding documents. Those plans, specifications, and bidding documents are
now complete. $300,000 of the original budget allocation for Moore Park is
available for transfer to the farm project. The detailed cost figures for
both the Lee Martinez Park Improvement/Farm Development Projects, and the
Rolland Moore Park Development Project are as follows:
Rolland Moore Park Project
Original Budget $3,195,000
Committed $2,796,559
Projected 31,000
Contingency 67,441
Total $2,895,000 (2,895,000)
Balance Available $ 300,000
T-111
August 7, 1984
Lee Martinez Park Projects
Original Budget $ 460,000
**Expended for Park
Improvements $ 126,553
Encumbered for
Farm Design 60,000
Total $ 186,553 (186,553)
Balance Available $ 273,447
Farm Construction Cost Estimate
(includes $20,000 for utility fees) 551,875
Balance Available (273,447)
Amount needed for farm construction $ 278,428
Farm Construction $ 278,428
Contingency 21,572
$ 300,000
**The $126,553 expended for Park improvements of Lee Martinez Park was for
the landscaping and irrigation of 10 acres around the existing ballfields
and tennis courts.
The primary reasons that we need the $300,000 for Farm development are
because of inflation since the time the original budget was projected in
late 1980, and our underestimate of the costs of farm renovation. The Farm
Project is unique, and back in 1980, we honestly didn't realize all of the
ramifications associated with this project. The work of the consultant
(Gefroh Associates) preparing the plans and specifications, and the input
from citizens last year, more clearly defined our goals for the farm, and
made the need for expanded funding more evident. Nothing new has been
added to the farm project as originally conceived, except a restroom
(costing approximately $50,000) to be included within the Recreation
Resource building.
As detailed earlier, all of the completed projects were closed -out either
at or below original budget estimates, except for the farm, and the pur-
chase of Fossil Creek Community Park. At the time of the decision to
purchase Fossil Creek Park, Council discussed financing, and it was agreed
_89-
August 7, 1984 '
that Parks and Recreation would budget each year to pay off the water
certificates debt. We have followed that direction, and have annually
budgeted for the same.
Potential Options
As a point of information, staff has looked at several options for the use
of the available $300,000 from Moore Park. As an alternative to completing
the farm, the other possible primary usage of the excess bond funds could
be the repayment of the water certificates debt for the purchase of Fossil
Creek Community Park. As noted earlier, the City acquired the 99 acre site
in 1982. The total cost for the park was $926,000 (which included the
water rights). $660,000 in Park Bond funds plus $46,450 in interest
earnings was used, totalling $706,450 in cash; plus $219,550 of water
certificates were issued to the seller in lieu of cash. The understanding
was that Parks and Recreation would pay back the Water Department during
the next five years, beginning in 1983, as follows:
Year
Payment
Interest
Principal
1983
$ 60,905.31
$26,346.00
$ 34,559.31
1984
60,905.31
22,198.88
38,706.43
1985
60,905.31
17,554.11
43,351.20
1986
60,905.31
12,351.97
48,553.34
1987
60,905.31
6,525.59
'
54,379.72
$304,526.55
$84,976.55
$219,550.00
These payments are based on a 12 percent rate of return.
The payment was made using the Parkland Fund. In addition, funds are
budgeted in the 1984 Parkland Fund Budget for the second payment, and we
have proposed using Parkland Fund money to make the 1985, 1986, and 1987
payments, as well. Fossil Creek Community Park will also serve the neigh-
borhood park interests for that area, so utilization of the Parkland Fund
is appropriate and within the adopted policy. Sufficient available funding
is projected in the Parkland Fund through 1989 to cover these costs without
significantly impacting any other proposed project during the next five
years.
Another option examined was the potential for paying off all the bonds
early, or
using the excess to lower the debt service.
Neither of these are
viable because the city cannot exercise any early
bond redemption until
September
1, 1991, and the city committed to using
none of the bond pro-
ceeds to
pay interest on the bonds. However, if we
choose to reverse our
earlier
commitment and utilize the $300,000 to
lower the mill levy,
it would
have minimal impact and would be a short-term solution only.
Within a
$300,000
few years the mill levy would have to be
was gone.
raised again once the
I
.=
August 7, 1984
The staff approach all along has been to follow the direction of the voters
within the parameters of the $5.065 million Bond Issue, and to provide our
citizens with high quality improvements, such as Rolland Moore Park, the
BMX and Horseshoe courts at Edora Park, the improvements to City Park, etc.
The City Manager and staff agreed to do all of the projects as conceived
and documented in the Bond Issue Election literature. The staff, with the
concurrance of the Parks and Recreation Board, strongly feel that we should
not waiver in the total completion of the scope of the programs as ori-
ginally proposed, even if it costs more than first projected.
The Bonds can be used for paying the cost of acquiring, developing, rede-
veloping, expanding, improving, landscaping, and equipping community parks,
as stated in the ballot wording. Therefore, there are many other potential
new projects within community parks which are desirable today and were not
a part of the Bond Issue. However, any new project could impact the city
credibility. The bond projects were developed in 1980, and at that time we
were just completing the Seven -Year Capital program. There was much public
criticism about the city not doing what we said we would. When this bond
issue was discussed, the city guaranteed we would do everything stated
in the bond, and would exercise good faith to our citizens.
Staff feels the best usage of the available $300,000 from Moore Park would
be the total completion of the Farm at Lee Martinez Park. However, if
Council decides to use the available excess funds for the water certifi-
cates repayment (rather than using Parkland Fund money), or for any
other desirable community park purpose, the impact on reducing the scope
of the farm development will be significant. $551,875 is required to
complete the farm, as planned. "Saving" $300,000 would provide a facility
of limited value and usefulness, and would leave the project incomplete'.
The Resource Building and Restroom would be eliminated, the parking lot
area would be minimized, and all other elements would be reduced to some
degree. Without the Resource Building, potential recreation revenues from
the farm cannot be maximized.
Summary
Staff is requesting that Council authorize the transfer of $300,000 avail-
able in the Rolland Moore Park Development Project budget to the Lee
Martinez Park Improvement Project budget for construction of the farm.
Approval of this transfer will allow for construction of the farm to begin
this fall (probably September) with an anticipated completion scheduled
for late spring of 1985, pending weather -related delays. Landscaping work
will continue through 1985. The farm should be open to the public in June
1985. All 0 & M costs for the farm are included within the proposed 1985
' Budget."
-91-
August 7, 1984 '
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Ordinance No. 102, 1984 on First Reading.
Councilmember Knezovich asked if the Parks and Recreation Board was aware
the actual cost of the farm project would be $605,000 as opposed to the
$330,000 initially proposed, when they reconsidered the project.
Director of Parks and Recreation H.R. Phillips stated there was no discus-
sion of the budget at that time. A full scope on the cost of the farm was
not available until it was designed. The money put in the budget was
staff's best guess in 1980-81.
Chuck Solano, Parks and Recreation Board President, noted the Board had
been directed by Council to hold public meetings to gather input on whether
the farm project was still wanted. He stated the cost of the farm had not
been discussed.
Councilmember Stoner asked what the farm operation and maintenance costs
would be.
Mr. Phillips replied the 1985 0&M was estimated at $41,000. He noted the
costs for the building construction, the addition of the restrooms, the
renovation of the barn, landscaping, etc., had all increased from the
original estimates. He stated if the funding was left at $330,000 the '
project scope would be reduced considerably.
Mr. Solano expressed support for the farm project and asked that the farm
be built to the same high standards as Rolland Moore Park so it would be a
model for other Park and Recreation departments around the country.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 E. Harmony Road, asked if $41,000 was a full year's
0&M costs.
Mr. Phillips replied the $41,000 was a full eight months budget since the
farm is not expected to be operated during the winter months. If the
project is not completed until June, 1985, the 0&M costs would be less.
Councilmember Clarke noted he was not supportive of this project at
$330,000 and now that the cost has escalated, he was even less supportive.
He noted this was a continuing cost to the City and expressed concern about
the increasing 0&M costs. He felt the farm would attract vandalism. He
objected to the use of parkland funds designed for neighborhood parks to
supplement community parks such as Fossil Creek Park. He stated that by
supplementing Fossil Creek Park with parkland funds, the City is supple-
menting this farm project, and noted parkland funds were never intended for
that use. He felt the City could not afford to build the Lee Martinez Farm
project from the bond issue. He suggested using the $219,000 to pay off
the water certificates that were issued to pay for the community park. The
$300,000+ could be applied to some other worthy project in the parks. ,
-92-
August 7, 1984
Councilmember Elliott felt there was an obligation to complete the project
properly and in such a way that the citizens will be proud of it. He
stated this was an appropriate expenditure and noted he would support the
recommendation.
Councilmember Knezovich agreed with Councilmember Clarke's comments and
noted the true 0&M costs for the farm would be $55,000/year, a 7% annual
cost on a $600,000 investment. The project cannot be justified from a
budgetary standpoint. He suggested Council needed to look at the short-
comings at Lee Martinez Park and Rolland Moore Park first.
Councilmember Ohlson noted this would be a living history farm, not merely
a petting farm. He pointed out parks were a lot more than softball fields
and expanses of grass and that possibilities were endless with the CSU Vet
school, the horticulture and botany departments, and the wildlife and
educational programs in the area.
Councilmember Stoner noted his philosophy had changed since his original
opposition to the project. He stated the citizens expect the farm to be
done, and added he was impressed by the dedication and enthusiasm shown by
staff for the project.
Mayor Horak felt there had been a clear vote on this issue and agreed that
parks and recreation was more than softball fields. He supported the
citizens' vote and felt funding questions should be addressed separately.
The vote on Councilmember Ohlson's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 102, 1984
on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Elliott, Horak,
Ohlson, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmembers Clarke and Knezovich.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
- Items Relating to the Creation
of Horsetooth Road Special
Improvement District No. 83
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"A. Resolution Amending Resolution 84-94 Pertaining to Horsetooth S.I.D.
No. 83.
B. Resolution Amending Resolution 84-95 Pertaining to Horsetooth S.I.D.
No. 83.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 73, 1984 (as amended), Relating to the
I Creation and Organization of Special Improvement District No. 83, and
Approving the Agreement with the Southside Baptist Church.
-93-
August 7, 1984
D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 74, 1984 (as amended), Appropriating
Funds to pay the Required City Costs.
E. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 75, 1984 (as amended), Creating a
"Landscape Package" on the Horsetooth Road S.I.D. #83.
F. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 76, 1984 (as amended), Appropriating
the Anticipated Special Improvement District No. 83 Bond Proceeds.
G. Deed of Easement from Southside Baptist Church.
GENERAL SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENTS
The purpose of this Special Improvement District is to construct the
street, street landscaping and storm drainage improvements, for Horsetooth
Road from the BNRR to Shields Street. In 1982, a capital project was
budgeted to form an improvement district for the construction of Horsetooth
Road from College Avenue to Shields Street. The developers along Horse -
tooth, from the BNRR to Shields Street, had agreed to be a part of the
district, but they backed out when the development activity slowed down in
1982. Staff went ahead and formed SID No. 76 in 1982, and constructed the
portion of Horsetooth from College Avenue to the BNRR. Last fall staff
began meeting with the developers, along Horsetooth from the BNRR to
Shields, to encourage the formation of a voluntary improvement district
to construct this portion of Horsetooth. We were successful, and the
developers hired Shilo Engineering and attorney, George Hass, to assist
them in the formation of the improvement district. City staff has worked
very closely with them to bring this District to Council.
It is important that this district be created at this time to allow con-
struction during 1984. This portion of Horsetooth Road is in very poor
condition, and is rapidly declining due to the excessively high traffic
volume on a two lane road. If this district is not created at this time,
the City will have to continue their expensive maintenance efforts or
completely rehabilitate the pavement. This district would complete a key
portion of the City's master street plan, and would improve an inadequate
two lane road with high maintenance costs, to a functional four lane
arterial with low maintenance costs, bike lanes, and sidewalks.
The City will front the costs of the District until the bonds are sold.
The District participants have agreed that the City shall not be liable for
any cost of the District except as specifically provided in the Master
Agreement and in the Resolutions and Ordinance creating and establishing
the District, and that any cost in excess of the City's costs shall be the
sole obligation of the District participants.
-94-
1
August 7, 1984
Since the first reading of the ordinances concerning this District, Council
has passed, on First Reading, Ordinance No. 75. 1984, which created a
"Landscape Package" to be included in Horsetooth SID #83. Ordinances #73,
74 and 76, 1984, and Resolution 84-94 and 84-95 are amended in this packet
to include the costs of the landscaping as well as defining, in more
detail, the inclusions of the district and resetting the hearing date to
August 7, 1984.
SUMMARY OF COSTS
The revised estimated costs of the improvements to the District partici-
pants and to the City are shown below. These estimated costs include all
costs associated with the District and approximately 10% contingency.
DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT COSTS (Revised 7/30/84)
District Costs:
Street and Drainage Improvements $ 545,220
Landscaping Between Curb and Sidewalk 36,632
Total District Costs: $ 581,852
City Costs:
Street Oversizing $ 392,700
New Mercer Canal Box Culvert Extension 51,000
Southside Baptist Church Costs* 16,400
Southside Baptist Church ROW Acquisition* 3,000
Michie ROW Acquisition 2,400
Light & Power (Pole & Vault Relocates) 20,000
Landscaped Medians 116,000
Total City Costs $601,500
Total SID Construction Costs $1,183,352
*The Church has approved an agreement to reimburse the City in the future
for its share of the costs had it been included in the distri'ct. This
district was initiated by the staff because of the urgent need to improve
Horsetooth Road. Leaving the improvements along the church frontage out
of the project would greatly impair the 'benefits of the project. Staff
believes this trade-off with the church agreeing to pay for the improve-
ments at some future time is to the greatest advantage of the city as a
whole. 1 1.
.
-95-
August 7, 1984
The Deed of Easement from the Southside Baptist Church is being acquired
for $3,000 (based on 574 per square foot). The parcel is on the north side
of Horsetooth. This is the final right-of-way agreement needed for the
improvement district.
FUNDING CITY COSTS
The remaining capital funds in the Horsetooth Road - SID No. 76 Project
($337,800) will be transferred to this project, and Street Oversizing Funds
will be used to fund the remaining $263,700 of the $601,500 cost to the
City.
As shown above, the total street oversizing reimbursement that would
normally be required for this project has been estimated at $392,700.
However, because of the carry over funds from SID No. 76, only $263,700
will be needed from the Street Oversizing Fund. The Street Oversizing Fund
has the available funds.
Landscaped medians are not a normal Street Oversizing cost. However, as
shown above, the Street Oversizing Fund is in effect receiving a reduction
of its obligation of $129,000 due to the transfer of surplus capital funds
from S.I.D. No. 76. So actually the landscaped medians will be funded with
capital funds, and Street Oversizing will have to pay less of its obliga-
tion.
The fund transfers are as follows:
Transfer Horsetooth
Road SID
No. 76 Funds
$337,800
Appropriate Street
Oversizing
Funds (from
147,700
previous Council
action on
June 5th)
Appropriate Street
Oversizing
Funds (for
116,000
landscaping medians)
TOTAL CITY FUNDS
$601,500
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
This district would complete a key portion of the City's master street plan
and would improve an inadequate two lane road with high maintenance costs,
to a functional four lane arterial with low maintenance costs, bike lanes,
and sidewalks.
This project is very much needed this year, and therefore, staff recommends
the approval of the Ordinances creating and funding this district."
Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by
table Items A-G until August 21. Councilmembers
Knezovich, Ohlson, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Stoner, to
Clarke, Elliott, Horak,
August 7, 1984
Councilmembers' Reports
Councilmember Knezovich called Council's attention to the CML's work on the
sales tax simplification issue. He noted draft legislation was being
prepared.
He noted the first PRPA meeting with new manager Jim Pendergast, had dealt
with the first three months of operation of the Rawhide plant.
Councilmember Stoner noted a permanent F.B.O. would be selected for the
Fort Collins/Loveland Airport within the next month. He reported on the
land lease negotiations with Hewlett-Packard and noted he expected very
positive things at the airport by the end of the year.
Adjournment
Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner,
to adjourn the meeting. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak,
Knezovich, Ohlson, and Stoner. Nays: None.
The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
City ClerK
Mayor
-97-