HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-05/18/1982-RegularMay 18, 1982
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, May 18, 1982, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the City of
Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Council -
members: Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth.
Absent: None.
Secretary's Note: Councilmember Elliott arrived at 6:00 p.m.
Staff Members Present: Arnold, Krajicek, Huisjen, Lewis, Hays, Meitl,
Denton, C. Smith, Gianola, B. Lee.
Agenda Review: City Manager
City Manager John Arnold noted Item #28 was being withdrawn from the agenda
at the request of the petitioner. He added there would be several items of
Other Business and a possible request for an Executive Session.
Councilmember Clarke asked that Items 12 and 15 be removed from the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember Wilmarth requested Items 16 and 17 be withdrawn from the
Consent Agenda.
-223-
Cons ---Consent Calendar
lend-- May 18, 1982 '
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.
4. Consider Approving the Minutes of the regular meeting of May 4,
5. Second Reading of Ordinance_ No. 55, 1982, Relating to Retail_ Electric
Rates for Service.
This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 4.
The rate tariffs incorporated in this ordinance are designed to
increase revenues from each rate class by 9.5%. This increase is
required to partially off -set a 39.1% increase in purchased power
rates experienced January 1, 1982.
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 56, 1982, Adopting by Reference the
Model Traffic Code, 1977 Edition.
This Ordinance was passed unanimously on First Reading on May 4, 1982 '
and adopts the Model Traffic Code for Colorado Municipalities, 1977
Edition by reference and makes the amendments suggested to Council by
the Police Department, the Traffic Engineering staff, and the City
Attorney's office. The amendments set out in the Ordinance enact
provisions not covered by the Model Traffic Code.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 57, 1982, Amending Section 95-91 of
the Code Relating to the Annual Review of Fees for Street Oversizing.
This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 4.
Ordinance 112-1979 requires that the Street Oversizing Fee be eval-
uated and adjusted, if necessary, on a quarterly basis. The last
adjustment was adopted by the City Council on February 16, 1982. The
fees presently are:
Residential $ 246.00 D.U.
Business & Commercial $3,500.00 Gross Acre
Industrial $ 500.00 Gross Acre
Staff recommends that the Street Oversizing Fee Schedule adopted
in February be continued with no change. Staff believes that an
annual evaluation and adjustment of fees would be adequate in most
instances. If circumstances change, then review of the fee structure
could be made at more frequent intervals. '
-224-
' May 18, 1982
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 58, 1982, Decreasing the Amount for
Payment In -Lieu -of Water Rights from $1700 to $1500 This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 4. In
January, the City's in -lieu -of water rights cash rate was reduced from
$1900 to $1700. The price of CBT water has continued to decline,
indicating a need to again adjust the cash rate. The prevailing price
for CBT water is approximately $1500.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No._59, 1982, Amending a Section of the
Wastewater Utility Ordinance.
In January, Council adopted the Wastewater Utility Ordinance. During
the implementation of this Ordinance, staff noted the need for a
housekeeping amendment to one section of the Ordinance relating to the
determination of charges.
The new Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on
May 4, sets July 1 as the reporting date for the recommendation on
user rates, to be in effect from January 1 to December 31 of the
following year. This is a minor housekeeping change to bring the
reporting and review dates into compliance with actual practice.
' 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 60, 1982, Appropriating Unanticipated
Revenue in the UMTA-Section 8 Grant Fund.
Resolution 81-128 authorized the City Manager to file an application
with the Department of Transportation for a technical studies grant to
address some major issues regarding Transfort operation.
Grant approval has been received from the Department of Transportation
in the amount of $24,000 for this program. The City of Fort Collins'
matching share of $6,000 will be in -kind City employee work hours.
This Ordinance, which was adopted by a 5-2 vote on May 4, appropriates
the federal grant monies totalling $24,000 in the UMTA-Section 8
Fund.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 61, 1982, Appropriating Unanticipated
Revenue in the General fund. The Auntie Stone Quester group of Fort Collins received a $500 grant
from its state organization to finance preservation and rehabilitation
work on the Elizabeth Stone house in the courtyard of the Fort Collins
Museum. The funds have been donated to the Museum for carpentry and
application of a preservative to the cabin exterior.
' This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May
4, appropriates $500 in the General Fund to carry out this project.
-225-
12
13
14
15
May 18, 1982 '
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 65, 1982, Amending Section
84-1 of the Code Concerning Loitering in Center Parkinq Areas.
The proposed amendment to Section 84-1, regulating the use of center
parking areas, was formerly Section 114-55.1 in the Traffic Code.
Pursuant to Ordinance No. 56, 1982, Adopting the Model Traffic Code
for Colorado Municipalities, Section 114-55.1 will be repealed effec-
tive May 28, 1982. This ordinance would amend Section 84-1 of the
Code to include the repealed provision on the use of center parking
areas.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 66, 1982, Appropriating
Unanticipated Revenue in the S.A.V.E. Grant Fund.
On February 2, 1982, the City Council appropriated $67,200 in unanti-
cipated revenue from the Department of Energy Conservation Energy
Extension Service for the S.A.V.E. Grant Fund. The purpose of the
program is to coordinate weatherization of homes for senior, handi-
capped, and low income residents of the Fort Collins area and to
disseminate information on energy efficiency topics.
On May 7, 1982, the Department of Energy Conservation Energy Extension
Service awarded the S.A.V.E. Grant fund an additional $8,500 to
weatherize 100 more homes. '
This Ordinance appropriates the grant monies of $8,500 in the S.A.V.E.
Grant Fund for this project.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 67, 1982, Appropriating
Unanticipated Revenue in the Performing Arts Fund.
Revenue received from the performance of the Chinese Circus totalled
$10,064 and the expenses totalled $7,784. The revenue now needs to be
appropriated to replace the funds which will be needed to cover Art
Series events later in the year. Appropriating the additional revenue
allows the Fund a contingency to cover other unanticipated program
opportunities which may occur later in the year.
This Ordinance appropriates $10,064 in unanticipated revenue in the
Performing Arts Fund. If this ordinance is not approved, originally
scheduled activities will not occur.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 68, 1982, Revising Street
Encroachment and Obstruction Application Fees as Established in
Sections 95-16 and 95-17 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins
The current $1 application fee does not cover costs of handling the
street encroachment and obstruction permits and allows the occupation ,
-226-
' May 18, 1982
of several prime parking spaces in the downtown area. The $1 fee is
not in line with current fees charged for parking. The proposed fees
are more appropriate and will confine the use of the street encroach-
ment and obstruction permits to higher priority items.
Since the metered and time -limit parking is of the highest priority
for parking, the fee is recommended at $20 for each 25 feet of front-
age or portion thereof per month. The unrestricted parking areas would
have a charge of $20 per month for each 50 feet of frontage or portion
thereof. A single parking space would have a charge of $1 per space
per day with a minimum charge of $5 to handle the administration costs
involved.
16. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 69, 1982, Annexing Property
Known as Harbor Wyk Two. — —
This is a request for annexation of a 0.35-ac parcel located on the
south side of Warren Lake. The parcel is immediately adjacent to a
9.9-ac parcel which was annexed to the City in May 1981, known as the
Harbor Walk Annexation.
17. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 70, 1982, Zoning Property
Known as Harbor Walk Two.
'
This is a request to zone 0.35-ac located on the south side of
Warren Lake, known as the Harbor Walk Two Annexation. The area is
presently zoned FA-1 Farming.
18. Resolution Authorizing the Sale of East 60 feet of Lot 9, Block 8,
Scott Sherwood Subdivision 1227 W. Olive St.
The area served by the electrical substation at 1227 W. Olive St. has
been converted to a higher voltage, eliminating the need for this
substation. The equipment has been dismantled and sold and the lot
vacated. After offering this lot to other City departments, all
property owners adjacent to the site were contacted in order to
determine whether any were interested in purchasing the site. Jerry
Nix has been the only interested party. The property was appraised at
$2.00/square foot or a total value of $6000.00. Jerry Nix has pre-
sented an offer to purchase the property at this appraised value and
staff recommends approval of this sale in accordance with the Agree-
ment of Sale and Purchase offered by Jerry Nix.
Ordinances on Second Reading were ready by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 55, 1982, Relating to Retail
' Electric Rates for Service. --
-227-
May 18, 1982 '
Item #6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 56, 1982, Adopting by Reference
the Model Traffic Code. 1977 Edition.
Item #7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 57, 1982, Amending Section 95-91
of the Code Relating to the Annual Review of Fees for Street
Oversizing.
Item #8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 58, 1982, Decreasing the Amount
for Payment In -Lieu -of Water Rights from $1700 to $1500.
Item #9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 59, 1982, Amending a Section of
the Wastewater Utility Ordinance.
Item #10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 60, 1982, Appropriating Unan-
ticipated Revenue in the UMTA-Section 8 Grant Fund.
Item #11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 61, 1982, Appropriating Unan-
ticipated Revenue in the General Fund.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #12. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 65, 1982, Amending I
Section -1 o the Code Concerning Loitering in Center Parking
Areas.
Item #13. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 66, 1982, Appro-
oriatino Unanticipated Revenue in the S.A.V.E. Grant Fund.
Item #14. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 67, 1982, Appro-
priating Unanticipated Revenue in the Performing Arts Fund.
Item #15. Hearing and First Readi
Street Encroachment and
lished in Sections 95-1
ns
Item #16. Hearing and First Readi
Property Known as Harbor
of Ordinance No. 68, 1982, Revisin
)struction Application Fees as Estab
and 95-17 of the Code of the City o
of Ordinance No. 69, 1982, Annexin
Item #17. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 70, 1982, Zoning
Property Known as Harbor Walk Two.
Councilmember Wilmarth made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke,
to adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar.
-228- 1
' May 18, 1982
Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wil-
marth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Amending Section 84-1 of the Code
Concerning Loitering in Center Parking Areas,
Adopted on First Readinq
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"The proposed amendment to Section 84-1, regulating the use of center
parking areas, was formerly Section 114-55.1 in the Traffic Code. Pursuant
to Ordinance No. 56, 1982, Adopting the Model Traffic Code for Colorado
Municipalities, Section 114-55.1 will be repealed effective May 28, 1982.
This ordinance would amend Section 84-1 of the Code to include the repealed
provision on the use of center parking areas."
Councilmember Clarke expressed his concerns about the effectiveness of this
Ordinance as it pertains to the loitering problem in the downtown center
parking.
' Assistant City Attorney Denton replied there was difficulty in drafting and
enforcing a loitering ordinance which would be constitutional. He noted
the Supreme Court had recently ruled on a loitering type ordinance drafted
by the State and found it to be unconstitutional. He added he felt the
best way to control loitering in the center parking is to prohibit parking
during certain periods of time.
Councilmember Clarke suggested approaching this problem by prohibiting
persons from waiting and sitting in vehicles in the downtown area late at
night.
Assistant City Attorney Denton noted the various attempts that had been
made to solve the problem. He stated staff had approached the Fort Town
organization and proposed several solutions to the problem including
restricting parking in the center area between 10:00 p.m. and 12:00 p.m.
and 6:00 a.m. The Police Department felt that was a way to control the
situation but it did not meet with the approval of Fort Town because of
their concern about restaurant parking late at night. He suggested the
matter be discussed with the Police Department and go back to Fort Town and
see if they might now concur with this solution.
Councilmember Clarke stated he would support the ordinance with a follow-up
to be done by the City staff.
I
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves,
-229-
May 18, 1982 '
to adopt Ordinance No. 65, 1982 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Cassell, Clarke, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wi1marth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Revising Street Encroachment and
Obstruction Application Fees as Established
in Sections 95-16 and 95-17 of the Code of
the City of Fort Collins, tabled to June 15
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"The fees for street encroachment and obstruction were established and
adopted by the Council of the City of Fort Collins on November 24 ,1965,
and the application fee was set at $1. The permit allowed for street
obstruction, encroachment and occupation for 90 days with an extension for
additional ninety -day periods upon written application and payment of a
renewal fee of one dollar. The permits often allowed occupation of 3-4
parking spaces in the downtown area for this $1 fee. With the establishment
of a Parking Commission, a review of the parking needs in the downtown area
resulted in several parking changes. A fee permit parking program was
established. Current fee per month for the permit parking is $8.00 in the
established lots. '
The $1 application fee does not cover costs of handling the street en-
croachment and obstruction permits and allows the occupation of several
prime parking spaces in the downtown area. The $1 fee is not in line with
current fees charged for parking. The proposed fees are more appropriate
and will confine the use of the street encroachment and obstruction permits
to higher priority items.
Since the metered and time -limit parking is of the highest priority for
parking, the fee is recommended at $20 for each 25 feet of frontage or
portion thereof per month. The unrestricted parking areas would have a
charge of $20 per month for each 50 feet of frontage or portion thereof.
A single parking space would have a charge of $1 per space per day with a
minimum charge of $5 to handle the administration costs involved. A
parallel parking space requires a minimum of 22 feet.
The fees for this permit would become a revenue for the Parking Fund.
This money could be designated toward capital projects designed to pro-
vide additional parking lots in the downtown area.
Staff recommends approval of this Ordinance revision."
Councilmember Clarke noted there had been 49 encroachment 'permits and 20
occupation permits which raised $69 in revenue. He questioned whether the I
proposed fee increase was still too low. He especially felt the $5 minimum
charge for a single parking space was too low.
-230-
May 18, 1982
Councilmember Wilmarth asked if the Parking Commission had reviewed this
matter and if they felt the fees were appropriate.
City Manager Arnold replied the Parking Commission had reviewed the fees
and were supportive of this user fee policy.
Councilmember Knezovich suggested the reference to the rules and regula-
tions of the Public Works Department mentioned in the ordinance be deleted
and pointed out the permits were renewable by the Director of Public Works
every 90 days. He questioned the automatic renewal provision.
Director of Streets & Traffic Bob Lee noted the purpose of the ordinance is
to free up as much parking in the downtown area as possible and that people
were being encouraged to park in the surrounding areas and not on College
Avenue and Mountain Avenue. He noted in relation to the rules and regula-
tions, that when a person obtains an encroachment permit he is required to
repair or replace any damage done to the street plus other requirements
contained in those rules and regulations.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wilmarth
to table the ordinance and schedule the matter for a work session in
June. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and
Wilmarth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Annexing Property Known as Harbor Walk Two
Adopted on First Readina
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"Applicants are requesting annexation of a 0.35-ac parcel located on the
south side of Warren Lake. The parcel is immediately adjacent to a 9.9-ac
parcel which was annexed to the City in May 1981, known as the Harbor Walk
Annexation. The site is vacant and surrounding land uses are as follows:
North: Warren Lake.
South: Harbor Walk Annexation, one existing residence.
East: Harbor Walk Annexation, vacant.
West: Landings Third, existing single-family residences.
Discussion
Harbor Walk Annexation has at least 1/6th of its boundary contiguous
-231-
May 18, 1982 '
to City limits. Contiguity is achieved to the east and to the south
through the Harbor Walk Annexation (annexed in May 1981).
Policy 17 of the Land Use Policies Plan states that:
"The City will establish annexation criteria through which it will
consider annexation proposals."
With the adoption of the Intergovernmental Agreement, the following
annexation criteria and policies for the Urban Growth Area have been
established:
"The City of Fort Collins agrees to annex all property within the
unincorporated area of the Urban Growth Area as soon as said property
becomes eligible for annexation.
The City agrees to consider for annexation any annexation petition
for undeveloped land which qualifies for voluntary annexation pur-
suant to State law."
The Harbor Walk Two Annexation is eligible for annexation since it has
the necessary contiguity and is a voluntary annexation.
Staff Recommendation '
Staff recommends approval of the Harbor Walk Two Annexation.
Planninq and Zoninq Board Recommendation
The Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval on a vote of 6-0 at
their meeting of April 26, 1982 of the annexation of property known as
Harbor Walk Two (Case No. 27-81A)."
Councilmember Reeves asked the record show she did not vote or participate
in the discussion of this item and the one following.
Councilmember Wilmarth expressed concern about the ownership question
mentioned in the Planning and Zoning Board minutes and asked why it was
necessary to annex this small parcel at this time.
Planning Director Curt Smith replied that the ownership question would be
settled by requiring an attorney's certification prior to the submittal of
the plat. He added this parcel was a piece of developable land that can be
developed with the property immediately southeast of it which needs to be
annexed in order to develop the rest of the property adjacent to it under
one ownership.
Dennis Donovan, v-p Osprey Inc. the applicant, addressed Council's con-
cerns.
-232-
J
May 18, 1982
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke,
to adopt Ordinance No. 69, 1982 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Cassell, Clarke, Horak, Knezovich, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. (Council -
member Reeves withdrawn).
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Zoning Property Known as Harbor Walk Two
Adopted on First Readin4
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"Applicants are requesting to zone 0.35-ac located on the south side of
Warren Lake, known as the Harbor Walk Two Annexation. The area is presently
zoned FA-1 Farming, with surrounding zoning as follows:
North: Warren Lake.
South: R-M-P, Medium Density Planned Residential.
East: R-M-P, Medium Density Planned Residential.
West: R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential.
Discussion
Policies 80 and 82 of the Land Use Policies Plan address locational cri-
teria for higher density residential development. These policies state
that:
Policy 80: Higher density residential uses should locate:
a. Near the core area, regional/community shopping centers, CSU
main campus, or the hospital;
b. Within close proximity to community or neighborhood park facil-
ities;
c. Where water and sewer facilities can be adequately provided;
d. Within easy access to major employment centers;
e. With access to public transportation; and
f. In areas with provisions for alternative modes of transpor-
tation.
-233-
May 18, 1982 '
Policy 82: Higher density residential uses should locate in planned
unit developments or in close proximity to existing higher density
areas.
The site is located near regional/community shopping facilities (Foot-
hills Fashion Mall) and neighborhood and community parks at Warren Park,
Landings Park, and the Collindale Golf Course. Major employment centers
are located at the Fashion Mall, NCR, PRPA and Hewlett-Packard. Public
transportation exists and bicycle routes are planned along Horsetooth
Road.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Harbor Walk Two Zoning to R-M-P, Medium
Density Planned Residential.
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation
The Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously (6-0) to recommend approval
of the R-M-P, Medium Density Planned Residential, zoning of property known
as Harbor Walk Two (Case No. 27-81B)."
Councilmember Wilmarth noted his concerns had been satisfied with regard to '
this item.
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Mayor Cassell, to adopt
Ordinance No. 70, 1982 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell,
Clarke, Horak, Knezovich, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. (Councilmember
Reeves withdrawn).
Presentation on Draft Fort Collins Air Quality Plan
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"The Larimer-Weld Regional Council of Governments (COG) and the COG's Air
Quality/Transportation Technical Advisory Committee, have completed a draft
of the Fort Collins Air Quality Plan. An Executive Summary of the Commit-
tee's recommendations to the Council is attached for review. City staff
and members of the COG staff will be present to answer questions and give a
brief overview of the Plan.
Under the provisions of the Clean Air Act, the Air Quality Plan must be
submitted to the EPA by July 1st as part of the Colorado State Implementa-
tion Plan. To meet this submittal deadline, the document must be released
for public review at this time, and a public hearing needs to be held at
the June 1st Council meeting.`
-234- ,
' May 18, 1982
Secretary's Note: Councilmember Elliott arrived at this point.
Sally Janett, Air Quality Planner for COG, presented copies of the full
document since only the executive summary had accompanied the agenda. She
requested a public hearing be set for June 1st. She noted that after
adoption by the Fort Collins City Council the -Plan would be submitted to
the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission which has already set their
public hearing date for June 11. She noted the Plan would be sent to other
organizations in Fort Collins for their review. A summary presentation of
the Plan will be given at the June 1st hearing.
Councilmember Knezovich noted he had difficulty reading the executive
summary and expressed hope the full document would be more understandable.
He asked why it was necessary to adopt this Plan.
Ms. Janett replied the Clean Air Act required areas projected not to meet
the standards by the end of 1982 to submit a revision to the Plan submitted
in 1979. The Clean Air Act is being reviewed by Congress, but before they
act Fort Collins is required by law to submit this Plan. Failure could
result in loss of federal assistance for various water and sewer and
highway projects.
Mayor Cassell asked staff to schedule the public hearing for June 1st.
IOrdinance Repealing a Section of the Code as
it Relates to the Liquor Licensing Authority
Appeal Procedure, Adopted on First Reading
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"At the Council work session of May 11th, the City Council discussed the
recent ruling of Judge John -David Sullivan in the case of James Whalen v.
The City of Fort Collins et al. Pursuant to his ruling, the City's Liquor
Licensing Appeal Procedure was considered to be in conflict with C.R.S.
§12-47-141, 1973 (as amended). Subsequent to discussion of the matter,
City Council directed staff to prepare an Ordinance repealing the Code
section which conflicts with the statutory provision.
Other matters discussed at the work session will be brought before Council
at a later date."
Assistant City Attorney Denton asked what Council's desire was with regard
to the appeal of the District Court ruling in the Whalen case.
Mayor Cassell replied that matter would be discussed in Executive Session
later in the evening.
Councilmember Knezovich asked how the cities of Aurora, Arvada, and Boulder
had addressed appeals procedures with Liquor Licensing Authority.
-235-
May 18, 1982 '
Assistant City Attorney Denton replied that the Authorities or the Councils
in those cities have the final authority and none addresses the appeal in
the manner Fort Collins currently does. He added Fort Collins was the only
city in the state to have this intermediate appeal from the,Authority to
Council and then on to District Court.
Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke,
to adopt Ordinance No. 71, 1982 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays:
None.
Resolutions Setting Forth the Intention of the
City of Fort Collins to Issue Industrial Development
Revenue Bonds for Neenan Company and ION Tech, Inc.,
Adopted
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"A. Resolution Setting Forth the Intent of the City of Fort Collins to
Issue Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for Neenan Building Part-
nership.
B. Resolution Setting Forth the Intent of the City of Fort Collins to I
Issue Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for Tulakes Associates.
Formal letters of application for Industrial Revenue Bonds were received
from Neenan Company and ION Tech, Inc., on April 13, 1982. The applications
have been reviewed by the Finance, Planning, and Legal Departments and the
attached Inducement Resolutions are being submitted to City Council with a
recommendation for approval.
The project consists of construction of two separate office facilities of
17,500 square feet each in the Seven Lakes Business Park, located on East
Prospect. Each of the facilities will be owned by separate General Part-
nerships and leased back to the Neenan Company and ION Tech, Inc. A more
definitive description of the partnerships and lease arrangements are
included in the Inducement Resolutions. The Neenan Company application is
for $750,000 and the ION Tech, Inc. application is for $800,000. Both
companies are presently located in Fort Collins and are seeking facilities
that will accommodate projected growth.
The entire application packets of the two companies were reviewed by
City staff. The applications were compared to the IDRB policies and
guidelines identified in Resolution 82-25. Following are the results of
the staff analysis.
-236- 1
May 18, 1982
I. Policy
A. General. The City of Fort Collins desires to maintain a reasonable
level of economic growth and development in the City and within the
boundaries of its Urban Growth Area. To this end, one principal
mechanism for implementing positive government action in concert with
the private sector is the use of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds
(IDRB) pursuant to County and Municipality Development Revenue Bond
Act, Title 29, Article 3 of the Colorado Revised Statutes.
Staff Comment
The construction of these facilities would be a positive
factor in the maintenance of a reasonable level of economic
growth and development. The proposed facilities are to be
located within the City limits. State statutes provide for
the inducement of existing industries which are expanding.
B.. Endorsement of the Use of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds.
e ity o rort o ins en orses t o concept o positive
local governmental action to stimulate balanced economic development
' in close cooperation with private institutions. This will include
the discriminate use of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds
as one means available to the City of Fort Collins to achieve
these purposes.
Staff Comment
The approval of inducement resolutions for these projects
would be a positive action by the City towards stimulating
balanced economic development.
C. Economic Competition. It is not the intent of the City of Fort
o ins, t roug t e implementation of this policy, to provide
an economically competitive advantage to any entity whether their
purpose for existence be for profit or non-profit.
Staff Comment
Analysis of the applications in terms of this policy statement
is very difficult. There seems to be three key questions.
1. Who are we inducing?
2. What are we inducing them to do?
' 3. Is a competitive advantage achieved by the applicants?
-237-
May 18, 1982
'
Technically, we
are inducing general
partnerships
whose sole
function is to
own and lease back the
facilities.
Practically,
we are inducing
two companies, Neenan
Company and
ION Tech,
Inc., whose functions
are broader and
will provide
the economic
benefits to the
community.
Technically, we are inducing the general partnerships to
build office space and manufacturing facilities. Practically,
we are inducing the two companies to expand their facilities
(by the construction of new and larger facilities) to be
occupied under long term leases, thereby insuring that the
companies remain in Fort Collins.
A competitive advantage may be present if the transaction
is viewed from the technical aspect. That is, there are probably
many general partnerships in the community whose purpose
is to own and lease office facilities.
I
A competitive advantage may be present in Neenan Company's
application even if viewed from the practical aspect. That
is, there may be a number of design/build contractors in
the community, some of which may be expanding or wish to
expand into new facilities. '
A competitive advantage probably does not exist with ION
Tech, Inc. if the transaction is viewed from the practical
aspect since ION Tech, Inc. provides a unique product for
which there is not competition.
A conclusion as to the consistency of the applications with
this policy will ultimately be the responsibility of Council.
II. Guidelines
A. General. Guidelines set forth herein are not intended as minimum
requirements, and each application will be considered on its
individual merits.
B. Benefits to the City. Generally, an IDRB proposal should demon-
strate one or more of the following economic benefits to the
City.
Creation of additional jobs within Fort Collins and within
the boundaries of its Urban Growth Area.
Staff Comment
Neenan Company employment projections include increasing '
from a present base of 44 employees to 75 employees by
1986.
-238-
' ION Tech, Inc. employment projections include increasing May 18, 1982
from a present base of 14 employees to 112 employees by
1987.
2. Increase of tax base resulting in a net fiscal benefit to
the City.
Staff Comment
The construction costs of the two facilities is S1,550,000.
Based on current state statutes and City mill levies, the
annual property tax revenue would be approximately $3,000.
The table
below shows the estimated annual sales tax revenue
for the City
based upon
the projected sales,
subject to
sales tax,
of the two companies.
PROJECTED SALES IN THOUSANDS
(In Whole Dollars)
NEENAN COMPANY
ION TECH,
INC. TOTAL
SALES TAX REVENUE
1982
2,750
1,950
4,700
105,750
1983
4,500
3,014
7,514
161,065
1984
6,500
4,533
11,033
248,242
1985
8,500
6,895
15,395
346,387
1986
11,000
10,500
21,500
483,750
1987
Not Provided
16,000
16,000
360,000
3. Stimulation
of additional
business investment.
Staff Comment
The nature of Neenan Company's business and more specifically
the Seven Lakes Business venture is such that it is reasonable
to assume that additional business will be drawn to the
community.
ION Tech, Inc. is a very specialized high tech company
that may draw other high tech companies to the community.
4. Provide facilities or benefits to Fort Collins citizens for
economic purposes in a manner that compliments the City's
own programs or facilities.
Staff Comment
I
This provision is not applicable to the applications.
-239-
May 18, 1982 '
i
C. Other Considerations. The City will encourage the submission
o proposa s t at are consistent with the following general guide-
lines.
1. IDRB proposals should be consistent with stated official policies
and goals and objectives of the City of Fort Collins. It is
the responsibility of the applicant to obtain such information
from the City administration.
2. The City of Fort Collins will encourage the submission of
proposals that provide for downtown revitalization, historic
preservation and energy conservation.
Staff Comment
Neither of the applications appear to be inconsistent with
stated official policies, goals and objectives of the City.
The Seven Lakes Business Park has been approved as a PUD
by the Planning and Zoning Board.
D. Facilities and Programs. All facilities and programs that may
e inance un er t e olorado statutes will be eligible for
consideration by the City. Competitive impact resulting from
the facility or program will be considered and addressed in '
approving an IDRB issue.
Staff Comment
Both applications have been preliminarily discussed with
the City's bond counsel and appear to be consistent with
state statutes.
III. Financial Responsibility. Applicants for IDRB issues must clearly
demonstrate inancia responsibility sufficient to amortize the
proposed bond issue. The plan for marketing the IDRB's will determine
the general financial standards used by the City to evaluate the
proposal. The marketing plan for the sale of the IDRB issue must
be filed with the application and kept current through the closing
of the IDRB issue.
A. Public Offering of Industrial
following financial criteria
the participation of the City
Development Revenue Bonds. The
ill be used as guidelines for
in a public offering of IDRB's:
1. The financial statements of the applicant should demonstrate
sound financial position and operation results.
2. And further, that the applicant should present financial pro-
jections of the proposed project based on a marketing survey ,
or a feasibility study, where applicable.
-240-
[I
May 18, 1982
B. Private Placement.
1. Description of private placement investor(s).
2. The debt to appraised value of the proposed facility should
not exceed 90%. Exceptions to this guideline should be allowed
where the applicant presents special circumstances for a higher
debt to appraised value ratio.
Staff Comment
The marketing plan was not filed with the application,
however, private placement with local financial institutions
is being considered by the applicants.
Since private placement is being considered, the applications
were compared to the financial standards required under
Private Placement rather than a Public Offering.
The appraised value of the facilities obviously will not
be known until after construction is complete, however,
it is felt that the appraised value of the ION Tech, Inc.
facility will be greater than the construction costs because
of its unique character.
C. Other General Economic Considerations
1. Asset life span versus term of the bond issue.
2. Management strength of applicant.
3. Minimum size of bond issues.
Generally, the City will not consider an IDRB issue of less
than $750,000, unless private placement has been pre -arranged.
4. Efforts toward public/private partnership projects.
Staff Comment
The asset life span is expected to be 40 years or greater,
compared to 20 year term bonds.
The City staff has met with the management teams of both
companies and reviewed personal financial statements
and company financial projections. The financial
projections are reasonable and the management of both
companies appears to be based on sound financial
policies.
-241-
D. Reimbursement to the City of all expenses. May 18, 1982 '
Whether or not the proposed project is approved by the City of
Fort Collins and Industrial Revenue Bonds issued, the proponent
of the project will be required to reimburse the City of Fort
Collins for any and all expenses incurred as a result of the
application for Industrial Development Revenue Bonds. This reim-
bursement will include, but not be limited to, the cost of time
of all the personnel of the City, the expense of bond counsel
and such consultants as the City may employ to assist in the
evaluation, and all other expenses incurred by the City related
to the proposal.
E. Fees charged by the City for the Issuance of Industrial Development
evenue bonds.
If the proposed project is approved by the City of Fort Collins
and Industrial Development Revenue Bonds are issued, a fee will
be paid to the City by the applicant. The amount of said fee
shall be the present value of the amount to be derived from applying
1/16 of 1% to the unpaid principal amount of the bonds at the
end of each bond year. This fee will be in addition to the
reimbursement of any and all expenses incurred by the City. Notwith-
standing any provision contained herein, this fee shall not exceed federal '
arbitrage regulations. The fee will be paid to the City at the time of
official closing on the sales of the bonds.
Staff Comment
Both applicants have been adivsed of provisions stated above and have
agreed to both.
Recommendation
The only possible problem staff sees with the IDRB applications is the
question of economic competition: Should we issue or should we withhold
IDRB's from either because approval would give each firm competitive
advantage (in lower interest rates) over its competitors? Staff feels
that competitive advantage is a problem inherent in IDRB's; its amelior-
ated by the fact that IDRB's are open to all comers, thereby leavening
the advantage. But the decision is one of values that Council should
resolve.
Staff recommends Council resolve the policy question on economic competi-
tion and if favorable, proceed with the resolutions."
-242-
May 18, 1982
David Neenan, President of Neenan Company, stated there would be a simul-
taneous presentation of these two requests for IDRB's. He gave a history
of his company and noted he felt they could not expand their employment
base in the current financial market without the aid of IDRB's. He gave a
history of the Seven Lakes P.U.D. and noted his company's intent to attract
companies from the high technology industry. He introduced Paul Reader,
President of ION Tech, Inc. and noted the company deals in ion sources.
Mr. Reader gave a history of ION Tech, Inc. and noted the special facility
requirements required by his company, i.e. "clean room" facilities not
found in existing buildings. He estimated his work force would increase to
over 100 within the next five years.
Steve Barnes, Marketing and Design Manager, gave a demonstration of the
plans for Seven Lakes. His slide presentation depicted the site improve-
ments already accomplished. He noted they had attempted to maintain the
natural environment as much as possible. He showed .renderings of the
buildings planned for the site.
Council recessed for the dinner break at this point.
I
Citizen Participation
A. Proclamation Naming May 23-29 as National Public Works Week.
Was accepted by Carol Osborne, Assistant to the Director of Public
Works.
B. Presentation of Certificate of Appreciation to Fort Collins Camp Fire
Girls.
Was accepted by members of the Camp Fire Troop.
C. Mayor Cassell read a proclamation naming May 18 as "Official Fossil
Day" in Fort Collins in honor of Councilmember Wilmarth's 48th birth-
day.
Resolutions Setting Forth the Intention of the
City of Fort Collins to Issue Industrial Development
Revenue Bonds for Neenan Company and ION Tech, Inc.
(Secretary's Note: This item continued from page 236.)
' Councilmember Knezovich asked Mr. Heenan what his company's initial uses of
the building would be.
-243-
May 18
Mr. Neenan explained the usage noting the Neenan Company would be occupying
approximately 7,000 square feet of the total 17,500 square feet and the
balance would be subleased to high technology industry.
Councilmember Reeves asked if additional IDRB's would be requested for the
other buildings planned for the tract.
Mr. Neenan replied that it was hoped the current financial market would
change and other options would be available.
Councilmember Horak asked what the Neenan Company's plans would be if the
request for IDRB's was denied.
Mr. Neenan stated they would pursue whatever alternative sources were
available after reappraising the project to determine what debt service
could be afforded.
Councilmember Knezovich asked Mr. Reader what would happen if ION Tech was
no longer in existence in two years.
Mr. Reader replied the company was in a strong cash position but added he
felt the marketability of the facility would be extremely high. Even with
the uniqueness of the building it could always be leased to a lesser use if
high technology applications were not available.
Councilmember Knezovich stated he would vote "no" on this resolution
because of the commitments he had made to stay in a competitive situation
he could not divorce himself from other businesses already in existence in
the community.
I :.
Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to.
adopt the Resolution setting forth the City's intent to issue IDRB's for
Neenan Building Partnership. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke,
Elliott, Horak, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: Councilmember Knezovich.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to
adopt the Resolution setting forth the City's intent to issue IDRB's for
Tulakes Associates. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak,
Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: Councilmember Knezovich.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Engineering/Architectural Services for the New Bus Facility
Contracts Awarded to ZVFK Architects/Planners _
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: '
-244-
I
M
"Background ay 18, 1982
During the months of March and April 1981, City staff developed an appli-
cation for a capital improvement assistance grant from the Urban Mass
Transportation Administration for the design and construction of a New
Transfort Facility including the purchase of four new buses. City Council
accepted this grant on August 4, 1981. The proposed four (4) acre site for
this New Bus Facility is located in the southern portion of the City of
Fort Collins and located on an undeveloped site. The grant included the
purchase of four acres of land. The approach taken was to combine this
bus facility with a Southside Service Center, a park, and any other future
City facilities. Negotiations for the site, as stated in the grant, did
not work out in the best interests of the City. Therefore, on January 19,
1982, the decision was made to locate this New Bus Facility on a 60 acre
site located on Trilby Road, one-half mile east of College Avenue. In-
cluded on this site will be the New Transfort Facility, a Southside Service
Center, plus a major substation for the Light and Power Utility and the
Platte River Power Authority.
Proposed Work
ZVFK Architects/Planners have been selected to perform the engineering/
architectural services for the New Bus Facility. Staff is recommending
entering into a site improvement agreement in the amount of $42,690 and the
agreement for the new Transfort facility in the amount of $356,410.
The procedures as outlined in the Capital Projects Management Control
System were followed in the total selection process. The Requests for
Proposals were transmitted to all interested engineering/architectural
firms on March 19, 1982. A total of fifteen (15) proposals were received
on April 16, 1982. From the fifteen (15) proposals, four (4) firms were
interviewed.
These four were: ZVFK, Architecture Plus, Sutter Architect -Planner, and
RNL (Rogers, Nagel, Langhart).
A compilation of the rating system and ratings of the consultants are
attached.
The scope of work for this overall project includes four parts:
Part 1) Site Development of a 60 acre site including the following:
topographic mapping of the entire site; all associated surveying; master
planning the site according to the Land Development Guidance System; civil
engineering design and construction of entire site based upon overall
master plan including off -site and on -site street improvements, the asso-
ciated drainage improvements and overlot grading. This work will be
' performed by ZVFK. The design and construction of utilities will be done
by the following: electric, City of Fort Collins Light and Power Depart-
ment; water, City of Fort Collins Water and Sewer Department; sewer, City
-245-
May 18, 1982
of Fort Collins Water and Sewer Department; telephone, Mountain Bell and
Northern Telecom; natural gas, Public Service Company of Colorado.
Part 2 is the design and construction of an approximately 35,000 square
foot administration/maintenance/storage facility for 25 buses on a four
acre site within the total 60 acre site. This includes the usual phases of
schematic design (conceptual); development (preliminary) (final), con-
struction documents, bidding, contract administration and close-out phases.
The City of Fort Collins will be evaluating the following items for the
facility.
1. Follow the City of Fort Collins procedures for any new facility
through the Planning and Zoning Board.
2. Life cycle costing of different alternatives.
3. Program for future expansion.
4. Evaluate solar heating.
5. Provide a fire protection system. '
6. Provide a security system.
7. Provide an energy management system.
8. Design, specify and coordinate the selection of all new office
equipment, new office furnishings, new capital tools and equip-
ment and a new bus fueling station.
9. Performance specifications for a communication center including
two-way radios, a new base station, a new tower and an antenna.
10. Purchase and install a new bus washer/cleaner equipment.
11. Provide civil engineering design and construction services for
site improvements for the four acre site including associated
earth work, streets and parking lot, storm sewers, curb and
gutter, sidewalks, site lighting, landscaping, and a security
fence.
Part 3 will be to Develop a Vehicle Preventive Maintenance and Quality
Controlobjective-being Program with the to develop a master maintenance
program which will address vehicle requirements of the coordinated Trans-
fortIand Care -A -Van transit systems. This will be sub -contracted to a
specialty firm, Fleet Maintenance.
-246-
May 18, 1982
Part 4 is to develop a Facilities Maintenance Program including a building
inventory of all HVAC equipment, and all architectural items such as doors,
hardwares, paints, carpets, etc. This program will be handled by RMH,
sub -contracted by ZVFK.
The engineering/architectural design services agreement will be separated
into two contracts - the first is for site improvements, as the funding for
this portion of the work will be financed by the City of Fort Collins,
and will not include any proportionate share of federal money; the second
will be the engineering/architectural design services for the New Transfort
Facility, the Vehicle Preventative Maintenance and Quality Control Program
and the Facilities Maintenance Program. The funding for this portion of
the work includes 80% federal money and 20% City money."
Special Projects Coordinator Jack Gianola, summarized the consultant
selection process and explained in detail the reasons for the selection of
ZVFK as the firm to provide these engineering services.
Councilmember Horak asked what the final offers to the City were by the
four firms interviewed.
Jack Gianola replied that negotiations were only held with the firm that
' was rated No. 1, ZVFK.
Councilmember Horak asked if, when the sources were so close, other bids
were not obtained or negotiations held with the other top rated firms.
Jack Gianola stated that was not done although all firms were asked to
submit a "ballpark" estimate with their proposals.
Councilmember Horak asked if credentials for job performance of the four
finalist firms in the selection process had been checked and also if the
reputations of the subcontractors involved had been checked.
Jack Gianola replied that their past performances had been evaluated and
ZVFK had received good reports but the subcontractor had not been checked
in the detail ZVFK had been investigated. He added that through Fleet
Maintenance and the RMH Group, ZVFK would have the expertise to design the
bus facility. He stated the ultimate responsibility for the facility would
be with ZVFK who would resolve problems between themselves and their
consultants.
Councilmembers expressed concerns with the consultant selection procedure.
It was decided to schedule the process for a future work session for
re-examination or possible changes.
Councilmember
Reeves made a
motion, seconded by
Councilmember
Elliott,
to approve the
two agreements
with ZVFK. Yeas:
Councilmembers
Cassell,
-247-
May 18, 1982
Clarke, Elliott, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: Horak.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolutions Authorizing Eminent Domain
Proceedings for Street Improvement District #76,
Adopted
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"A. Resolution Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings
of Certain Property owned by G & D Investment Co.
B. Resolution Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings
of Certain Property owned by Willis Rase.
C. Resolution Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings
of Certain Property owned by Wells, Wilmarth, and Dayton.
This project was originally designed to widen and reconstruct Horsetooth '
Road from College Avenue to Shields Street at arterial street standards.
However, due to current economic conditions, the western section was
deleted from the project when meetings with developers disclosed that money
for residential development was non-existent. Based upon this information,
a revised scope of work placed the western limit of the project at the C &
S Railroad on the north and the New Mercer Ditch on the south.
This reduced scope of work required right-of-way acquisition from seven
parcels. Appraisals were ordered during the fourth quarter of 1981 and
four parcels have been successfully obtained at the appraised value.
This leaves problems with the three remaining parcels:
Parcel # 6 - G & D Investment Co.
Parcel # 7 - Rase
Parcel #12 - Wells, Wilmarth and Dayton
Negotiations are continuing with representatives for parcels 7 and 12, and
there is still hope for resolving the issues; however, an impasse exists on
Parcel 6. A status recap for each parcel follows:
-248- 1
' City Owner May 18, 1982
Appraised Appraised Owner
Parcel Value Value Counter
# 6 $23,660 $63,000 $ 91,462 (Lessor)
$126,600 (Lessee)
# 7 $23,000 Pending Pending
#12 $39,000 Pending Pending
The City staff, including our Legal Department, and our independent fee
appraisers have reviewed the data available including that submitted by the
property owners and feel that the City's appraised value positions are fair
and reasonable.
Failure to initiate Eminent Domain proceedings now could postpone comple-
tion of the street construction until spring of 1983. If we proceed with
immediate possession, construction of the entire project should be com-
pleted in October.
OPTIONS
I. Proceed with Eminent Domain action for acquisition of the three
remaining right-of-way parcels on Horsetooth Road.
' Pros:
a) The City will obtain access to the subject properties in 45 to
60 days.
b) Construction delays will be avoided.
c) Negotiations can continue up until the court hears the condem-
nation case.
Cons:
a) Court awards will not be determined for several months (probably
late in 1983)
b) Court awards may be higher than negotiated settlements.
2. Continue negotiations to settle acquisition of needed properties
without Eminent Domain.
Pros:
a) This option avoids potential high legal costs.
b) Negotiated settlements may be lower than court awards.
Cons:
a) The City will lose substantial interest on the construction
money caused by an indefinite delay in construction (10% of
$1,000,000).
I
-249-
'b) Negotiated settlements may be higher than court awards. May 18, 1982
c) Eminent Domain may still be needed to acquire some or all of the
needed property.
Staff recommends adoption of these three Resolutions."
Councilmember Wilmarth did not vote or participate in the discussion of
these three resolutions.
City Manager Arnold noted there was a verbal agreement with the owner of
the property in Resolution "B" but recommended all three resolutions be
adopted with no action being taken on "B" if final agreement is reached.
Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves,
to adopt the Resolution "A". Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke,
Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, and Reeves. Nays: None. (Councilmember
Wilmarth withdrawn).
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Knezovich asked if there was a critical time factor involved
with the Rase Resolution noting he would prefer not to initiate eminent
domain proceedings if not necessary. '
City Attorney Huisjen noted possession had to be obtained in July so in
terms of litigation there was a critical time factor.
Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to
adopt the Resolution "B". Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott,
Horak, and Reeves. Nays: Councilmember Knezovich. (Councilmember Wil-
marth withdrawn).
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to
adopt the Resolution "C". Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott,
Horak and Reeves. Nays: None. (Councilmember Wilmarth withdrawn).
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Cassell noted City Attorney Huisjen had indicated the need for
special counsel to represent the City in these proceedings in that it was
inappropriate for the City Attorney to both represent the Council and its
individual members.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to
authorize the City Attorney to retain outside counsel with regard to Item ,
-250-
IMay 18, 1982
"C". Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak and Reeves.
Nays: None. (Councilmember Wilmarth withdrawn).
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Supporting the Beverage Container Re -Use and
Recycling Initiative on the November State Election Ballot,
Adopted
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"Recently, Pam Turner of Coloradoans For Recycling presented information to
Councilmembers on the subject of beverage containers re -use and recycling
initiative. In response to this presentation, Council directed staff to
prepare a Resolution supporting this issue. Opponents of the "Bottle Bill"
(as it is commonly known) have been notified and will be given an oppor-
tunity to discuss the issue prior to Council's consideration of the Resolu-
tion."
' The following persons spoke on this issue:
1. Bill MacNamara, President of Columbine Beverage Co., Denver, and
Chairman of Colorado Resource Recovery Committee who urged Council to
withhold its endorsement of the Resolution. He felt voluntary recycl-
ing was adequate.
2. Barbara Krebe, 3630 W. County Road 50, representative of the League of
Women Voters, supported the adoption of the Resolution.
3. Edmund Levering, 1736 B Heritage Circle #131, Conservative Committee
Chairman for the Fort Collins Audubon Society, urged support of the
issue.
4. Karl Culig, member of the Energy Futures Council, spoke in favor of
adoption of the Resolution.
5. Denny Farnsworth, 1424 Lakeshore Drive, former Marshall Distributing
employee, who spoke about additional distribution costs and problems if
the statewide initiative were passed and opposed adoption of the
Resolution.
6. Pam Turner, Coloradoans for Recycling, 524 LaPorte, who expressed
support for the Resolution and introduced representatives of several
groups who also supported the issue.
-251-
May 18, 1982 '
7. Jerry Granberg, 3120 Stanford, owner of Youngs Liquor, spoke of the
impact of legislation would have on retailers and opposed the Resolu-
tion.
8. Rosalind Lagerstrom, 2,719 Highway 287 North, who supported the issue.
9. Bruce Lockhart, 615 Mathews, spoke in opposition to the issue.
Councilmember Wilmarth stated he did not feel that, as a representative of
the City of Fort Collins, it was his obligation to tell the rest of the
voters who they should think on this particular issue. He noted that while
he personally supported the issue, he would not vote "no" as he did not
feel this was subject matter of concern to the Fort Collins City Council.
Mayor Cassell concurred with Councilmember Wilmarth noting he felt Council
should respond as individuals to this measure as it was not a matter for
Council to determine.
Councilmember Horak disagreed stating he felt passage of the Resolution was
in order and was of local concern.
Councilmember Elliott supported passage of the Resolution in order to help
the initiative to be placed on the November ballot so the voter can decide
whether to support the issue or not. '
Councilmember Clarke stated he felt it was valuable for Councilmembers to
make their views known on particular issues as it exhibits leadership. He
noted he would support the issue.
Councilmember Reeves added that it makes sense at a local level to take
some action in support of the measure in that locally the City does have to
clean up its parks and streets.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves,
to adopt the Resolution. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak,
Knezovich, and Reeves. Nays: Councilmembers Cassell and Wilmarth.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Out -of -City Water Tap for Property Known as the Native
American Vocational and Traininq Institute, Authorized
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"Discussion
This proposal consists of reconstruction and remodeling of existing facil- ,
-252-
I�
May 18, 1982
ities and the erection of two metal buildings on existing slabs that once
before had metal structures on them.
The City of Fort Collins Water Board, at their regular meeting on March 10,
1982, reviewed and recommended approval of a new water tap on the City's
24-inch concrete transmission line. The tap would provide water to
an existing pump station which delivers water to the missle site through an
existing 2-inch water line. The Water Board's recommendation is based upon
the following conditions:
1. That they would be subject to all other ordinances and charges of the
City of Fort Collins;
2. That the line would be used for no other purpose but the serving of
water to the Institute;
3. That, at the discretion of the City, service could be cut off either
because there is not potable water in that line in the future, or
because this particular tap interferes with pressures and other ele-
ments of the distribution of water with the City; and
4. That the tap must be installed at a different location as selected by
the Water Utilities Department and constructed with a check valve to
prevent the backflow of water.
Staff Recommendation
This project is of considerable community benefit. Staff sees no land use
problems and recommends approval of the project. This item does not appear
on the Consent Agenda because of possible neighborhood opposition.
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation
The Planning and Zoning Board at their regular meeting on April 26, 1982
voted 7-0 to approved the request for Out -of -City water service for the
Native American Vocational and Training Institute."
City Manager Arnold noted Planning and Zoning Board had been given the
final authority on all land use decisions except annexations, zoning and
rezonings. Out of city water taps were not addressed so the old procedures
were followed with this request. He noted Council might want to give staff
some direction on future items of this type.
R.A. Schmidt, representing 17 of his neighbors along County Road 29C,
conveyed their concerns about being forced to tie onto City water if this
. tap was granted and the duplication of schools since Larimer County Voc-
Tech was already in operation.
-253-
May 18, 1982 '
City Engineer Tom Hays noted it was the Water Board's position that this
was site specific for the school and was not intended to serve other
development along the line.
Councilmember Reeves asked if granting this tap would set any kind of
precedent for future requests.
City Engineer Tom Hays replied that a number of taps had been made on that
transmission line coming down from the canyon. He added it was now the
Water Board's and the Water Utility's position that they would prefer not
to make additional taps off the transmission line because there are some-
times problems in providing continuous adequate service off a direct
transmission line. Each additional request would be considered on a case
by case basis.
Councilmember Clarke questioned why the Water Board waived the normal raw
water or in lieu of raw water requirements.
City Engineer Tom Hays noted with a 2" line the school would not be able to
irrigate a site as large as 18 acres and that may have been one of the
Water Board's considerations in waiving the requirements.
Judy Bergman, County Road 29C, noted that by the City granting the water
tap, the school's biggest obstacle had been removed as to obtaining rezon-
ing from County Planning.
Kathy Hill, County Road 29C, noted within 4-5 years the school was project-
ing an enrollment of 200 which would have quite an impact on water.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wilmarth,
to authorize the out of city water tap for the Native American Vocational
and Training Institute. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Reeves
and Wilmarth. Nays: Councilmembers Elliott, Horak and Knezovich.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinances Relating to Campaign Contributions
and Disclosure Provisions, Adopted
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 62, 1982, Adopting Disclosure Provi-
sions for the City of Fort Collins.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 73, Repealing a Code
Section as it Relates to Campaign Contributions.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 74, Reenacting a Code I
Provision Relating to Campaign Contributions.
-254-
' May 18, 1982
Ordinance No. 62, 1982, was adopted by a 6-1 vote on May 4 and sets out
reporting and disclosure requirements for campaign contributions. The
ordinance was amended on April 4 to require that in addition to the re-
quirements of the Campaign Reform Act, each candidate and campaign treas-
urer shall file a campaign report before 9:00 a.m. on the Thursday prior to
the date of the election.
For clarification, additional amendments to Sections 2 & 3 have been made
by the City Attorney since the ordinance was adopted on First Reading.
Section 2 has been amended to more clearly state the intent that campaign
reports be filed for ballot issues as well as candidates. An additional
sentence has been added to Section 3 to require all campaign reports
(including those to be filed 11 days prior to and 30 days after the
election) to be filed by 9:00 a.m. on the date due. This amendment is
necessary to enable the City Clerk to meet publication deadlines.
Ordinances Nos. 73 and 74, 1982 were briefly discussed at the May 11
work session and staff was directed to present them for Council con-
sideration at this meeting. Ordinance No. 73, 1982, repeals Chapter 9,
Article VI, Section 15 of the Code which establishes a $100 limit on
contributions to any initiative, referendum or candidate. The ordinance as
it pertains to initiatives or referenda, is unconstitutional. Ordinance
No. 74, 1982 readopts the constitutional portion of the ordinance and
' sets a $100 limitation on contributions to a candidate's campaign as
required by Article XVII 59 of the City Charter."
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Knezovich,
to adopt Ordinance No. 62, 1982 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Clarke, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: Councilmembers
Cassell and Elliott.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wilmarth,
to adopt Ordinance No. 73, 1982 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to
adopt Ordinance No. 74, 1982 on First Reading.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wilmarth, to
insert 1500" in place of "$100" in the ordinance.
Councilmember Knezovich spoke in opposition to the amendment noting he felt
1 -255-
May 18, 1982 ,
no person who really wanted to get elected would accept a $500 contribu-
tion.
The vote on Councilmember Clarke's amendment was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, and Wilmarth. Nays:
Councilmembers Knezovich and Reeves.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The vote on Councilmember Reeve's original motion to adopt Ordinance No.
74, 1982 as amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke,
Elliott, Horak, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: Councilmember Knezovich.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
City Attorney's Report
City Attorney Huisjen asked if Council wished to act on the question of the
appeal of Judge Sullivan's ruling on the Whalen liquor license case. He
recommended Council not pursue this matter and allow the Retail Liquor
Store License to be issued.
Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Knezovich, to '
follow the recommendation of the City Attorney. Yeas: Councilmembers
Cassell, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: Council -
member Clarke.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
City Manager's Report
City Manager Arnold stated there was a memo from Colorado Municipal League
asking the City to inform them if we will participate in a consumer's
leverage against the proposed Mountain Bell rate increase. The City's
share would be approximately $3,200.
Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Knezovich,
to contribute $3,200 to the CML effort against the proposed Mountain Bell
rate increase. Yeas: Councilmembers Knezovich and Reeves. Nays: Coun-
cilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak and Wilmarth.
THE MOTION FAILED.
Other Business
Mayor Cassell noted the employee service award presentations would be on '
-256-
May 18, 1982
May 28th. He noted he and Assistant Mayor Knezovich would be unavailable
and asked for a Councilmember to represent them. Councilmember Horak will
attend the ceremony and make the presentations.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to
appoint Ken Waido and Bob Lee to the Metropolitan Planning Organization
technical advisory board. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott,
Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Knezovich asked that the issue of a higher franchise fee for
cable TV be studied and a report brought to a work session.
Adjournment
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Knezovich, to
adjourn the meeting. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott,
' Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
Assistant�4 0
ATTEST:
Ci y Clerk
-257-