Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-11/25/1986-Adjournedi I, ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS November 25, 1986 7:00 p.m. An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, November 25, 1986, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Staff Members Present: Burkett, Huisjen, Krajicek Resolution 86-188, Approving an Amendment to the Engineering Services Contract with RBD, Inc. for the Design and Construction Inspection of a Drop Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "Executive Summary RBD, Inc. has completed the review of several options to remove, repair, or replace the dam next to the old power plant. Their opinion is that action needs to taken before next spring as there is a high probability the structure will fail during the spring runoff if work is not done. This change in opinion from the dam not nearing failure to the dam having a high probability of failure is a result of the study and, thus, the need to bring this item to Council at their adjourned meeting. This Resolution authorizes the final design and construction inspection for a drop structure at a cost not to exceed $60,500. There are many improvements to the river area currently under discussion and review. This amendment authorizes two options to be designed and bid; a) drop structure, and b) drop structure which accommodates boating. The basic drop structure would be funded by Light and Power. The premium costs associated with the boating option would be identified prior to the start of construction. One approach is to'expand the scope of uses for the Lottery proceeds to include water features for recreational uses. Background At the June 3, 1986 meeting, the Council approved a professional services agreement with RBD, Inc. for the analysis of the existing dam structure located adjacent to the power plant (agenda item summary attached). The -213- November 25, 1986 analysis provides a statement on the condition of the existing structure and a description of a number of alternatives on repair, replacement or removal of the structure. The analysis was completed on time and $10,000 under the $31,200 not to exceed agreement cost. The RBD study concludes that the failure of the existing structure appears to be eminent. The alternative of allowing the structure to fail is undesirable for a number of reasons dealing with river bed erosion, potential damage to upstream structures, and collapse of the retaining walls protecting the power plant and land on the north side of the river. For these reasons, staff recommends proceeding with design and inspection services in the amount of $60,500 so that construction can be completed before 1987 spring runoff. The least cost alternatives presented in the study are repair of the existing structure and replacement with a drop type structure. The repair is estimated to cost $185,000 including engineering and construction inspection. The drop structure is estimated at $265,000 with engineering and construction inspection. The cost for a new dam is about $350,000 on the same basis. The various departments within the City concerned with the river and immediately surrounding areas reviewed the report and discussed the options. The repair option is the least cost but it has some disadvantages. Primarily, the uncertainty over the compatibility of the dam with future river uses and the need for continued maintenance activities on a dam structure. The preferred option is to replace the dam with a drop structure. Further staff discussions surfaced the potential for including a boat chute into the drop structure design. The choice to incorporate a provision into the drop structure for boating was based on a number of considerations including the City's posture on the preservation and development of the river corridor. The City and the Poudre River Trust wish the river corridor to be an enhancement to the downtown area. The development of the power plant as an arts center and the proposed establishment of the Gustav Swanson Nature area on the north side of the river indicate an increased recreational use. The ability to boat through the structure is consistent with plans for the National Recreation Area study. The replacement of the dam with the drop structure would be the first step in development of the river for recreational use and increased fisheries. It would set an example for what could be done with the other diversion structures. The engineering for the drop structure is to result in bidding information on two options. The first option is to be a drop structure without provision for boating. The second is to provide for boating. Both options will be bid. Utilities will provide funds equal to the bid for the drop structure without provision for boating. The difference between the funding provided by the Utilities and the bid cost for the drop structure with provision for boating would have to be provided from other sources, possibly Lottery funds. The additional costs associated with the boating feature are estimated to be $105,000 to $185,000. If such funds are not available at the time of construction, Utilities will lend -those funds to the project. The Utilities would be paid back from lottery funds over a -214- f November 25, 1986 I period not to exceed ten years at a reasonable rate of interest. The Parks and Recreation Department has agreed in principal to this arrangement. Subject to Council approval and before a construction contract is awarded, Parks and Recreation Department would prepare an amended five year plan for Lottery funds. This would allow Council to see which projects, if any, would have to. be re -scheduled to allow the boating feature. This would be the first time Lottery proceeds would be used for recreation features other than trail system improvements. The funding in Utilities will come from unexpended 1986 service center capital budget. A design fee has been negotiated for the final design and construction inspection phase of the project. It provides for $37,500 in design fees and $23,000 in construction inspection fees. This, as in the original agreement, will be reimbursable at an hourly rate not to exceed the negotiated fees. Upon completion of the design and contract documents, the competitive bidding process will be used to secure a construction. contractor. Construction is planned to begin by February 1, 1987 and must '�be completed by April 1, 1987 when spring runoff is expected. The engineers concerns that the structure has a high probability of failing next spring presents significant time constraints. Thus the staff felt the need to get approval of the final design at the adjourned meeting." Director of Utility Services Rich Shannon called Council's attention to revised Resolution 86-188 and noted the reduction in dollars in the revised version. He noted the dam was failing faster than anticipated and may fail this spring if there's a high runoff. He detailed the options considered, noting they were repair, construction of a drop structure, replacing with a new dam, and letting the dam fail. Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick, to adopt Resolution 86-188, the revised version dated 11-25-86. Ron Thaemert, T.E., P.H-D., RBD, Inc., explained what might happen,,.i.fi,ithe dam was allowed to fail and described the boat chute design. Councilmember Horak stated he did not feel enough information was available to allow Council to make an informed decision on the structure:` - J Councilmember Ohlson noted he would oppose the Resolution because adequate. -- information was not presented. Rich Shannon responded that the,options could be further explored but that there was some risk to the delay. Hey added the known liabilities of allowing the dam to fail could, be researched, but expressed concern about the unknown liabilities. He estimated it.would cost approximately $40,000 to demolish the existing structure, $24,000 for retaining walls, $100,000 for water lines, Coy Ditch work at $47,000 if it is determined to be the City's responsibility. He added the total would be at least $180,000 for either option (repair or allow to fail). -215- t November 25, 1986 Councilmember Horak felt the whole stretch of river through Fort Collins ' should be studied to determine ways to stabilize the river rather than doing the project piecemeal. He objected to receiving new information as Council was making a decision and noted he could not vote in favor of the Resolution until he received more complete information and other interested parties, such as Natural Resources, gave their input. The vote on Councilmember Stoner's motion to adopt Resolution 86-188 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, and Rutstein. Nays: Councilmembers Horak and Stoner. THE MOTION CARRIED. Executive Session Authorized Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to adjourn into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters relating to the evaluation of City Manager Steve Burkett. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmember Horak. Adiournment At the conclusion of the Executive Session, Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to adjourn the meeting. Yeas: , Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Ma 1A%TTEST: ;:C;i;ty; gJerk -216-