HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-10/04/1983-RegularOctober 4, 1983
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, October 4, 1983, 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, Rutstein, and
Stoner.
Staff Members Present: Arnold, Huisjen, Lewis, Krajicek, Meitl, Widmer,
Harmon, Hays
Agenda Review: City Manager
' City Manager Arnold announced that Item #23, Resolutions Authorizing the
Exchange of Real Estate Between the City and Joseph C. Roesser, Jr., had
been withdrawn from the agenda at the request of Mr. Roesser's attorney.
He noted there would be one item of Other Business relating to support of
Larimer County's continued membership in the Larimer-Weld Regional Council
of Governments.
Councilmember Ohlson asked that Item #8, Hearing and First Reading of
Ordinance No. 122, 1983, Approving 5-Year Agreement with Giaco Enterprizes,
Incorporated for Interior Advertising on Transfort Buses.
Consent Calendar
This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and
energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends
approval of the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this
calendar be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately.
Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be considered separately
under Agenda Item #43, 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. Consider Approving the Minutes of the regular meeting of September 20.
-24-
October 4, 1983 '
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 119, 1983, Vacating a Portion of a
Utility, Access, and Drainage Easement in Tract F, Par entra
P.U.D., Phase 11.
This Ordinance was adopted by a vote of 6-0 on the Consent Calendar at
the Council meeting of September 20th.
Tract B of Park Central P.U.D., Phase II, was approved by the Planning
and Zoning Board in August, 1983 with a larger building envelope than
was platted with the original P.U.D.
To accommodate the larger envelope and added landscape treatments, the
applicant is requesting that portions of the easement be vacated. All
utilities were contacted and all indicated no problems with this
request.
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 1983, Appropriating Unanticipated
Revenue from the Mineral Severance Tax Fund Program In The Poudre Fire
Authority Fund.
This Ordinance was
adopted on the Consent Calendar by a
vote of 6-0 at
the September 20th
In 1983, the City
meeting.
has received $861
from the mineral
severance tax
'
fund program. This
statewide program
allocates money to
local govern-
ments based on the
number of energy
company employees
who reside in
each jurisdiction.
In addition, local jurisdictions compete for funds on a regional and
statewide basis under this program. This year the Poudre Fire Au-
thority applied for a grant to fund specialized equipment and an EPA
approved hazardous materials holding facility for the hazardous
materials response team (HMRT). Unfortunately, their request was
denied. Therefore, we are requesting that the City Council appropri-
ate the money received from the State for the Poudre Fire Authority to
use to augment funding for the HMRT. These funds will apply toward
the purchase of a hydro-carbon/oxygen deficiency detector which is
used to measure the presence of toxic and/or flammable vapors in the
atmosphere:
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 1983, Appropriating Unanticipated
Revenue in the FAUS Grant Fund.
This Ordinance was adopted by a vote of 6-0 on the Consent Calendar at
the September 20th meeting. At that meeting, a Resolution was also
adopted authorizing an intergovernmental agreement with the State
Highway Department allowing the City to use these funds through the I
Highway Department.
-25-
1
October 4, 1983
The City of Fort Collins has received Federal and State approval in
1983 to use 1982-83 Federal Aid Urban Systems money, totaling $176,760
for the continued expansion of the computerized traffic signal system.
These grant funds are to be used for engineering, material procurement
and installation of the system expansion.
The Ordinance appropriates unanticipated revenue into, the Capital
Project Fund to allow for this project.
8. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 1983, Approving 5-Year
Agreement with Giaco Enterprizes, Incorporated for Interior Adver-
tising on Transfort Buses.
On August 25, 1983 proposals were received for the contracting of
advertising services for the interior of the Transfort Buses. Nine-
teen firms were invited to bid with only one contractor, Giaco Enter -
prizes, Incorporated, responding.
Other firms contacted felt that this project was out of their area of
expertise. Mr. Giacopelli, President of Giaco Enterprizes, Incor-
porated, is very familiar with the Transfort system as he currently
holds the contract for the advertising on the bus benches.
9. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 1983, Amending the Raw
Water Requirement as Contained in - 6 of the Code of the City.
Section 112-66 of the Code of the City provides for the furnishing of
raw water to the City by developers as a part of the development
requirements. The raw water requirement as contained in this Section
is an elective one of four and one-half (4 1/2) acre feet per (net)
acre to be served or, in the alternative, three (3) acre feet per
(gross) acre to be served, which would include streets, rights -of -way,
common areas and parks.
It was reported to the Water Board some time ago that the raw water
requirements of §112-66 may be inadequate when an industrial user such
as Anheuser-Busch plans to locate in Fort Collins. Although Anheuser-
Busch has agreed to provide the City with all of the raw water which
would be required for its development, another industry wishing to
locate in the City could, under the present Code, hold the City to the
requirements of only three acre feet per acre or, in the alternative,
four and one-half acre feet per acre. If such an industry in fact
used water in excess of those requirements, the City's raw water
supply would be accordingly diminished. In order to protect against
such a possibility, the Water Board instructed the Staff to give
' thought to a proposed amendment to 5112-66 to address this apparent
weakness in the Code.
-26-
10
October 4, 1983
In response to the Water Board's request, staff has drafted a new
subparagraph "E" which would provide that the Director of Water
Utilities could make a determination as to whether or not the raw
water requirements are inadequate to compensate the City for the
actual water usage of a development and, if he should determine that
the volume of raw water was inadequate, he could require the fur-
nishing of such amounts as would properly compensate the City.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 1983, Authorizing
rans er o Appropriations Between Capital Projects or ater reat-
ment Plant Improvements.
The construction phase of the Water Treatment Plant Improvements
project has begun. As you will recall, this project causes certain
improvements to be made to stabilize corrosivity of the treated water
and eliminate alum carryover. Improvements are required at both water
treatment plants.
Funding for these improvements was separated inequitably between the
two plants. The intent was to merge these budgeted funds into a
single fund for accomplishing the construction and to have the work '
performed under a single contract. The controller has reviewed this
plan and has ruled that separation of these funds would be a better
accounting practice.
A transfer of $600,000 needs to be made from the WTP #1 Improvements
construction phase fund to the WTP #2 Improvements construction phase
fund. The transfer will allow capitalizing the funds with the appro-
priate separation of 35%-65%.
11. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 1983, Vacating a
Portion of Colboard Drive in R.C.D. Plaza South P.U.D.
Colboard Drive as originally platted on R.C.D. Plaza South P.U.D. was
a right-angle local street providing access to College Avenue and a
future connection to the proposed extension of Boardwalk west of
College.
R.C.D. P.U.D. 2nd Filing utilizes a portion of the existing street and
continues it west to connect to Mason. The portion of Colboard within
the 2nd Filing which turned south is no longer needed nor desired.
There remains a dedicated connection from the proposed Boardwalk
extension through property owned by Winstons, thereby providing access
for Winstons and the westerly portion of that property onto this
street, then to Boardwalk. It will be necessary to rename this street '
at the time that property comes in for subdivision.
-P7-
'
October 4, 1983
12. Hearing and First
Reading of Ordinance
No. 126, 1983, Vacating Ease-
ments shown on
the Plat of Sun Disk Village
PUD approve y P anning
and Zoning Board
on February
The developer of
Sun Disk Village PUD is
phasing his development and,
in so doing, is
required to reroute some utility mains from his
original scheme.
13
Staff has approved the utility main relocation contingent upon the
dedication of adequate easements to maintain these mains.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 1983, Authorizing the
Transfer of Appropriations Between Capital Projects for University
Ma Medians.
This ordinance authorizes the transfer of funds from various completed
capital projects to a new project account for the design and construc-
tion of median improvements on College Avenue at the entrance to
University Mall (between McDonald's and King Soopers).
14. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 1983, Authorizing the
Transfer of Appropriations Between Capital Projects for Johnson Drive
Improvements.
This ordinance authorizes the transfer of funds from a completed
project to a new project account for the improvement of Johnson Drive
from College Avenue west to the Burlington Northern Railroad right-
of-way. Improvements will be done within the existing right-of-way
and will include construction of pavement and curb and gutter. The
project will be designed and constructed by the developer of Spring
Court PUD.
The City's share of the project costs is estimated to be $30,000.
Funds are proposed to be transferred from the Bryan Street Bridge
project in the amount of $30,000.
15. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement
with Brown and Caldwell Engineers for Design and Services During
Construction of the Westside Water Transmission Main, with the Costs
for Design and Services During Construction Not to Exceed $68,600.
The proposed westside water main is a gravity feed water main convey-
ing water from the two 15 MG reservoirs at WTP #2 into the water
distribution system. This 54 inch transmission line will provide
relief to the overloaded 42 inch transmission pipeline and improve
system redundancy. This project is a part of the 5 year master plan
' for water utility improvements. Design funds were approved in the 1983
Capital Improvements Program budget process. Construction funds are
recommended for approval in the 1984 budget.
Ewe
October 4, 1983
16. Resolution Changing the Name of a Portion of Eastbrook Drive in New
Hampshire Subdivision to Vermont Drive.
To maintain street name continuity and avoid confusion by emergency
services, the applicant is requesting that the east -west portion of
Eastbrook Drive be renamed to Vermont Drive.
Currently, Eastbrook Drive runs west from Timberline for 571 feet and
then turns south. With the approval of Timberline Apartments P.U.D.,
Eastbrook Drive will now extend north from the existing turn creating
an intersection. Having three legs of an intersection with the same
name causes confusion and possible delays for emergency services.
Thus, the applicant is requesting the name change to negate any
possible problems.
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item#5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 119, 1983, Vacating a Portion of
a Utility, Access, and Drainage Easement in Tract F, Park Central
P.U.D., Phase II. '
Item #6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 1983, Appropriating Unanti-
cipated Revenue from the Mineral Severance Tax Fund Program In
The Poudre Fire Authority Fund.
Item #7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 1983, Appropriating Unanti-
cipate evenue in the FAUS Grant Fun .
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #8. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 1983, Approving
5-Year Agreement with Giaco Enterprizes, Incorporated for In-
terior Advertising on Transfort Buses.
Item #9. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 1983, Amending
the Raw Water Requirement as Contained in §112-66 of the Code of
the City.
Item #10. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 1983, Authorizing
Transfer of Appropriations Between Capital Projects for Water
reatment ant morovements.
Item #11. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 1983, Vacating a I
Portion o Co oar rive 5 R.C.D. aza South D.
-P9-
October 4, 1983
Item 412. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 1983, Vacating
Easements shown on the Plat of Sun Disk Village PUD approved by
P anning and Zoning Board on February 23, 1981.
Item n13. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 1983, Authorizing
the Transfer of Appropriations Between Capital Projects for
University Mall Medians.
Item r14. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 1983, Authorizing
the Transfer of Appropriations Between Capital Projects for
Johnson Drive Improvements.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to
adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas:
Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and
Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Approving 5-Year Agreement
with Giaco Enterprizes, Incorporated
for Interior Advertising on Transfort
Buses, Adopted on First Reading
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"On August 25, 1983 proposals were received for the contracting of adver-
tising services for the -interior of the Transfort Buses. Nineteen firms
were invited to bid with only one contractor, Giaco Enterprizes, Incor-
porated, responding.
Other firms contacted felt that this project was out of their area of
expertise. Mr. Giacopelli, President of Giaco Enterprizes, Incorporated,
is very familiar with the Transfort system as he currently holds the
contract for the advertising on the bus benches.
The proposed agreement provides that from the date of the Agreement through
November 30, 1988, Giaco Enterprizes, Incorporated will sell and maintain
the interior advertising spaces in all operating Transfort buses. The
Contractor will pay to the City an amount equal to five percent (5%) of the
Contractor's gross receipts from those sales for the first year and an
amount equal to ten percent (10%) of the gross receipts for the remaining
four years, payable on a quarterly basis, for the right to carry on the
I
advertising operation.
-30-
October 4, 1983
Based on information from various advertising and transportation agencies,
staff feels that Mr. Giacopelli's proposal is an acceptable one as this is
a new project with many start up costs. This information also indicates
that interior advertising attracts only a token percentage rate with larger
returns being brought in by exterior advertising.
Since the proposed contract period is over 2 years in length, it must be
approved by Council (Charter, Article V, Section 34)."
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Ordinance No. 122, 1983 on First Reading.
Councilmember Ohlson asked who initiated this project and how much revenue
the project would generate.
City Manager Arnold replied staff had discussed interior advertising
contracts for a number of years but because the quality of the system was
not good enough, had not pursued the idea. Mr. Giacopelli approached the
City and as a result the City advertised for proposals to 19 firms with
only Mr. Giacopelli responding. '
Bob Lee added it was anticipated that approximately $350 to $450 would be
received in the first year of the contract. The remaining year's revenue
would be a function of the ridership and the exposure relating to the
advertising. He then described the configuration of the advertising and
noted the only limitations placed on the advertising would be that there be
no religious, political, alcohol, or tobacco type of advertising.
The vote on Councilmember Ohlson's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 122, 1983
on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott,
Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Amending Chapter 16 of
the Code of the City, Pertaining
to Local Public Improvements
Adopted on First Reading
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"As we progressed through the establishment of Lemay/Harmony Special Im-
provement District No. 78, concerns were raised as to the applicability of ,
Chapter 16 of the Code regarding 100% voluntary special improvement dis-
tricts. At the completion of the documents relating to District No. 78 and
-31-
1
October 4, 1983
Council's approval, an interdepartmental review committee was established
to review Chapter 16 of the Code and administrative policies associated
with 100% voluntary special improvement districts. The review committee
has representatives from the City Attorney's Office, Finance, Planning and
Development, and Public Works. The committee's first product is the
proposed ordinance amending Chapter 16. The committee is currently working
on reducing to writing the administrative policies that have been discussed
to arrive at the proposed ordinance as well as additional guidelines.
Generally, Chapter 16 of the Code gives the City the power to sell special
assessment bonds for the construction of public improvements that benefit
real property within districts and general benefits to the City at large
and assess all or part of the construction costs against the benefitted
real property. The following is an explanation of the proposed changes to
Chapter 16:
S 16-6(A) - Allows flexibility in the Resolution preceding
the ordering of the improvements as to the number of annual
assessment installments (not to exceed twenty). This amend-
ment will allow the involved parties to adjust to varying bond
market conditions and other financing considerations.
' 1 16-8 - The amendment increases from 5% to 10% the amount of
total cost in excess of estimated cost that can be assessed to
the affected properties. It also allows the waiver of maximum
cost of improvements in voluntary districts.
6 16-9 - Is a housekeeping amendment, allowing the Director of
Public Works (or his designated representative) to make minor
changes rather than the Engineer, as presently provided.
1 16-16 - Allows the purchase of conforming improvements and the
inclusion of the purchase price in the assessable costs of a
voluntary district. This is an important amendment where
participants in a voluntary district desire to construct
improvements prior to closing on the associated special
assessment bonds. The amendment also recognizes that, in
practice, if existing improvements are accepted as conforming
improvements, no assessment is made against the property
containing the specific conforming improvements.
16-17(A) -
The amendment includes engineering
costs as a
component in
the calculation of non -construction
cost limita-
tions. Presently,
engineering costs are part
of the non -
construction
costs. In recent districts, private
engineering
firms have
been engaged to provide the required products.
Their cost
is more properly classified as a
direct cost
'
instead of an
indirect cost.
-32-
October 4, 1983 '
1 16-27.1 - The amendment is to make sure that, upon realloca-
tion, an assessment is not placed upon lands which are not
sufficiently valuable to provide security for the payment of
the assessment, or upon lands which, because of being open
areas or greenbelts, are not marketable.
6 16-29 - The amendment allows flexibility in the calling
in and retiring of special assessment bonds. When advan-
tageous, monies in a district may be invested up to a year,
under current arbitrage regulations. Investment earnings can
help to retire special assessment bonds faster. After all
bonds are retired, remaining assessment payments are deposited
in the Surplus and Deficiency Fund and provide additional
security for all outstanding special assessment bonds.
• 16-38 - The amendment allows, in voluntary districts, the
waiver of any provision of Chapter 16 by agreement if author-
ized within the ordinance establishing the district. This
waiver provision reduced the number of sections we are pro-
posing changes to and gives the City flexibility in consider-
ing voluntary districts. '
We believe that all of these amendments are beneficial to the City and
would recommend a favorable consideration by the Council."
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to
adopt Ordinance No. 129, 1983 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Clarke, Elliott, Horak; Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to Establishing
the Fairbrooke Special Improvement
District No. 79
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"The Fairbrooke Special Improvement District No. 79 is a 100% voluntary
petition for public street and utility improvements within properties known
as the Fairbrooke P.U.D. Council is being asked to take sequential action
on the items below:
A. Resolution Accepting a Petition of the Sole Property Owner Regarding '
the Initiation of a Special Improvement District, Stating the Need
for, the Nature of, and the Location of Improvements to be Made,
-33-
Describing the Area to be Assessed for the
Director of Public Works to Prepare and Presen
Necessary Information for the Formation of Sai
October 4, 1983
t
d
Same, and Directing the
to the City Council the
District.
B. Resolution Adopting the Report of the Director of Public Works on
the Estimates, Costs, and Assessments for the Fairbrooke Special
Improvement District No. 79.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 1983, Relating to the
Creation and Organization of the Fairbrooke Special Improvement
District No. 79 and Providing for the Construction of Improvements
Therein.
D. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 1983, Authorizing
the Issuance of Bonds for Financing the District Improvements.
The petitioner has requested that all requirements for notice, publication,
and certain other matters be waived in order to expedite the creation of
the district and construction of the improvements. This is permitted by
provisions within Chapter 16 of the Code.
Staff believes that all requirements of the Code have been met and if
Council so chooses, all actions proposed may be accomplished at one meet-
ing, taking each item in sequence.
The City Attorney's Office, the Finance Department and the Engineering
Staff have been working very hard to ensure that all of the elements of
this special improvement district have been thoroughly reviewed and struc-
tured in such a way so as to alleviate any of the concerns that were raised
approximately a month ago by the City Attorney. You may recall that in a
series of memos to you, the City Manager and City Attorney identified and
set in motion a very comprehensive review of our special improvement
district implementation procedures, especially as they relate to Chapter 16
of the Code. This review is by in large complete and any concerns have
been precluded from occuring by improving the review process. We say the
review is by in large complete because we want to continuously monitor our
procedures against the Code. We feel that we have substantially improved
our review of district formation procedures to the extent that this dis-
trict and District #80 are fairly clean. All three departments involved
are in substantial, if not complete, agreement with the revised process.
SUMMARY OF COSTS
District Costs:
' Construction $ 683,216
-34-
October 4, 1983
Engineering
Design(preconstruction) 99,900
Construction Services 40,000
Contingency 13,990
Administration and Legal 89,574
Capitalized Interest (3 Years) 448,320
Collection and Certification 27,500
Total District Assessable Cost $1,402,500
City Costs:
Street Oversizing $ 16,217
Storm Drainage Detention Pond 101,000
Engineering for Detention Pond 10,100
Right of Way for Detention Pond 50,000
Contingency 17,732
Total City Costs
CITY PARTICIPATION
$ 195,049
This project involves City participation in two areas.
Street Oversizing: Hampshire Drive from Prospect Road to the existing
Brown Farm Subdivision will be oversized to collector standards. City
participation in this street will amount to approximately $16,217. Suf-
ficient funds are available in the Street Oversizing Fund to cover this
cost. Street Oversizing Fees will not be recovered from this property
until actual development begins. Since the property is zoned for multi-
family uses, the amount of street oversizing fees generated should be
high.
Storm Drainage Improvements: This project includes the construction of an
area -wide detention facility serving the Fairbrooke development and other
upstream properties. That portion of the detention pond attributable to
runoff from Fairbrooke (estimated at 49.5% of the pond volume) will be
paid for by the developer. The remainder will be paid by the City from
basin fees collected by the Storm Drainage Utility.
Final design of the storm drainage detention pond has not been completed.
This design will be completed and the facility built during the next year.
Staff believes the estimates for the cost of the detention facility are
conservative. However, an adjustment can be made if necessary before
awarding contracts for construction of the facility. This process is not
materially different than if the facility were to be constructed by a
-35-
7
1
October 4, 1983
developer without a district. The total estimated cost for design and
construction of the detention pond is $220,000 of which the City portion is
$111,100. Additionally, the City normally purchases right of way for area
detention ponds. This is estimated at $50,000, bringing the total city
cost for the detention pond to $161,100. However, the staff and the
Storm Drainage Board are reevaluating the level of improvements required in
the Canal Importation Basin ( of which Fairbrooke is a part) . It may be
possible to reduce the scope or to phase the construction to reduce the
ultimate cost of the improvements. This will be decided during the final
design process in the next few months. Construction on the storm drainage
improvements will not begin until next summer.
A contingency amount of 10% of the estimated street oversizing and storm
drainage cost has been added ($17,732) bringing the estimated total city
cost to $195,049.
FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS TO PROSPECT ROAD
The Fairbrooke development is adjacent to the south side of Prospect Road
for several hundred feet. The developer is required by his subdivision
agreement to make certain improvements to Prospect. It is desirable from
the City's standpoint to coordinate the actual construction of the im-
provements on the south side with those on the north also. Therefore the
developer has agreed to participate in another improvement district for
Prospect Road when the City so requests. Staff believes that such an
improvement district could and should be formed in 1984. This improvement
district likely will not be voluntary since much of the property on the
north side is in fragmented individual ownership.
POTENTIAL LEGAL COMPLICATIONS
Mr. F. W. Michaels is a property owner immediately to the east of the
Fairbrooke development. He has a water right for 1 cubic foot per second
of groundwater allegedly derived from the lands to the west of his property
including Fairbrooke. Mr. Michaels has stated opposition to the Fairbrooke
development in the past on the grounds that it may disrupt the flow or
degrade the quality of his water right. Staff has conveyed these concerns
to the developer. The developer's engineer believes Mr. Michaels' water
right can be protected. Staff has requested and the developer has agreed
to a provision in the master agreement (to follow the creation of this
district) that would indemnify the City in the event Mr. Michael files
suit. Staff believes this provides adequate legal protection for the
city. Also, the final design of the drainage improvements may provide a
definitive answer to this question. This design will take place in the
I
near future.
-36-
October 4, 1983
BOND ORDINANCE
At the request of the Developer's financial advisor and bond counsel, the
first reading of the bond ordinance has estimated interest rates instead of
actual interest rates. The bond ordinance will be amended on second
reading to reflect actual interest rates following the sale of the bonds.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff believes that this improvement district is consistent with the intent
and policies of Chapter 16 of the Code.
Staff recommends approval of the resolutions and the ordinance creating the
district."
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to
adopt Resolution 83-158.
Gary Primer, Wheeler Realty, explained the method of marketing the individ-
ual lots noting his firm would give each prospective buyer a statement of
the assessment outlining the amount to be paid if they chose to pay it off
at purchase or the amount of annual assessments to pay it off over the '
seven years. This would give the buyer the option of taking a reduced
price on the property and assuming the assessments or paying full price and
having Wheeler pay off the assessments.
Bill Neal, managing broker for Wheeler Realty, spoke to the uniqueness of
the proposal from a marketing viewpoint.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to adopt Resolution 83-158 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson,
Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
adopt Resolution 83-159. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak,
Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to
adopt Ordinance No. 130, 1983 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
-37-
October 4, 1983
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
adopt Ordinance No. 131, 1983 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to Establishing the
Landmark Special Improvement District No. 80
and Authorizing Related City Improvements
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"The Landmark Special Improvement District No. 80 is a 100% voluntary
petition for street and utility improvements to Prospect Road, Shields
Street, and Hobbit Drive in southwest Fort Collins, associated with the
construction of the Landmark P.U.D. project. In conjunction with the
petitioner's project will be other related street and drainage improvements
that benefit the City as a whole and which will be constructed concurrent-
ly. Council is being asked to take sequential action on the items below:
A. Resolution accepting a petition of a property owner regarding the
initiation of a special improvement district, stating the need for,
the nature of, and the location of improvements to be made, describing
the area to be assessed for the same, and directing the Director of
Public Works to prepare and present to the City Council the necessary
information for the formation of said district.
Resolution adopting the report of the Director of Public Works on
the estimates, costs, and assessments for the Landmark Special Improve-
ment District No. 80.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 1983, relating to
the creation and organization of the Landmark Special Improvement
District No. 80 and .providing for the construction of improvements
therein.
The petitioner has requested that all requirements for notice, publication,
and certain other matters be waived in order to expedite the creation of
the district and construction of the improvements. This is permitted by
provisions within Chapter 16 of the Code.
Staff believes that all requirements of the Code have been met and if
' Council so chooses, all actions proposed may be accomplished at one meet-
ing, taking each item in sequence.
51-11
October 4, 1983 '
The City Attorney's Office, the Finance Department and the Engineering
Staff have been working very hard to ensure that all of the elements of
this special improvement district have been thoroughly reviewed and struc-
tured in such a way so as to alleviate any of the concerns that were raised
approximately a month ago by the City Attorney. You may recall that in a
series of memos to you, the City Manager and City Attorney identified and
set in motion a very comprehensive review of our special improvement
district implementation procedures, especially as they relate to Chapter 16
of the Code. This review is by in large complete and any concerns have
been precluded from occuring by improving the review process. We say the
review is by in large complete because we want to continuously monitor our
procedures against the Code. We feel that we have substantially improved
our review of district formation procedures to the extent that this dis-
trict and District #79 are fairly clean. All three departments involved
are in substantial, if not complete, agreement with the revised process.
SUMMARY OF COSTS
District Costs:
Construction $ 216,800
Engineering 32,400
Administration and Legal 52,200
Capitalized Interest 138,600
Collection and Certification 8,800
Total District Assessable Costs $ 448,800
City Costs:
Street Oversizing $ 27,300
Prospect Transition 19,500
Intersection Drainage Improvements 15,000
Subtotal(District Related
Costs) 61,800
Storm Drainage Imp.(Canal Importation
Basin) 409,000
Total City Costs $ 470,800
CITY PARTICIPATION
This project involves City participation in four areas.
Street Oversizing: Since Prospect and Shields are both arterial streets,
the developer is entitled to receive reimbursement for street oversizing
costs. It is estimated that these will amount to $27,300. The developer I
will be paying into the Street Oversizing Fund $29,520 based upon current
fee levels.
-39-
' October 4, 1983
Transition Section on Prospect: A transition section tapering from the
full intersection width adjacent to Landmark's property to the existing
width of Prospect to the east will need to be constructed. This will
require the purchase of some right-of-way on the south side of Prospect
east of Shields. This construction and right-of-way will be a city cost
since we would have had to construct this transition upon improvement to
the intersection of Prospect and Shields anyway. Landmark will pay
for the local street portion of the improvement adjacent to their property.
The estimated cost to the city of this transition section is $19,500.
Staff proposes to use funds in the existing Prospect and Shields Intersec-
tion Project for this work.
Intersection Drainage Improvements at Prospect and Shields: The developer
will pay for 25% of the intersection drainage improvements on the southeast
corner. There will be some additional costs for drainage improvements at
the intersection and other minor work that are legitimate city costs. The
estimated city cost of this work is $15,000.
Storm Drainage Improvements (Canal Importation Basin): The Landmark PUD
contains a major drainage channel through the center of the development
' that is part of the overall master drainage plan for the Canal Importation
Basin. The developer would normally be required to construct this channel
as part of his development project and then could seek reimbursement from
the city for part of this cost since it serves an area larger than his
immediate development. Because of the creation of an improvement district,
staff proposes to handle this process slightly differently. The developer
will still be required to construct the improvements as a part of his
project. Only the developer's cost of the improvements will be capitalized
as an assessable cost of_ the district ($40,000). The city will obtain
a line of credit for its share of the cost of construction which will later
be covered by the issuance of Storm Drainage Utility bonds in 1984. There
will be no difference in cost to either the developer or the city in this
process over the regular development process.
The estimated city cost of the drainage improvements is $409,000. However,
the staff and the Storm Drainage Board are reevaluating the level of
improvements required in the Canal Importation Basin (of which Landmark is
a part). It may be possible to reduce the scope or to phase the con-
struction to reduce the ultimate cost of the improvements. This will be
decided during the final design process in the next few months. Con-
struction on the storm drainage improvements will not begin until next
summer.
FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS TO SHIELDS TO THE SOUTH
I
One question asked by the Council at the work session was whether the
district could be extended to the south on Shields Street to include the
1
October 4, 1983
frontage along the Windtrail PUD. The developers of Landmark have had
several conversations with the present owners of Windtrail. Initially
Windtrail stated that they were not opposed to the concept but that they
did not wish to participate in a district at this time. However, staff
received a call on September 27th from an engineer working for Windtrail
saying they were now interested in participating. It would be a hardship
on the Landmark developer to halt the progress on forming this district
while staff completed the work to include Windtrail.
Staff believes that the Landmark district should proceed now and another
district be formed to deal with the Windtrail development. This work could
be completed in time for construction on Shields Street to be coordinated
between the two projects early next year.
EXTENSION OF HOBBIT STREET TO THE YOUNG PROPERTY
Another question asked by Council concerned the extension of Hobbit Street
east from Shields to the Young property where it dead ends. This issue was
discussed at the time Landmark was going through the development review
process. The intent is to provide the ability to access the Young property
for future development. The Young's have no specific plans at present to
develop. They are aware of the planned road and have no objections to it.
A temporary turnaround will be constructed at present. The future exten-
sion of Hobbit Street will probably tie back into Prospect on the north.
Staff believes that Hobbit Street as planned provides a good interim
alignment and that its continuation to the east should be considered at the
time development plans are forthcoming on the Young property.
CONSTRUCTION OF THE CANAL IMPORTATION BASIN IMPROVEMENTS
Concurrent with the district improvements will be work to construct a part
of the storm drainage improvements in accordance with the master plan for
the Canal Importation Basin. These improvements generally consist of a
channel to carry drainage from lands lying west of Shields through the
Landmark, Young, and Windtrail properties to Spring Creek. That portion of
the channel through Landmark would need to be constructed at the time
Landmark builds its development. It makes sense to also construct that
portion of the crossing of Shields Street at the same time. Further, it
makes sense to construct that portion across the Young property to tie
Landmark's channel into an already constructed portion on Windtrail.
Therefore staff proposes to have these additional channel and crossing
constructed as a concurrent project. The Youngs are opposed to the channel
across their land. They believe that it divides their property into an
unusable segment. Staff is aware of their concerns and will attempt to
work out an acceptable alternative in the final design of the channel. If
nothing can be worked out acceptable to the Youngs, then an alternative
-41-
October 4, 1983
temporary routing for the drainage is available through Landmark and
Windtrail while the city negotiates right of way acquisition and damages
through the Young property. In any event, staff does not believe this
should halt the Landmark development or the SID.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff believes that this improvement district is consistent with the intent
and policies of Chapter 16 of the Code. It offers an opportunity to the
City to improve a portion of the Prospect and Shields intersection which
will reduce delays and congestion at this intersection. The city portion of
the costs are relatively small compared with the developer contribution,
except for those areas which the city would normally pay for under the
development process such as storm drainage improvements and street over -
sizing.
Staff recommends approval of the resolutions and the ordinance creating the
district."
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to
' adopt Resolution 83-160.
Councilmember Elliott asked if the Windtrail properties could be included
in this district.
City Engineer Tom Hays replied there had been discussion with the Windtrail
owners and they were not interested in being included. Since the original
discussion, Windtrail has -indicated they would now like to be included, but
staff feels it is now too late to delay the Landmark district and that
Windtrail can be formed into a separate district.
Lucia Liley, attorney representing Landmark, stated they had talked with
the Windtrail owners about a reimbursement agreement to pay for the im-
provements on the Windtrail side of Hobbitt Street and they had indicated
their willingness to participate in such an agreement. She noted the risk
was completely on the developer as to future repayment.
Dr. R.A. Young, 1601 Sheeley Drive, expressed his concern about the storm
drainage improvements that will be involved in this project and how they
impact his property.
City Engineer Hays noted staff would like the opportunity to discuss Dr.
Young's concerns with him over the recess period.
I
Council recessed for the dinner break at this point.
-42-
October 4, 1983
Citizen Particiaation
A. Proclamation Naming the month of October as Toastmistress Month was
acceoted bv Gloria Korell. President of Columbine aoter o oast -
mistress of America.
B. Proclamation Naming the week of October 2-8 as National Employ the
Handicapped Week was accepted by Bobbie Guye, Chairperson of the
Commission on Disability, and Rosemary Kreston.
C. Proclamation Naming the Decade 1983-1992 as The Decade of Disabled
Persons was also accepted by Ms. Guye and Ms. Kreston.
D. Proclamation Naming the first week in October as Minority Enterprise
Week was forwarded to the appropriate persons.
E. Proclamation Naming the Week of October 9-15 as Fire Prevention Week
was accepted by Bob Poncelow of the Poudre Fire Authority.
Items Relating to Establishing the Landmark
Special Improvement District No. 80, continued
City Engineer Hays noted staff had discussed Dr. Young's concerns with him
during the break and was now proposing to bring a Resolution addressing
those concerns and Dr. Young's property interests at the next regular
meeting on October 18.
Council directed staff to prepare such a Resolution.
Mayor Knezovich noted he felt strongly that the Windtrail properties should
be a part of this district on a voluntary basis. He stated he would vote
against the Resolution for that reason.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to adopt Resolution 83-160 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Ohlson, Rutstein,
and Stoner. Nays: Mayor Knezovich.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Secretary's Note: The original motion to adopt Resolution 83-160 is on
page 42.)
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to
adopt Resolution 83-161. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak,
Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
-43-
' October 4, 1983
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to
adopt Ordinance No. 132, 1983 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Authorizing the City Manager
to Enter into an Agreement with Gefroh
Associates, Inc. to Prepare Final Plans
and Specifications for the Development
of the Martinez Park Farm, Tabled
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"The City purchased Lee Martinez Park in 1973 with Parkland Funds. In 1974
two public planning meetings were held to determine the neighborhood's and
general public's desires in developing this Park. The results of these
sessions were reviewed and accepted by the Parks and Recreation Board and
the City Council, and a Master Plan for the park was approved by Council on
November 21, 1974. Part of those plans included improvements to the exist-
ing farm. A brochure giving a biography of Lee Martinez and showing the
plan for the park is included in the agenda information.
Major improvements have taken place at Martinez Park including tennis
courts, ballfields, basketball courts, picnic shelter, restrooms and
concession, parking lots, part of the Poudre Trail system, additional
landscaping, and another restroom at the ballfields. All this was done
in accordance with the accepted Master Plan.
The remaining element to be developed is the existing farm area.
In September, 1978 the City entered into a contract agreement with Gefroh
Associates, Inc. to perform preliminary planning investigations to remodel
and improve the farm at Martinez Park for the sum of $6,800. This study
was completed in May, 1979 and provided us with a Conceptual Plan for the
renovation of the barn and other livestock buildings, a parking area and
landscaping site plan, with a fencing and utility extension proposal.
With the passage of the Community Park Bond Issue in April of 1981, which
identified the Farm at Martinez Park as one of the projects, funds are now
available to pursue a final development plan/contract and to continue with
construction.
Present Proposal
Within the guidelines of the adopted Capital Project Management Control
System, consultants retained for conceptual or preliminary design may be
retained for subsequent design phases of the project if performance is
-44-
October 4, 1983 '
acceptable. Gefroh Associates, Inc. was selected for preliminary design
prior to implementation of the CPMCS; however, the work performed was
satisfactorily and awarding the final development plan/contract to Gefroh
will allow the project to proceed smoothly and is consistent with current
policy.
Gefroh Associates, Inc. has submitted, at staff request, a proposal to
prepare final construction plans, specifications, and bidding documents for
the development of the Martinez Park Farm. Gefroh Associates submitted an
initial fee proposal in the amount of $66,000. Subsequent negotiations
have reduced this fee to $49,800, which is the current proposal.
The initial budget for the Martinez Park Farm was established at $325,000.
Given the diverse nature of the design effort required; streets, parking
lots, rehabilitation of existing structures, new structures, animal shel-
ters and landscaping, the proposed design fee appears to be a realistic
percentage of total project cost.
Summary
The Council is requested to authorize the City Manager to enter into a
contract with Gefroh Associates, Inc. to prepare complete construction
plans, specifications and bidding documents for the Martinez Park Farm.
The project will include access roads and walks, parking areas, rehabilita-
tion of the existing barn and silo, animal corrals and shelters, farm
utility buildings, display areas and landscaping. Award of a contract at
this time will allow design to be completed in early 1984 and construction
to begin at the start of the 1984 construction season (March -April 1984).
Most of the construction would be completed during 1984 with some carry-
over of landscaping into 1985."
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to
adopt Resolution 83-162.
Chuck Solano, Parks and Recreation Board Chairman, expressed the Board's
support and approval of the farm at Martinez Park in accordance with the
accepted Master Plan. He added he felt the wishes of the general public
should be followed as indicated by their vote on the $5 million bond
issue.
Larry Thorpe, 309 North Roosevelt, spoke in favor of "The Farm" project.
Councilmember Stoner stated he felt Council should not continue to make
capital expenditures that cause increased operation and maintenance costs
in the future.
Mr. Solano pointed out that the ballot language of the bond issue question
had contained a statement that taxes would be increased to cover operation
and maintenance costs of the projects to be financed by the bond issue. He
felt voters knew in advance and expect their taxes to be increased.
-45-
October 4, 1983
' Jerry Brown, Assistant to the Director of Parks and Recreation, noted the
literature distributed at the time of the election had stated part of the
bond issue would be used to renovate the farm at Martinez Park. He esti-
mated the ongoing operation and maintenance costs would be approximately
$55,000 per year.
Councilmember Rutstein expressed her support for the project and added she
felt the City had an obligation to carry out the wishes of the voters at
the time of the bond issue election. The voters then have an obligation to
carry out their part since they were aware their taxes would be increased
to pay for operation and maintenance costs for the various projects.
Mayor Knezovich noted he felt the $325,000 should be spent at Martinez
Park, but in some other way. He felt the Parks and Recreation Board should
reconsider the Master Plan to determine how best the money should be spent
at Martinez Park.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
table Resolution 83-162 to allow the Parks and Recreation Board to study
the Master Plan for possible revision and to allow neighborhood and
community input on those possible revisions and then to bring the results
back to Council at the conclusion of their review. Yeas: Councilmembers
Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmembers
Clarke and Ohlson.
I
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Budget Consent Items
Items 25-35 are being presented together in the Consent Calendar format.
These items have been reviewed and discussed at budget work sessions
and are being presented in this manner to expedite their adoption. As
with the regular Consent Calendar, any item may be withdrawn for discussion
by any member of the Council, staff or public and will be considered after
the balance of the Budget Consent is adopted.
25. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 1983, Decreasing
ectric Rates E.
The recommended 1984 Fort Collins Light and Power Utility rates were
outlined for City Council at a September 13 work session. The sug-
gested rates reflect not only the July 1, 1983 wholesale rate reduc-
tions implemented by Platte River Power Authority, but also the
projected reduction anticipated from Platte River effective April 1,
1984.
The recommended rates are based on a cost -of -service study concluded
this year by Light and Power staff using load research supplied by
' Public Service Company of Colorado and achieve cost of service system-
wide given the recommended 5.7 percent reduction. The 5.7 percent
systemwide reduction translates into savings of more than 1.5 million
dollars per year for Fort Collins customers.
-46-
October 4, 1983 '
26. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 1983, Amending Chapter
112 of the Code Relating to Service Charges for Water and Sewer
Service.
The 1984 Water Fund or Sewer Fund Budget, as presented in the 1984
Recommended Budget Document, will require that sewer and water service
fees be increased in order to ensure sufficient revenue to meet
anticipated expenses and comply with previously established financial
policies. The proposed service fee increases, to be effective on all
billings on or after January 1, 1984, consist of four percent (4%) for
sewer and fifteen percent (15%) for water.
The proposed service fee increases will result in an increase in the
monthly service charges for an average single family residence of
$0.40 for sewer and $2.07 for water. The total monthly service
charge, for the same average single family residence, will be $10.41
for sewer and $15.87 for water.
27. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 1983, Amending Section
o t e Co e o theCity o Fort Co ins Re atT to Parkland
Fees, and Increasing the Amount of Said Fees to $ 90 fbr 1984.
The City of Fort Collins Parkland Fund was created by Ordinance in
September, 1968. The initial fee was set at $40 per new dwelling '
unit, and was to be used for Parkland Acquisition only (not develop-
ment). In September, 1972, an Ordinance was passed to allow the
monies in the Fund to be spent on the development of parklands as well
as the acquisition of parklands; and the fee was increased to $195 per
each new dwelling unit. Since 1972, the fee was increased to $235 in
1976; $250 in 1977; $275 in 1978; $450 in 1980; $500 in 1981; and $550
in both 1982 and 1983. In September, 1983, an Ordinance was passed
allowing for expenditures from the Parkland Fund for the purpose of
Administrative costs relating to Parklands, Park Site Equipment, and
Plantings.
28. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 136, 1983, Amending Chapt
TT o t e Co e o t o ity o Fort Collins Relating to torm Draina
Fees.
This ordinance establishes the 1984 rate for the monthly storm drain-
age fees. The monthly storm drainage fee has two parts. The first is
an operation and maintenance fee which is the same City-wide. The
second part of the fee, which is for capital improvements, varies from
basin to basin.
The monthly, city-wide utility fee for operations and maintenance is
proposed to increase by 10 percent. The O&M fee for the average
single family residence was $0.99 per month in 1983, and will increase ,
to $1.08 per month for 1984.
-47-
I
October 4, 1983
29. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 137,1983, Amending Section
_goo the ode Re ating to the AnnualReview o Fees or Street
Oversizing.
The 1984 Draft Budget contained a policy analysis of the Street
Oversizing Fund. The fund which was established by City Council in
1979 sets street oversizing fees for residential, commercial and
industrial development. These fees provide a source of revenue to
repay developers for oversizing streets from local street standards to
collector and arterial street standards.
The table below shows the present fees, the recommended 1984 fees, and
the increases over the next five years.
RECOMMENDED FEES
CATEGORY PRESENT 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
RESIDENTIAL $ 246/D.U. 247 249 250 252 253
COMMERCIAL $3,500/Gross Acre 4,014 4,528 5,041 5,555 6,069
INDUSTRIAL $ 500/Gross Acre 1,007 1,514 2,020 2,527 3,034
30. Resolution Deletinq the Library Borrowers' Fee for Non -City Residents.
On October 5, 1982, in Resolution 82-138, the City Council established
and adopted rates for a library borrowers' fee for non -city residents,
effective January 1, 1983.
Based upon the Library Board's recommendation, the relatively small
amount of revenue generated from the fee (revised 1983 projection of
$12,953) and the numerous objections received from library patrons,
staff recommends the deletion of the library borrowers' fee.
31. Resolution Adopting 1984 Recreation Division Fees and Charges.
The 1984 Recreation Division Fees and Charges Schedule remains con-
sistent with the Parks and Recreation Fees and Charges Policy adopted
by City Council in 1980, wherein the Recreation Division is required
to recover a minimum of 50% of its total cost in Revenue generated
through fees and charges. It is projected that the Recreation Divi-
sion will recover approximately 51% of its total cost in 1984.
32. Resolution Ad
Owned and One
ng 1984 Fees and Charges Schedule for all Munici
rses.
The 1984 Budget for the Golf Fund proposes receiving $460,000 in
Operating Revenues, which is 9.5% more than the 1983 projection of
$420,000. The total 1984 Budget for Golf is $544,793, with a Net
October 4, 1983 '
Budget increase of 5.4% over 1983. In order to achieve the required
money needed to cover these increases over 1983 Revenues, 1984 Fees
and Charges will have to be increased.
33. Resolution Adoptinq the 1984 Fort Collins -Loveland Airport Budqet
This Resolution adopts the budget as developed by the Airport Manager,
the Airport Ad Hoc Committee and the Airport Authority during the past
5 months. Both cities of Fort Collins and Loveland need to approve
the budget for enactment.
34. Items Relating to 1984 Downtown Development Authority Budget.
A. Resolution Adopting 1984 Downtown Development Authority Budget.
The proposed 1984 Downtown Development Authority Budget has been
approved by the Downtown Development Authority Board of Directors.
The budget as proposed would maintain the present staffing level
and provide for increased office space, as well as a continuation
of the payback to the City of the outstanding loan. The budget
includes rental and furniture expenses. Space and equipment
donated in 1982 is no longer available. This budget will allow '
the DDA to continue on its program of economic development of the
downtown. A portion of the Authority's revenues come from project
income. Should project income not be received, the DDA will cut
staff and will not rent additional office space.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 1983, Appropri-
ating Revenue in the DDA Fund.
This is the Annual Appropriation Ordinance for the Downtown
Development Authority.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 1983, Setting the
Mill Levy for the Downtown Development Authority for 1984.
This Ordinance sets the 1984 mill levy for the Downtown Develop-
ment Authority at 5 mills. This remains the same as the levy
determined for 1983.
35. Items Relatinq to the 1984 Poudre Fire Authority Bu
A. Resolution Adopting the 1984 Poudre Fire Authority Budget
The Poudre Fire Authority 1984 Budget totals $4,924,448 including
$4,624,548 for 0 & M plus $299,900 for Capital Expenditures. This
budget has been approved by the Poudre Fire Authority Board of Direc-
tors for submission to the funding agencies.
-49-
IOctober 4, 1983
This budget will fund the pay plan and cover increases in utilities
and insurance.
B. Resolution Authorizing a Revenue Allocation Formula for the
Poudre Fire Authority.
On January 4, 1983, the City Council formally adopted the Revenue
Allocation Formula (RAF) as a means to fund the Poudre Fire Authority.
As originally established, the City would contribute to the Authority
a sum equal to .303 of one cent of existing sales and use taxes and
six (6) mills of existing property tax from the general fund. How-
ever, City and Poudre Fire Authority staff personnel were unable to
foresee the effects of the property tax reassessment by the State.
In response to the projected revenue decrease caused by the reassess-
ment, the Poudre Fire.Authority Board of Directors recommended to City
Council that the Revenue Allocation Formula be adjusted to meet this
decrease in assessed evaluation. After discussion with City and
Poudre Fire Authority budget personnel, the Board has recommended that
the City contribution be set at .303 of one cent of existing sales and
use taxes and 7.17 mills of existing property tax.
'
Ordinances on on First Reading were read by title by
Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #25. Hearing
and First Reading of Ordinance No.
133, 1983, Decreasing
Electric
Rates.
Item #26. Hearing
and First Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 1983, Amending
Chapter112
of the Code Relating to Service
Charges for Water an
Item #27. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 1983, Amending
Section 82-3 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Relating to
Parkland Fees, and Increasing the Amount of Said Fees to $590 for
Item #28. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 136, 1983, Amending
Chapter 93 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Relating to
Storm Drainage Fees.
Item #29. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 137,1983, Amending
Section 95-90 of the Code Relating to the Annual Review of Fees
for Street Oversizing.
' Item #34. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 1983, Appro-
priating Revenue in the DDA Fund.
-50-
October 4, 1983
Hearinq and First Readinq of Ordinance No. 139. 1983. Settin
the I'll ii Levy Tor the uowntown uevelopment AutnoriLY Tor
Councilmember Clarke asked that Item #27, Hearing and First Reading of
Ordinance No. 135, 1983, Amending Section 82-3 of the Code of the City of
Fort Collins Relating to Parkland Fees, and Increasing the Amount of Said
Fees to $590 for 1984, be withdrawn from the Budget Consent Agenda.
Larry Thorpe, 309 North Roosevelt, asked that Item #32, Resolution Adopting
1984 Fees and Charges Schedule for all Municipally Owned and Operated Golf
Courses, be removed from the Budget Consent Agenda.
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to
adopt and approve all items not removed from the Budget Consent Calendar.
Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein,
and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Amending Section 82-3
of the Code of the City of Fort Collins
Relating to Parkland Fees, and Increasing
the Amount of Said Fees to $590 for 1984
Adopted on First Reading
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"The City of Fort Collins Parkland Fund was created by Ordinance in Septem-
ber, 1968. The initial fee was set at $40 per new dwelling unit, and was
to be used for Parkland Acquisition only (not development). In September,
1972, an Ordinance was passed to allow the monies in the Fund to be
spent on the development of parklands as well as the acquisition of park-
lands; and the fee was increased to $195 per each new dwelling unit. Since
1972, the fee was increased to $235 in 1976; $250 in 1977; $275 in 1978;
$450 in 1980; $500 in 1981; and $550 in both 1982 and 1983. In September,
1983, an Ordinance was passed allowing for expenditures from the Parkland
Fund for the purpose of Administrative costs relating to Parklands, Park
Site Equipment, and Plantings.
Council, during a Work Session this summer on the proposed 1984 Draft
Budget, reviewed the Parkland Fund Policies as one of the several Policy
Analysis reports provided by staff. It is our understanding that Council
concurred with the staff recommendation to reaffirm the original Parkland
Fund Policies adopted through Resolution 80-49, as revised; and agreed with
the concept utilized for setting of the annual Parkland Fee.
-51-
October 4, 1983
In April, 1980, Council passed Resolution 80-49, which adopted policies
relating to the Parkland Fund. Among the formal Parkland Fund Policy
Statements (which have been slightly modified and updated by several
Council actions since 1980) was included the concept of increasing Parkland
Fees approximately 10% annually in order to attempt to keep up with infla-
tion in the acquisition and development of parks. In 1980, the fee rate of
$450 was established utilizing a projection method formula which took the
average number of acres of parks per square mile, divided by the average
number of dwelling units per square mile, multiplied by the average cost
per acre of parkland acquisition and development (at that time). Since
then, we have increased the fee approximately 1014 annually for inflationary
purposes, except in 1983. In 1983, the fee was kept at the 1982 rate of
$550 in order to encourage housing development in Fort Collins.
Now that housing and local economic conditions are reported to again be on
the upswing, the 1984 fee should be increased. Staff recommends adoption
of the Ordinance which increases the 1984 Parkland Fee to $590, which is an
increase of approximately 7.5% over the 1982/83 rate of $550.
The Parks and Recreation Board, at their regular meeting of September 27,
1983, voted unanimously to recommend that Council increase the 1984 Park-
land Fee to $590, as recommended by staff."
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
adopt Ordinance No. 135, 1983 on First Reading.
Councilmember Clarke expressed his concern that the Parkland fee was
inadequate. He suggested staff investigate other approaches to parkland
funding and also review the City's cost of development policies.
The vote on Councilmember Stoner's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 135, 1983
on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott,
Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Adopting 1984
Fees and Charges Schedule
for all Municipally Owned
and Operated Golf Courses, Adopted
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"GOLF ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION
The Golf Advisory Board, at its regular meeting held on September 21, 1983,
' reviewed, approved, and unanimously recommends to City Council adoption of
this Resolution, adopting the 1984 Fees and Charges Schedule for Collindale
and City Park Nine Golf Courses.
-52-
October 4, 1983
1984 FEES AND CHARGES BACKGROUND
The 1984 Budget for the Golf Fund proposes receiving $460,000 in Operating
Revenues, which is 9.5% more than the 1983 projection of $420,000. The
total 1984 Budget for Golf is $544,793, with a Net Budget increase of 5.4%
over 1983. In order to achieve the required money needed to cover these
increases over 1983 Revenues, 1984 Fees and Charges will have to be in-
creased. Since Golf is required to be 100% self-supporting, increases are
necessary.
Beginning in 1983, we instituted a new Fee Structure which provided e-
quality and equity in our various charges. One of the intended purposes of
the new fee structure was to attempt to provide stability in the growth of
fees, so that any increases in Fees and Charges would be based upon infla-
tion to the Fund. The only understood exceptions to that philosophy would
be because of weather related factors, or due to large infrastructure
problems.
Based upon those guidelines, the increases in 1984 Fees and Charges should
equal the same 9.5% gro:ith in Operating Revenues. However, considering the
various discussions held at Golf Board Meetings, and the general unpopu-
larity associated with the apparent large 1983 fee increases to achieve
equity and equality; combined with the fact that 1983 Revenues are running
higher than normal through September 20th, it is the recommendation from
staff and the Golf Board that 1984 fees increase by the minimum amount of
only 5.4% across-the-board, which is equal to the 1984 Net Fund growth.
Also, if we are able to utilize some Surcharge Reserve Account Funds (as
herein recommended) for 1984 Capital Outlay purchases, we will be able to
decrease our projected expenditures, which will provide us a small cushion
in 1984 should weather or other factors influence our revenues.
COMPARISON OF FEES
Existing 1983 rates compared to the proposed 1984 rates are as follows:
Daily Green Fees
In 1984, we need to raise $221,000 from Green Fees. This amount was
projected using the average number of green fee rounds played for the
past six years.
Existing Proposed
1983 1984
1
9-Hole
Green Fees
$ 5.00
$ 5.25
18-Hole
Green Fees
$ 8.00
$ 8.50
9-Hole
Non -Resident
$ 6.00
$ 6.25
18-Hole
Non -Resident
$10.00
$10.50
,
-53-
October 4, 1983
A fee of $1.00 for each 9-holes of golf for those users not having a
Fort Collins address is added to daily Green Fees.
Annual Passes
Annual Pass Revenues for
ditures. This amount was
Annual Passes sold in all
as a trend line estimate.
Single Adult
Junior (under age 18)
Student (under age 24)
Senior Citizen(age 62 &
Family
1st Adult/Husband
2nd Adult/Wife
1st Child (under age
2nd Child or more
1984 need to be $177,000 to meet our expen-
projected using both the average number of
categories for the past six years, as well
Existing
Proposed
1983
1984
$250
$265
$125
$135
$190
$200
over) $190
$200
$250
$265
$190
$200
18) $125
$135
$ 65
$ 65
Maximum Charge $630 $665
Starting in 1983, Administrative Golf staff was given authority to
reduce the cost of any Annual Pass up to 50% for proven special
circumstances, such as low income, medical conditions, etc. During
the course of the year, nine people either took advantage of the
reductions of fees, or set-up installment payments over a period of
months. Many more people inquired about fee 'reductions, but didn't
really meet any legitimate low income standards. R.S.V.P. (Retired
Senior Volunteer Program) staff screened all formal requests for fee
reductions by Senior Citizens. The program worked very well, in our
opinion.
Golf Cart Fees
In 1984, we need to raise $36,000 from City -owned golf cart rental
fees. Earlier this year, the City purchased 15 new gasoline powered
carts, replacing ten 3-year old electric powered carts. Our total
fleet is now 35 carts. Because of the new carts and somewhat higher
debt finance payments, 1984 rental fees need to be increased.
City -owned Carts
9-Holesl
18-Holes
9-Holes (Senior Citizen)
18-Holes (Senior Citizen)
-54-
Existing Proposed
1983 1984
$ 7.00 $ 8.00
$12.00 $14.00
$ 5.00 $ 5.00
$10.00 $10.00
October 4, 1983 '
Senior Citizens, age 62 and over, receive a special discount rate
during non -peak hours only, as posted. In addition, this year,
for the first time, we are asking for your authorization to allow the
Administrative Golf staff the ability to reduce cart fees up to 50%
for appropriate proven special circumstances, such as physical/medical
handicap or limitation, etc.
Generally speaking, most handicapped golfers (whether physical or
mental) are as able to play the game of golf just as well (if not
better) than any other golfer. However, some of these golfers may
have a handicap or physical condition limitation, such as heart or
lung trouble, artificial legs, etc., and cannot easily walk around the
course. They need a golf cart if they are to play the game. By
offering a special discount rate for golf carts to people who can get
a medical doctor to certify their physical condition, we can now
respond to a community need that heretofore we did not address.
Existing Proposed
Privately -owned Carts 1983 1984
Used, Not stored (both courses)
Season Rate $125.00 $140.00
Daily Rate $ 6.00 $ 7.00
(The rates for privately -owned carts go up proportionately to I
those of our City -owned carts.)
Storage Fees
We are recommending retaining the current rate levels for all storage
and lockers, because the condition of the storage areas are somewhat
marginal, and we cannot guarantee security of the area. In addition,
we don't presently rent out all of the spaces, so by raising these
fees, we would probably lose revenues.
The other area of concern is the storage of privately owned golf carts
at City Park Nine. In 1981, City Council unanimously passed and
adopted Resolution 81-155, wherein it was stated that "...Private golf
cart storage at City Park Nine shall be phased out, and the City will
no longer store these private golf carts after January 1, 1984....".
Council passed this after a unanimous recommendation from the Golf
Board, and at the urging of staff. It was felt that there were too
many private carts being 'loaned' to friends for usage, thus depriving
the City of neeed revenues. Also, the Golf Course needs the storage
space for golf supplies and equipment now located at the Parks
Maintenance Shop, due to the Parks' need for storage because of
development at community and neighborhood parks. Of the original 17
privately -owned carts stored at City Park Nine, there are only a few ,
left at this time. Almost all patrons have either sold or relocated
their carts.
-55-
October 4, 1983
SURCHARGE RESERVE ACCOUNT
In 1979, City Council adopted a Surcharge Fee to be added to Green Fees.
All funds collected from the Surcharge Fee were placed into a Special
Account reserved for future golf course expansion only. Last year Council
approved changing the intended purposes of the usage of the Surcharge funds
to allow the money to be used for any golf course purpose, as appropriated
and approved by separate Council action. Board members and staff felt that
limiting the Surcharge money to future golf course expansion only was too
restrictive.
This year, the Board and staff have further refined their scope on this
subject. Presently, we are collecting roughly $35,000 annually in the
Surcharge Reserve Account. A Green Fee charge of 500 for 9-holes and 754
for 18-holes, as well as 504 of each non-resident green fee dollar;
and 10% of each Annual Pass rate, is now applied to the Surcharge Reserve.
As of August 31, 1983, we have $114,638 in the Surcharge Account.
If we continued collecting money at the rate of approximately $35,000 per
' year, in ten years we would have collected only $311,000 more. A new golf
course in 1994 will probably cost well over $4,000,000 at least. There-
fore, it seems rather fruitless to collect money for something that we
would still have to find over $3.5 million to finance. Therefore, both
Board and staff feel it would be better to continue collecting the Sur-
charge money, but use any "excess" money in the account for the purchase of
Golf Capital Outlay or equipment replacement purposes. We believe that an
amount equal to at least 25% of the Annual Operating Budget should remain
as a pure reserve, but the excess could be put to work now. Using Sur-
charge money for Capital -items can also help us keep our Fees and Charges
increases to a minimum. Our 1984 Operating Budget is $403,323, so any
amount over $100,830 in the Surcharge Reserve Account could be applied to
Capital purchases; and the amount projected as 25% of the 1985 Operating
Budget is $108,750.
Summary
The Golf Advisory Board
and staff are again this
year making some progres-
sive recommendations to
you that we hope you will
support. The overall
across-the-board increase in Fees and Charges for Annual Passes and Green
Fees is only 5.4%. All
of the rates presented in
the 1984 Fees and Charges
Schedule Resolution are
compatible with the 1984
Budget for the Golf Fund,
and are only being increased effectively as much
as the total growth to the
Fund. If any changes
are made to any specific
fee rate, then upward or
downward adjustments to
other fee rates will have
to be made to accommodate
'
the change.
-56-
October 4, 1983 '
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Resolution 83-168.
Larry Thorpe, 309 North Roosevelt, expressed his support for the Resolu-
tion, especially in the area where consideration of fee reductions will be
given to golfers with proven special circumstances such as low income,
medical conditions, etc.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to adopt Resolution 83-168 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson,
Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Adopting the 1984 Budget
for the City of Fort Collins
and Fixing the Mill Levy, Adopted
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"This Resolution adopts the 1984 Budget for the City of Fort Collins. The
total budget is $113,267,165 and the mill levy is set at 13.774 mills.
Changes from the financial statements included in the 1984 Recommended '
Budget are as follows:
GENERAL FUND
The property tax mill levy is increased .274 mills from the proposed 13.5
mills to 13.774 mills which is the maximum allowed by state statutes.
The General Fund budget has been decreased by $40,000 which had been
allocated to the City Intern Program. The Alarm Compliance Certificate fee
will not be deleted at this time. During the 1984-85 Tax Reform Program,
consideration will be given to eliminating it and other such "nuisance"
fees.
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
The Capital Projects Fund budget increased by $2,680,169 for a total of
$8,370,669. General City Capital Projects were not presented in the Recom-
mended Budget pending the recommendation of Project RECAP. The following
General City Capital Projects are now included in the 1984 Budget:
Building Major Maintenance
Northside Aztlan Center Floor Repair $ 125,000
Community Center Roof Repair 51,000 '
Lincoln Center Entrance 25,000
-57-
' October 4, 1983
Sidewalk Improvements/Pedestrian Access Ramps 20,000
Service Center Building "B" 80,000
Car Barn Repair 50,000
Total Building Major Maintenance $ 351,000
Street Major Maintenance
Overlay $ 700,000
Minor Capital 100,000
Total Street Major Maintenance $ 800,000
Street Major Capital
Mason -Howes One -Way Couplet $ 340,000
Timberline -Prospect Intersection 500,000
Total Street Major Capital $ 840,000
New Bridqes
Linden Street Bridge & Channel Realignment
$
175,000
Total New Bridges
$
175,000
Bikeways
Bikeways
$
135,000
Total Bikeways
$
135,000
Flood Renovation
Flood Renovation
$
105,000
Total Flood Renovation
$
105,000
Poudre Fire Authority
Transfer to Poudre Fire Authority for
Equipment Replacement $ 170,000
Total Poudre Fire Authority $ 170,000
Contingency
Capital Projects Contingency $ 104,169
' Total Contingency $ 104,169
we
October 4, 1983
CONSERVATION TRUST FUND
The City's share of state lottery funds for Parks and Recreation uses will
be deposited in and spent from the Conservation Trust Fund. The 1984 Budget
anticipates the expenditure of the combined receipts from 1983 and 1984
totalling $748,600. City Council has allocated these funds to the acquisi-
tion and development of open space and trails."
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Resolution 83-172.
Councilmember Clarke presented his alternative to the Budget as prepared
by staff. He proposed reducing the mill levy from the suggested 13.774
to 12.0 mills and noted it would be a zero dollar increase due to the
reassessment. He added that action would delete $460,592 from the Budget.
He proposed increasing the sales tax 1/40 for five years to be dedicated
to specific projects. He proposed deleting 5.35 positions from the General
Fund and added he knew this would mean cuts in the service levels of the
City. He suggested limiting the salary increases of City employees to 5%
with the full 6.5% recommended under the Pay Plan to be held until April 1
when the growth rate could be examined. Anything over the 9% projection
would be pledged to the remaining 1.5% increase. He proposed supplementing
the subsidy to the Lincoln Center with an Entertainment Tax. He noted his
proposal would allow every project recommended by the City administration
to be funded between 1984 and 1988 and would carry contingencies of 10%.
He pointed out what he felt were serious defects in the 1984 Budget as
proposed:
1. a capital projects contingency of $104,000 which are not enough.
2. reserves of $308,842 which are not enough.
He again noted his opposition to the mill levy increase and suggested
taxpayers would prefer a 5-year limited sales tax increase dedicated to
specific projects.
Councilmember Elliott expressed his concerns about the 5-year limit on the
1/40 sales tax and Councilmember Clarke's list of specific projects. He
suggested working through the Project RECAP Committee to determine if there
were additional projects that a 1/40 increase would not address. He
indicated he would be in favor of presenting a package to the citizens next
spring for their decision rather than making that decision now.
Councilmember Clarke stated he did not feel the citizens expected him to go
to them for decisions on the basic needs of the City. He noted he would
support going to the voters for a decision on quality of life projects.
-59-
1
' October 4, 1983
Councilmember Horak pointed out Council had already appointed a Council
committee to determine whether a sales tax increase might be placed on the
ballot next spring. He noted he did not agree with Councilmember Clarke's
proposal and did not feel City sales tax could be increased without a vote
of the people in light of the recent defeat of the 3/40 increase proposal.
Councilmember Clarke responded that he felt the defeat was due to no time
limit on the tax and to no specific and concise identification of the
projects the tax would be spent on.
Councilmember Horak noted the City Manager's budget had quoted a 13.5 mill
levy. He objected to the increase to 13.774 and proposed limiting the mill
levy to 13.5 as published.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to
amend Resolution 83-172 where appropriate to set the mill levy at 13.5 and
to decrease the General Expense distribution to 2.83 mills.
Mayor Knezovich stated he felt the City should increase the mill levy to
the statutory limit of 13.774. If the voters approve a sales tax increase
in the spring, the City then has the opportunity to reduce the mill levy.
If the sales tax is not passed, the higher property tax levy will be
' needed.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to amend Resolution 83-172 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, and Ohlson. Nays:
Councilmembers Knezovich, Rutstein, and Stoner.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak noted his support for this Resolution was predicated on
the Council Committee and Project RECAP working together to take a sales
tax increase measure to the voters next spring with the hope of reducing
the mill levy significantly.
The vote on Councilmember Ohlson's original motion as amended was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rut-
stein, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmember Clarke.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Appropriating the Annual
Expenditures for the City of Fort
Collins in 1984 and Setting the
Mill Levy for Said Fiscal Year
Adopted on First Reading
' Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
.m
October 4, 1983
"This Ordinance appropriates the 1984 Annual Budget of $113,267,165 and
sets the mill levy at 13.774 mills.
Changes from the financial statements included in the 1984 Recommended
Budget are outlined in the previous agenda item."
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
adopt Ordinance No. 140, 1983 on First Reading and to change the mill levy
to 13.5 where appropriate. Yeas: Councilmembers Elliott, Horak, Knezo-
vich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmember Clarke.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Adopting a Policy on
the Use of State Lottery Funds, Adopted
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"Colorado voters overwhelmingly passed the authorization for the creation
of a State Lottery at the General Election of November 4, 1980. In April,
1982, the Colorado State Legislature finally approved a Bill, signed by the
Governor, which implemented the State Supervised Lottery Program and
defined the Operation of the Lottery and the distribution of proceeds.
The current distribution formula is as follows:
Of 100% of the total money collected - -
- 50% goes to Prizes
- 17.5% goes to the State Capital Fund (1/3 for water projects, 1/3
for prisons and 1/3 for roads, bridges and sewers, etc.)
- 15% goes to Lottery Administration
- 14% goes to the Conservation Trust Fund
- 3.5% goes to State Parks and Recreation
The public sale of Lottery tickets began in February, and all of the money
collected between that time and June 30, 1983 (when the State Fiscal Year
ended) is counted as 1983 Revenue. On September 1, 1983, the State gave
the City of Fort Collins a check for $373,847.23, which is our 1983 share.
Lottery ticket money collected by the State between July 1, 1983 and June
30, 1984, will be counted as 1984 Revenue, and our portion should again be
distributed to us around September 1st next year. We are conservatively
estimating at this time that our annual share of Lottery money will be
around $400,000 per year. Distribution to the City and all other eligible
agencies is based on a per capita formula.
-61-
October 4, 1983
Legal Elements and Accounting Mechanisms
In accordance with Colorado State Statutes (Section 29-21-101, C.R.S. as
amended) all Lottery monies received from the State shall be deposited
in the City's Conservation Trust Fund and shall be expended only for the
acquisition, development, and maintenance of new conservation sites or for
capital improvements or maintenance for recreational purposes on any public
site. As Lottery monies are received, they will be deposited in the
Conservation Trust Fund and may be appropriated for direct expenditure
within the Conservation Trust Fund or for transfer to the Capital Projects
Fund in accordance with the Capital Project Management Control System.
Additionally, the City is required to submit an annual statement to the
State Division of Local Affairs showing the total amount of state monies in
its local Conservation Trust Fund, the amount of any state monies encum-
bered or expended from such fund since the previous year's report, and the
purpose of the encumbrance or expenditure. As a point of information,
there are no matching fund requirements in order to spend Lottery monies.
We should also keep in mind that the Lottery Law has a "Sunset" provision
which terminates the life of the present law on July 1, 1987, unless
continued or reestablished by the General Assembly acting by bill. If the
Lottery continues to be successful, there is no guarantee that the Conser-
vation Trust Fund will maintain 14% of the total revenues. Lottery monies,
therefore, are a somewhat unstable source of funding.
Lottery Fund Usage Policy Statements
During budget work sessions held this summer, Council discussed the Policy
Analysis prepared by staff. The major elements of that Policy Analysis
that Council apparently agreed with are as follows:
1) Lottery funds should be allocated to projects with
maximum visibility and public exposure.
2) The public should be continually advised of the benefits
derived from the Lottery funds.
3) Our State Legislators should be informed as to our
usage of Lottery proceeds so that they remain aware of
its benefits, and they will want to continue supporting
the allocation of Lottery monies to local agencies.
4) We should avoid the use of Lottery funds to only supple-
ment existing Parks and Recreation budgets, and utilize
' the revenues primarily for Capital or one-time expendi-
tures, as recommended by the Colorado Municipal League
and the State Office of Local Affairs.
-62-
1
October 4, 1983
While a great number of potential uses for Lottery funds were identified,
ranging from repair and renovation of existing facilities, to a Southside
Community Center with potential water amenities, to an ice skating facil-
ity; one usage seemed to represent the majority opinion of Council. As we
understand it, Council would like to see Lottery monies be primarily spent
for the acquisition and development of open space and trails, and for any
other project as deemed appropriate by Council.
Parks and Recreation Board Recommendation
The Parks and Recreation Board, at their regular meeting of August 23,
1983, voted unanimously (8:0) to support the City Council and their appar-
ent priority usage of Lottery funds for the purpose of Open Space and
Trails, as delineated in the Open Space Policy."
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Resolution 83-173. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak,
Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED. '
Resolution Directing Staff to Research
and Develop an Entertainment Tax, Adopted
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"In reviewing the 1984 Recommended Budget, Council became aware of increas-
ing needs for revenue in the General Fund. Council especially noted that
the General Fund subsidy to the Lincoln Center was continuing to increase
yearly.
A method of generating additional revenues to the General Fund which was
discussed during Council's 1984 Budget worksessions is the implementation
of an Entertainment Tax. Such a tax would be levied against the consumers
of all forms of entertainment offered within the City for profit, and would
exclude activities sponsored by Poudre R-1 School District and Colorado
State University. The tax would be levied at the rate of 5.75 0 on the
price paid by the consumer to the vendor of the entertainment service.
Revenue generated by the Entertainment Tax would be dedicated to helping
reduce the General Fund subsidy to the Lincoln Center.
This resolution reflects Council's support of the concept of an Entertain-
ment Tax and directs staff to research and develop and, if deemed feasible,
recommend such a tax to Council for adoption and implementation effective '
April 1, 1984."
-63-
October 4, 1983
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
adopt Resolution 83-176.
Bruce Lockhart, 615 Mathews, spoke in favor of user's fees and noted he did
not feel this proposed tax was a user's fee. He opposed the concept of
movie-goers, etc. subsidizing the Lincoln Center cultural events.
The vote on Councilmember Clarke's motion to adopt Resolution 83-176 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rut-
stein, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmember Horak.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Directing Staff to Research
and Develop a Hotel/Motel Room Tax. Adooted
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"In reviewing the 1984 Recommended Budget, Council became aware of the fact
' that existing revenue sources would be inadequate to fund certain identi-
fied needs in the City particularly needs and services that visitors to the
City use but do not contribute to - streets and air quality for example.
New revenue sources that collect from these visitors were reviewed. This
tax appears most favorable.
With the likely addition of significant numbers of hotel or motel rooms
within the City in the near future, a possible new revenue source which
could be considered is a Hotel/Motel Room Tax. The Hotel/Motel Room Tax is
a tax which would be imposed on the renting of hotel or motel rooms for a
period of less than thirty consecutive days. It would be a tax on discre-
tionary expenditures, paid primarily by visitors to the City of Fort
Collins. Based on preliminary staff review of the topic, it appears that a
significant amount of additional revenue could be generated from this
source. Proceeds would be specifically earmarked for use before such a tax
would be implemented, and possible uses presently being considered include
capital improvements such as streets or renovation of the Canyon West Room
at the Lincoln Center, or making on -going the Air Quality Monitoring
Program being developed with the use of Revenue Sharing Funds in 1984.
This resolution reflects Council's support of the concept of a Hotel/Motel
Room Tax and directs staff to research and develop, and, if deemed feas-
ible, recommend such a tax to Council for adoption and implementation
effective January 1, 1984."
I
Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to
adopt Resolution 83-177.
-64-
1
October 4, 1983
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
amend the Resolution to delete "or renovation of the Canyon West Room at
the Lincoln Center" from Section 2 of the Resolution.
Councilmember Horak noted his understanding of this tax was that it was to
focus on the Air Quality Monitoring Program and street improvements. He
felt the Canyon West Room was a much lower priority and doubted revenues
would be sufficient to fund all three programs.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to amend the Resolution was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson,
Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The vote on Councilmember Elliott's original motion to adopt Resolution
83-177 as amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott,
Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Knezovich suggested Council might in the future consider earmarking '
some of these tax funds for street improvements or public rooms associated
with a hotel/convention center complex.
Resolution Directing Staff to Research
and Develop a Sales Tax on Services. Denied
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"In preparation for the development of the 1984 Budget, Councilmembers met
with staff in worksessions and expressed concern about the sales tax on
food, indicating a desire to alleviate the burden which such a tax places
on food buyers particularly low-income or fixed -income food buyers. Staff
prepared information relating to this subject for Council and identified
that, based on 1982 actual data, approximately 37% ($4.3 million) of the
City's budgeted 1984 Sales Tax revenue will be derived from the tax on food
sales. These amounts are composed of 23.9% (or $2.8 million) on non -
prepared, or "Grocery", sales and 13.1% (or $1.5 million) on prepared, or
"Restaurant", sales. Concern is mainly to eliminate the tax on grocery
store food, not on restaurant food. Since the sales tax on food comprises
such a significant portion of the City's revenue stream, an alternative
revenue source for $2.8 million needs to be identified before any reduction
in this category of taxes should be implemented. '
-65-
1
October 4, 1983
Accordingly, the City Manager's Budget Message in the 1984 Recommended
Budget included a statement that "During 1984, sales tax will be developed
and implemented on certain services, with the intention of offsetting sales
tax on food. This modification would be purely a trade-off, with no change
in revenues anticipated in the 1984 Budget. This effort is made in the
context of tax reform, to develop more equity in the City's taxing mech-
anism...".
This resolution reflects Council's support of the need for identifying
alternative revenue sources which could allow the reduction, or elimina-
tion, of the sales tax on food and directs staff to research and develop a
Sales Tax to be applied to selected services. Staff would recommend to
Council, for its approval, the categories of services to be taxed, the rate
at which the tax would be applied, and such other information as would be
necessary for Council to properly review such a proposal before implementa-
tion. Staff would prepare its analyses for Council's review by April 1,
1984. Staff would as is normal consult community interests on the recom-
mendation as it was being developed.
Council would then have public hearings on the subject and determine the
fairness and desirability of the tax."
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
adopt Resolution 83-178.
Councilmember Rutstein asked if staff would continue to research and
investigate the concept of a sales tax on services if this Resolution was
defeated.
City Manager Arnold replied in the negative, at least for the 1984 Budget.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he felt Council should continue to explore
additional revenuet sour es an added he �feglt the sales tax on services was
an excellent one/ 91c�o1`��tin ociteHs'WePort Collins would be interested
in research to determine if the sales tax on services could be substituted
for the sales tax on food.
Councilmember Stoner stated he was opposed to continued expense and staff
research on this issue since it appeared a majority of Council and citizens
were to be against the concept.
Councilmember Clarke felt there needed to be continued effort towards
replacing the sales tax on food, but added he did not feel the timing was
correct on this program. He suggested waiting until other cities or the
state get involved in the concept.
October 4, 1983
Councilmember Horak pointed out that the economy had evolved from a
property economy, to a goods economy, to a service economy and added he
felt it made sense to investigate the sales tax on services concept.
Councilmember Elliott felt the occupational tax and the real estate
transfer tax should also be investigated. He felt the problems associated
with implementing the sales tax on services would be considerable.
The vote on Councilmember Ohlson's motion to adopt Resolution 83-178 was
as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Horak, Ohlson, and Rutstein. Nays:
Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Knezovich, and Stoner.
THE MOTION FAILED.
Resolution Adopting a 1984-1985
Tax Reform Program, Adopted
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"In the development of the 1984 Budget, Council identified a need to reform '
certain aspects of the City's revenue generating mechanisms, noting that
the present structure provides inadequate funds for our expanding capital
and operating needs. The present structure was also perceived to contain
certain elements of inequity in terms of the relative tax burden borne by
taxpayers. The Council considered a variety of possible revenue modifica-
tions which might be explored as part of the 1984-1985 Tax Reform Program,
and resolutions formally directing City staff to research and develop new
taxes are on the agenda for consideration tonight.
These tax reforms are intended to do the following:
1. Make the system of taxation more equitable by spreading the
burden more to those who have the need or create the need for
government services;
2. Make the system more fair by spreading the tax load to those more
able to pay;
3. Make the system more easily understood by the taxpayers, media and
government officials;
and that means
4. Make the system more simple.
This budget includes many small efforts that contribute to this program: '
-67-
1
October 4, 1983
• Street Utility Fee for local street maintenance.
• Dedicated revenues to services such as all transportation -related
revenues being dedicated to transportation services.
• Sales tax, a significant part of which is paid by visitors, pro-
viding 54% of the General Fund revenue.
• Increasing the property tax for one year and cutting it back when
substitute revenues are in place.
• Increases in developers' street oversizing fees.
• Revenue sharing aimed at capital projects.
This budget has two major tax reform issues and they are:
1. Researching and developing a sales tax on selected services. If
it can be made workable, then during 1984 it would replace the
sales tax on groceries.
If this mechanism cannot be worked out, other replacement revenue
generating mechanisms will be considered.
2. Raising the property tax for 1984 so that the overall replacement
of revenue can be worked on deliberately during the year.
The 1984 Budget initiates the 1984-1985 Tax Reform Program. Improvements
in the City's taxing mechanisms will be implemented, with public input and
Council action during 1984, or recommended for inclusion in the 1985
Budget."
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to
adopt Resolution 83-174.
Mayor Knezovich noted he could not support the Resolution as long as it
contained a statement indicating the taxing structure was perceived to
contain certain elements of inequity in terms of the relative tax burden
borne by taxpayers.
The vote on Councilmember Rutstein's motion to adopt the Resolution was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Elliott, Horak, Ohlson, Rutstein, and
Stoner. Nays: Councilmember Clarke and Knezovich.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Adopting the Financial
and Management Policies Relating
to the 1984 Budget, Adopted
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
October 4, 1983 '
"The 1983 Budget included 25 financial and management policies used in
developing the 1983 Budget. These policies were also used in developing
the 1984 Budget. Minor adjustments have been made, with major revisions
and additions highlighted below.
Categorization of Services - Library reclassified from "Quality of
Life" to Maintenance of -Effort Services"; Airport and Open Space
reclassified from "Maintenance of Effort Services" to "Quality of
Life."
Capital Improvement Policy - the 1984 Budget reflects the recom-
mendations of a Citizen s Advisory Committee on Project RECAP.
Open Space and Trails - Acquisition & Development - the 1984 Budget
anticipates that Colorado State Lottery funds will be applied to
the acquisition and development of Open Space and Trails.
• Tax Reform Program - the 1984 Budget introduces a 1984-1985 Tax
Reform Program to increase revenue while improving equity.
This Resolution formally adopts these policies."
Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to '
adopt Resolution 83-165 making the necessary revisions to the references to
the mill levy and deleting references to the sales tax on services.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to
amend page 3 of the Resolution to read:
"....1/4� sales and use tax will be allocated as follows:
1. any difference between the debt service and the revenue
generated up to $250,000 will be allocated to the General
Fund.
2. any difference between the debt service and the revenue
generated over $250,000 will be allocated to the General City
Capital Fund."
Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein,
and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to
amend page 14 of the Resolution to increase the goal percentage of Trans -
fort ridership from 25% to 35%. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, I
Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
October 4, 1983
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
amend page 23 of the Resolution to delete the section referring to the Real
Estate Transfer Tax. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Knezovich, and Stoner.
Nays: Councilmembers Elliott, Horak, Ohlson, and Rutstein.
THE MOTION FAILED.
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to
amend page 23 of the Resolution to add the phrase "for the years 1985 and
beyond" to the paragraph relating to the Real Estate Transfer Tax following
the words "revenue source". Yeas: Councilmembers Elliott, Ohlson, Rut-
stein, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmember Clarke, Horak, and Knezovich.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
amend page 23 of the Resolution to delete the phrase "a minimal flat" and
to add the phrase "based on the number of employees" after the phrase "all
businesses" in the second line of the paragraph relating to Business
Occupation Tax. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Ohlson,
Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: Mayor Knezovich.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion to delete the section entitled "Elimina-
tion of Various Licensing Requirements".
THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
The vote on Councilmember Elliott's original motion to adopt Resolution
83-165 with the above amendments was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
City Manager's Report
City Manager Arnold spoke on the plans for the 5th birthday celebration of
the Lincoln Center to be held the weekend of October 7-9.
Other Business
Councilmember Horak stated that during the recent COG retreat there had
been discussions with the Larimer County Commissioners regarding their
-70-
October 4, 1983
continued membership and participation in the COG. He reported the Com-
missioners were seeking support from the six cities in Larimer County as to
the benefits of Larimer County's membership in the COG. He distributed a
Resolution indicating the City of Fort Collins' support for the Larimer-
Weld Council of Governments and for Larimer County's continued funding of
the COG.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to
adopt Resolution 83-179.
Mayor Knezovich indicated he would not support the Resolution adding he
felt the organization was another layer of government and had been created
to fulfill federal and state interests.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to adopt the Resolution was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Ohlson, Rutstein,
and Stoner. Nays: Mayor Knezovich.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott,
to adjourn the meeting. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak,
Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
The meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m.
ay r
ATTEST:
City Cler
-71-
1