HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-04/15/1986-RegularApril 15, 1986
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on
Tuesday, April 15, 1986, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the City
of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following
Councilmembers: April, Estrada, Horak, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner.
Secretary's Note: Councilmember Knezovich arrived at approximately 7:00
p.m.
Staff Members Present: Burkett, Huisjen, Krajicek and other staff members.
Agenda Review: City Manager
City Manager Burkett pointed out there was a revised Resolution. Item #22a_
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 Items #17 and #24, Pulled Consent Items, except items pulled
by anyone in the audience or items that any member of the audience is
present to discuss that were pulled be staff or Council. These items will
be discussed immediately following the Consent Calendar.
4. Consider approval of the minutes of.the regular meetings of March 18
and April 1.
AN
The Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 1 and
authorizes the sale of the Special Assessment Bonds, in the amount of
$985,000, to First Interstate Bank of Fort Collins, N.A. to finance
the construction of the Harmony Trunk Sewer from Harmony Road
d401.2
Q
7.
[1
April 15, 1986
South -Westerly to the West side of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks. '
The net interest cost on the issue is 8.96%.
Harmony Trunk Sewer Special Improvement District No. 60 creation was
approved on final reading on March 4, 1986 for the purpose of making
certain sanitary sewer improvements and assessing the cost thereof to
the property benefited by the improvements.
The City's oversizing cost is appropriated and available.
Equipment.
This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 1.
The City solicited lease/purchase financing proposals from
approximately 14 firms. The bids were opened at 11:00 a.m. on Friday,
March 28 and staff recommends accepting the proposal of Rauschner,
Pierce, Refsnes Leasing, Inc. Payments over the 5-year lease will
total $501,309.84. Money for the 1986 lease/purchase payments was
budgeted when the 1986 Budget was adopted in October, 1985. Staff
continues to recommend lease purchase as a viable method of providing
for equipment needs.
The improvements in the District were accepted at the January 7, 1986
meeting of the City Council. Notice of the assessment has been
published and mailed to the affected property owners.
The District is located on Lemay Avenue from Harmony Road South to the
entrance of the SouthRidge Greens Public Golf Course. Improvements
included the acquisition, construction, and installation of street,
water line, sanitary sewer line and storm drainage improvements in the
District. Total cost of the improvements in this phase of the
District was $2,222,356. The assessable portion is $2,155,356 and the
City's portion is $67,000. In Phase I, all City Street Oversizing was
included in the District. with the' developers taking credit against
future oversizing.
The DDA Board in a unanimous vote approved the recommendation to City
Council of the appropriation of $36,500 from unanticipated revenues to
Mountain Avenue Plaza Partnership for sidewalk and alley improvements
in conjunction with their renovation project'at 126-136 West Mountain.
-296-
a
April 15, 1986
Article XVII of the City's Model Traffic Code currently requires the
licensing of bicycles by the City. The existing program is not,
however, working well as a deterrent to theft and its administrative
costs are higher than the community benefits from the program. This
Ordinance provides for discontinuance of the mandatory licensing
program. Staff recommends that the program be replaced with a more
effective voluntary identification program.
10. Items Relating to Cimarron Plaza P.U.D.
Two items relating to Cimarron Plaza:
A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 47, 1986, Vacating
Portions of the Blanket Easement in Cimarron Plaza P.U.D.
B. Acceptance of Dedication Deed Dedicating Additional Easements on
Cimarron Plaza P.U.D.
The Developer (Arrowstone Corporation) has refined the final site plan
for a shopping center at the southwest corner of Drake and Shields.
As a result their building locations have changed, creating
encroachments into the blanket utility, access and drainage easement.
This vacation and rededication will allow them to proceed with their
latest plan.
11. Hearina and First Reading of nrdinnnra Nn aR IQAr Varn+inn T,.,�
The Developers of the Pinnacle P.U.D., are requesting the vacation of
two powerline and right-of-way easements and a telephone and telegraph
easement located in Lot 1 of East Acres Subdivision, recently approved
as the Pinnacle P.U.D. The powerline easements were originally for
supplying overhead powerlines to the existing building on the site,
which has been removed. Since the telephone and telegraph easement
was not dedicated to the City, it will not be vacated by the City.
Staff has informed the developer to contact Mountain Bell regarding
the vacation of the telephone and telegraph easement.
All utilities
have been contacted and have indicated no problems
with
the vacation.
Because the, telephone+;and telegraph easement was
not
dedicated to
the City, ,staff recommends the vacation of the
two
powerline and
right -of -way"ga's'ements only.
12. Resolution of
Intent to Annex Nine Parcels.
As adopted in 1980, the Intergovernmental Agreement for the
Fort
Collins Urban
Growth Area provides that Fort Collins will annex
all
eligible property within the Urban Growth Area. The State
of
-297-
April 15, 1986
Colorado's annexation laws allow a municipality to annex county
enclaves which have been completely surrounded by the city for three
or more years. There are a number of properties throughout the city
that qualify for annexation under these terms.
At the request of Council, staff has begun processing the annexation
of these properties. The nine annexations included for consideration
at the April 15th meeting were approved by the Planning and Zoning
Board on March 24, 1986, each by a vote of 7 to 0.
Nine properties are included in this resolution of intent to annex.
Following adoption of this resolution by Council and appropriate
notification of affected property owners, the annexation requests,
along with zoning requests, will be considered on first reading at the
May 20th Council meeting.
The nine properties include:
1. Springfield Annexation No. 2: 4.0 acres, 4036 South Shields
Street
2. Wickes Annexation: 5.025 acres, 224 West Harmony Road
3. Concrete Products Company Annexation: 9.48 acres, NE corner of
Wood and Elm Streets
4. Skyline Acres Annexation: 38.47 acres, SW corner of Horsetooth
Road and South Shields Street
5. Chadwick Annexation: 3.0 acres, 4125 Timberline Road
6. Thomas Annexation: 4.289 acres, 1409 North Lemay
7. Webster Annexation: .862 acres, 3436, 3500 South Shields
8. Western Area Power Administration Annexation: 1.434 acres, NE
corner of Conifer and Redwood Streets
9. Mountain View Animal Hospital Annexation: .801 acres, 2737 South
Shields Street
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #5.
Item #6.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #7.
sm
April 15, 1986
Item #8.
Avenue.
Item #9. Hearing
Model T
Item #10. A. Hea
Tor
Item #11. Hearing
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to
adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas:
Councilmembers April, Estrada, Horak, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Making Appointment
to the Commission on Disability,
Tabled to May 6
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"A vacancy currently exists on the Commission on Disability due to the
resignation of Ted May. The Council liaison has reviewed the applications
on file and is recommending the following as a prospective appointee:
Commission on Disability - Arne Anderson
In keeping with Council's policy, this Resolution will be tabled until
May 6 for public input."
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Resolution 86-70 inserting the name of Arne Anderson.
Councilmember Estrada made a motion,,' seconded by Councilmember Stoner to
table Resolution 86-70 to May 61., Yeas: Councilmembers April, Estrada,
Horak, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner: j Nays: None.,I
THE MOTION CARRIED.
-299-
April 15, 1986
Resolution Approving a $176,679 Change
Order to the Engineering Services Agreement
with Black & Veatch Engineers, Adopted
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
This resolution would approve a $176,679 change order to the engineering
services agreement with Black & Veatch Engineers which was authorized by
City Council in September of 1984 (Resolution 84-137). In accordance with
the Capital Project Management/Control System (CPM/CS) the City Council
must approve all change orders of $50,000 or more.
Background
The engineering services agreement with Black & Veatch Engineers was for
the design and contract administration of the Water Treatment Relocation
Project (expanding WTP#2 and abandoning WTP#1). At the time of the
agreement authorization, the estimated fee for the engineering services was
$1,567,500.
The design work, which began in October of 1984, is now about 95% complete.
Considering the complexity of the project, the design has progressed very
well and has involved a lot of interaction between the operations staff and
the consultant. Two of the construction contracts have been bid and at the
present time the projected project cost is approximately $3.2 million below
budget.
The project consists of the following components:
• Installation of about 31,400 feet of 6-inch through 42-inch water
transmission and distribution main (Contract 1a).
• Construction of a 20 million gallon per day addition to WTP#2 and
construction of a sedimentation basin, transmission tunnel, and
various improvements to the diversion dam at the WTP#1 site (Contract
2).
• Conversion of the 24-inch and 27-inch treated water transmission lines
to raw water transmission lines and the installation of about 15,500
feet of 36-inch main•(Contract lb).
The proposed $176,679 change order involves a number?of changes in the
scope of work requested by the City in the amount of $127',179, along with a
negotiated adjustment to the estimated engineering services fee in the
amount of $49,500. The changes in the scope of work requested by the City
are as follows:
• Changing from two construction contracts to
contracts.
three construction
1
'-300-
1
April 15, 1986
• Fish ladder at the diversion dam.
• Surge control at WTP#2.
• Laboratory and pilot plant modifications.
• Programmable controller and computer hardware modifications.
• Assistance with programming and computer start-up.
• Transmission tunnel.
The first item, changing from two construction contracts to three
construction contracts, is the most significant and costly change. All of
the other changes are small and fall into the category which, in accordance
with the Capital Project Management Control System (CPM/CS), can be
approved by the City Manager.
Originally, it was anticipated that the project would be divided into two
construction contracts. However, because of the operating problems
experienced at WTP#1 in the late fall of 1984, the project was subsequently
divided into three construction contracts. This was necessary to ensure
that various transmission and distribution system improvements were
completed as soon as possible in case WTP#1 had to be shut down sooner that
expected. The additional work, which was not included in the original scope
of work, involves preparing a third set of bid documents and construction
specifications and providing contract administration services for this
third contract. The three construction contracts have been labeled as
Contracts la, 1b, and 2 and are described in Table 1.
In September of 1984, when the City Council authorized the City Manager to
enter into the engineering services agreement with Black & Veatch, the fee
was an estimated fee subject to change if agreed to by both the City and
Black & Veatch. The fee was estimated because of the complexity of the
project and the difficulty in estimating a not -to -exceed fee without being
ultra conservative (high). With the project at the 95% design phase, both
the city staff and Black & Veatch now have a better idea of the effort
required to properly administer these very large and complex construction
contracts. The appropriateness of the proposed $49,500 fee adjustment has
been evaluated by the staff. This evaluation included contacting other
engineering firms to determine ,what their fee would be to perform the same
remaining services that Black &'Veatch will perform, along with comparing
it with industry standards for-projectV•'_with the same complexity. The
result was that the fee adjustment is well"'within the industry guidelines
and lower than the comparable fees from the' -other consultants.
Sufficient funds are available in the authorized project budget for this
change order."
Mike Smith, Water and Sewer Director, gave a brief slide presentation and a
history of the project.
-301-
April 15, 1986
Carl Houck, Black and Veatch project manager, spoke on the profit on the
$1.5 million project. He stated usual mark-up was 10-15% but that Black
and Veatch had lost approximately $200,000 on this project. He estimated
the remaining portion of the work, estimated at $500,000, would be done at
slightly below cost, with a loss to Black and Veatch of $50-70,000.
Mike Smith stated the $49,500 fee had been negotiated down from over
$100,000 and that staff felt it was a good figure.
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
adopt Resolution 86-71. Yeas: Councilmembers April, Estrada, Horak,
Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Adopting Rules & Procedures
Dealing with the Suspension or Removal of
Vendors from the Bid List of the City, Adopted
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
This Resolution, which wa's tabled April 1, would provide for the adoption
of rules and procedures for the suspension or removal of vendors from the
bid list of the.City, and provide for the appeal of such actions.
Background
On April 1 Council tabled this item for two weeks, after Councilmember
Knezovich expressed an interest in amending the procedure to require
removal from the bid list of persons guilty of criminal activity as
described in paragraph (2)(a)(b) and (c) under "Removal and Suspension."
From a legal standpoint, it is not advisable to mandate removal of persons
convicted of such criminal activity because such a mandate could be
construed to have the effect of a denial of "due process" to such bidder.
The courts have concluded that the due process rights of the constitution
require public entities to afford bidders an opportunity, after notice, to
attend a hearing for the purpose of determining whether or not such bidder
should be removed from the public entity's bid list. To fail to do so can
constitute a denial of due process and a civil rights violation.
If a bidder` is afforded a hearing only for the purpose of being advised
that he mandatorily must be removed from the bid list, such hearing would
not constitute a bona fide effort at affording due process. It may be that '
such criminal defendant could be able to show that, by virtue of having
served his prison sentence or paid his fine, or both, and tby virtue of
other activities subsequent to his conviction, that he has pai`d;`his debt to
society and been rehabilitated to a non -criminal way of life. ,t
-302-
April 15, 1986
In the context of other governmental activity, such as the issuance of
liquor licenses and other governmental licenses, whether professional or
commercial, C.R.S., 24-5-101 provides that the fact of a conviction
involving an offense of moral turpitude shall not "in and of itself"
prevent such person from receiving such license or permit. The statute
provides that if a state or local agency is required to make a finding of
good moral character, although the fact of a conviction may be given
consideration, the fundamental question is whether or not the person is of
good moral character "at the time of the application."
In correlating this statute with the question of the City's bid list, due
process ought to afford the bidder an opportunity to show that, at the time
of the suspension or removal hearing, the bidder is adequately
rehabilitated to justify retention on the bid list, or to justify removal
for a shorter period of time. Inasmuch as removal from the bid list can,
if not done properly and with due process, expose the City to substantial
liability, it is important that the City's activities in this connection be
carefully measured. The removal and suspension procedure should be one
calculated to protect the City against irresponsible bidders and not one
calculated to punish criminal defendants. Since the Charter requires that
the City award contracts to the lowest "responsible" bidder, the City ought
to afford any "responsible" bidder an opportunity to remain on the bid
list.
From the perspective of encouraging competition, in businesses where
competition is already limited, the removal of a bidder because of past
criminal activity may result in the creation of a monopoly situation where
there remains only one bidder (or a very small number of bidders) able to
bid on a City project. Further, if the City were to be unaware of a
criminal conviction of one of its vendors, it may be subject to criticism
for permitting such vendor to continue bidding on City projects when the
rules mandate that such vendor be removed from the list."
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Resolution 86-61. Yeas: Councilmembers April, Estrada, Horak,
Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Authorizing City Manager
to Purchase Property for the Expansion
of the Crossroads Safehouse for
Battered Women and Children Adopted
Following is staff's memorandum 'onr this item:
' "Executive Summary
This resolution would enable the City to purchase a property for the
expansion of the Crossroads Safehouse for Battered Women and Children
-303-
April 15, 1986
facility. The City would own the property and would lease back the property ,
Y Y P P Y
to the Crossroads Safehouse. Community Development Block Grant funds would
be used to purchase the property and to cover the costs of required
renovations to conform to Uniform Building Code standards.
Background
On June 18, 1985, the Fort Collins City Council passed Resolution 85-105,
outlining the specific programs and projects which would receive funding as
part of the City's FY 1985-86 Entitlement Community Development Block Grant
Program. Included in the list of projects was an allocation of $16,000 to
Crossroads Safehouse to assist in either the relocation or expansion of
their present facility. In addition to the entitlement funds, $50,000 of
CDBG contingency funds and $19,000 of reprogrammed "Jobs Bill" funds from
the Living Units with Versatility (LUV) project were added to create a
total pool of $85,000 available to the Crossroads Safehouse. Crossroads
Safehouse is facing an increasing demand for their services and their
existing facility is not large enough to handle the demand.
The CDBG staff, and other City staff members, have been working with
Crossroads Safehouse personnel since June to find a suitable site for
either relocation or expansion of the present facility. After
investigating several options, staff believes such a site has been found.
Other options considered included an addition to the existing house, or '
sale of the existing house and purchase of a larger facility.
This resolution would authorize the City Manager to purchase the property
on behalf of the City of Fort Collins which would in turn lease the
property back to Crossroads Safehouse for one dollar ($1.00) a year. This
lease arrangement is similar to City lease arrangements with Sunshine
School and the Respite Care facilities. The appraised value of the
property to be purchased is $87,000 - $89,000. The negotiated purchase
price for the property is $85,000.
Several changes would have to be made to the property to conform with
requirements of the Uniform Building Code and to change its occupancy
rating from that of a single-family category to a group home category. The
estimated cost of the renovations' is approximately $50,000. Anticipated
renovations include a smoke alarm, system in both houses, adaptations for
handicapped accessibility, electrical wiring improvements and an enclosed
walkway connecting the two houses which is desirable for security reasons.
In February of this year, the City Council allocated $61,405 of CDBG
program income to the Emergency Rehabilitation fund. The original intent
of placing the $61,405 into the Emergency Rehabilitation fund was to "save"
the funds for utilization in next year's CDBG program which is expecting a
30% reduction in funding level. The CDBG Steering Committee has
recommended (letter attached) that the Crossroads Safehouse improvements '
are such a priority item that the $50,000 necessary for renovation work
should come from the Emergency Rehabilitation fund.
-304-
April 15, 1986
' Once the renovations are made to the existing structures, including a
connection between the two structures which would then allow the two
structures to be considered as a single group home, no further City
processing of the group home use of the properties would be required."
Councilmember Stoner asked that the record show he did not participate in
the vote or discussion on this item.
Ken Waido, Chief Planner, explained the project and the funding for the
purchase and renovation of the structures.
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to
adopt Resolution 86-72.
Barbara Chase, Executive Director of Crossroads Safehouse, noted she was
available to answer questions.
The vote on Councilmember Rutstein's motion to adopt Resolution 86-72 was
as follows:
Yeas: Councilmembers April, Estrada, Horak, Ohlson, and Rutstein. Nays:
None (Councilmember Stoner withdrawn).
THE MOTION CARRIED.
' Secretary's Note: Councilmember Knezovich joined the meeting at this
point.
City Manager's Report
City Manager Burkett reported that after 7 days on the job he was pleased
to be in Fort Collins and that he had already found several exciting
challenges in terms of issues facing the City.
Councilmembers' Reports
Councilmember Knezovich reported on, the Colorado Municipal League Board
meeting where the status of legislation affecting the City was discussed.
He noted the Governor had vetoed a bill that would have allowed the City of
Fort Collins and Poudre Valley REA to reach agreement for purchase of
facilities in the event of annexation.
Councilmember Horak reported the wild and scenic bill had passed the House
and is awaiting Senatetaction.
-305-
April 15, 1986
Other Business
Councilmember April suggested there seemed to be some interest in the
community in developing a "festival" event in fort Collins. He felt this
event should bring together a variety of interests and would foster
community spirit. He noted he would be investigating the concept.
Councilmember Estrada supported Councilmember April's suggestion.
Councilmember Horak suggested referring the concept to the Cultural
Resources Board and questioned what amount of staff time might be expended
investigating the idea.
Councilmember Rutstein noted she did not expect the City would spend a
large amount of money researching the idea but suggested a few letters be
written to obtain information and options from other cities and areas.
Councilmember Horak commented on the Thornton water purchase issue and
Water Board Chairman Norman Evans. He mentioned Dr. Evan's letter
indicating he was more interested in staying on the Water Board than in
providing assistance to the City of Thornton. He added he believed Dr.
Evan's involvement was a conflict of interest and that he should choose
between the two associations.
1
Councilmember Knezovich agreed and expressed concern that Dr. Evans had '
known who was behind the water purchase for approximately two months before
Councilmembers were informed. He suggested Dr. Evans disassociate himself
from the Thornton project.
Councilmember Estrada agreed with Councilmember Knezovich and hoped Dr.
Evans would remain on the Water Board.
Councilmember Stoner noted he would be interested in the rationale behind
Dr. Evan's statements indicating he felt he could best serve the interests
of the community by remaining associated with the Thornton project.
Councilmember Horak felt Dr. Evan's involvement with the project had
already been used to the City's disadvantage. He felt that regardless of
Dr. Evan's good intentions, his Thornton involvement would have negative
implications for the City. '
Councilmember Ohlson stated he had spent some time%with Dr. Evans and that
he was willing to disassociate himself with" th6 project and continue his
many years of service on the Water Board' if"City Council felt there was a
real or perceived conflict of interest.
Councilmember Horak suggested Council get together,.with other interested
entities in the area and pointed out the regional committee set up -to deal
with water treatment and acquisition issues might be an appropriate group '
to begin working on ways to keep the water in this basin.
-306-
April 15, 1986
City Manager Steve Burkett agreed with Councilmember Horak's regional
committee concept and felt it would be helpful to have a Councilmember
designated to work with staff and this committee.
Councilmember Horak volunteered to be the Councilmember designated to work
with staff and a regional committee.
Citizen Participation
A. Presentation of Plaque to Retiring Water and Sewer employee, Bruce
Fisher.
Jim Hibbard chronicled Bruce Fisher's career with the City and then
introduced Mr. Fisher and his wife, LaVilda. Mayor Ohlson presented a
plaque to Mr. Fisher for his years of service in the City's Water and
Sewer Department.
B. Proclamation Naming April 18 as
Arbor
Day was
accepted by
City Forester
Tim Buchanan and Bob Maxey, President
of
Fort Collins
Men's Garden
Club. Philip Hafer, Colorado
State
Forest
Service and
the National
Arbor Day Foundation presented
the
City with the Tree
City U.S.A.
award.
C. Proclamation Naming the week of
April
13-19
as American
Home Week
was
accepted by Ken Anderson of the
Fort Collins
Board of Realtors.
D. Proclamation Naming the week of April 20-26 as Professional Secretaries
Week was accepted by members of the Fort Collins Professional
Secretaries Association.
E. Proclamation Naming the week of April 27 - May 3 as National Dance Week
was accepted by Elaine Bustos, Director of Fort Collins Dance Alliance.
F. Proclamation Naming the month of May as Multiple Sclerosis Month was
accepted by Tina Tapley, Director of the Fort Collins Chapter of
Multiple Sclerosis.
G. Proclamation Naming May 4 as Hands Around the Fort Day was accepted by
Tony Giacopelli and Warren Kendler.
H. Proclamation Naming May 6 as National Nurses' Day was accepted by
Sharon Salmen, Director of Nursing Services at Poudre Valley Hospital.
I. Proclamation Naming the month of 'J'une as Colorado Recycling Month was
forwarded to the appropriate persons.
I
Bob Everitt, Chairman of Fort Collins, Inc., introduced Dave Neenan and
Nancy Gray and read a mission statement explaining the organization. He
spoke of their plans to hire a Chief Executive Officer and noted they would
-307-
April 15, 1986
be presenting detailed recommendations to the Economic Development Task
Force.
Andy Kiefer, 418 North Whitcomb, urged consideration of a local hazardous
material ordinance and asked when such an ordinance might be scheduled.
Marilyn Maxwell, Commission on Disability, spoke on the issue of the ratio
of units that are to be built as handicapped accessible units, noting the
Commission still preferred the State guidelines of 1 in 7.
Kathy Jones, business owner at 127 South College, expressed concern about
the transportation of hazardous materials and presented a petition
containing over 1,500 signatures urging adoption of a local ordinance.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, urged defeat of a hazardous
materials ordinance. He spoke of the desirability of a Highway 287 route
rather than I-25 due to winter weather conditions.
Carolyn Benson, 427 Garfield, supported adoption of a local ordinance
despite the lack of response from the trucking industry regarding cost
figures.
Anna Hancock, Coalition for Safe Transport of Hazardous Materials, asked
for clarification on the scheduling of the ordinance.
Items Relating to the Formation of
the Mason Street Reconstruction Protect
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
A. Resolution Authorizing City Manager To Enter Into A Contract With The
State Of Colorado For The Administration of Federal Aid Urban System
Funds Which Are Proposed To Partially Fund The Mason Street
Reconstruction Project.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 49, 1986, Appropriating
Unanticipated Revenues From The Federal Aid Urban Systems (FAUS) Fund,
And The City's Funds Required to Match The FAUS Funds And Pay The
Expenses Which Will Not Be Shared, To Form The Mason Street
Reconstruction Project.
The Mason Street Reconstruction Project will be to reconstruct the pavement
and sections of the curb and gutter on Mason Street from Laurel Street to
Mountain Avenue. The estimated cost of $440,000 will be split $103,664
City, $336,336 Federal Aid Urban System (FAUS) Funds. The City's share
will be funded by a portion of the 1986 Street Rehabilitation Program. The
Resolution will authorize a contract with the State to administer the funds
and provide the project review for the Federal Government.
Im
April 15, 1986
Background
This project was presented to Council for approval on March 18, 1986.
Council voted 4-3 against the formation of the project. Mayor Ohlson
requested that the project be presented again at the April 15th Council
Meeting, with a revised Appropriation Ordinance. The revision provides for
the City's share to be funded by the 1986 Street Rehabilitation Program and
not be divided between the 1986 and 1987 Programs.
Staff would like to present the following new information regarding the
history of the project.
The Major Street Maintenance Program Report for 1983-87, which was prepared
by Centennial Engineering in March of 1983, recommended that Mason Street
be reconstructed as a part of the 1984 Street Rehabilitation Program. The
cost was estimated at over $350,000, which would have used half of the 1984
Street Rehabilitation Program funds. Because of the high cost, staff
decided that the reconstruction of Mason Street would not be an appropriate
project for the Rehabilitation Program. Staff tries to optimize the use of
the funds by rehabilitating streets prior to the need for reconstruction.
Rehabilitation usually costs one fourth as much as reconstruction. Since,
the cost to reconstruct a street that has already failed doesn't increase
significantly over time, staff decided to wait until a capital project
could be formed to reconstruct Mason Street.
In November, 1984, Transportation Services proposed to the City Manager
that FAUS funds be used to fund 80% of the reconstruction of Mason Street,
and that the City's 20% matching funds could come from the Street
Rehabilitation Program. Staff felt that this was appropriate use of the
Rehabilitation Funds, since it only required 20% to fund the cost. At that
time the reconstruction was estimated to cost $394,000.
On April 2, 1985, Transportation Services requested the State to form a
FAUS project for the Reconstruction of Mason Street. The FAUS funds would
come from the City's existing pool of FAUS funds and the City's October,
1985 FAUS allocation.
In November 1985, we received preliminary approval from the State that the
Mason Street Reconstruction Project was eligible for FAUS funding. Staff
has worked with the State to set up a proposed schedule for the project,
and prepare the contract for the administration of the project between the
State and the City.
The project is now ready for Codncil's consideration. Staff is
recommending that this single project be approved`iwi.thout being placed in
the 5 Year Program for two reasons. The first is'that the funds may not be
available in 1987, if we wait for approval. As long as the funds are tied
up, they will not be taken away. The second reason is that, if we wait
until 1987 to start the project, the State's review will delay the project
until 1988. The Capital Projects Team has rated this project as Essential.
If this project were placed in the 5 Year Program, Transportation and
-309-
April 15, 1986
Engineering would both recommend that this project be constructed in 1987. '
We think we have found the most appropriate funding for the Mason Street
Reconstruction Project.
The pavement on Mason Street, from Laurel Street to Mountain Avenue, is in
very rough condition due to several problems. The old pavement has failed,
it has been cut by utility trenches, overlayed along the railroad tracks
when the tracks were raised, and patched for various reasons. The overall
condition requires that the pavement be reconstructed or overlayed. The
reconstruction process would involve removing the pavement which has failed
(primarily the driving lanes and the area between the railroad tracks),
patching those areas with full depth pavement, followed by an overlay over
the entire street width.
The City annually receives approximately $300,000 in FAUS funds. Although
the Gramm-Rudman Bill will probably affect the FAUS funding in the future,
State officials do not expect it to affect the funds for this project. In
the past the City used the FAUS funds for traffic control projects. Since
the pavement condition of Mason Street affects the use of the Mason/Howes
One -Way Couplet, staff proposed the use of these funds to improve Mason
Street. This will directly increase the use of the Mason Street, and
decrease the traffic on College Avenue in the downtown area. Using the
FAUS Funds on this project will not delay any of the traffic control
projects. '
The Federal review process for FAUS projects requires the State to review
each step of the project. This process is too long to allow for
construction in 1986, therefore the project will be constructed in 1987.
Since business in this area depends upon the CSU students' trade, and
business owners in this area have complained in the past about projects not
completed prior to the start of school. Construction will be started after
the end of CSU's spring semester, and completed prior to the start of CSU's
fall semester.
The following is a breakdown of the project costs and proposed funding.
Design $22,000
Construction Management & Testing 61,500
Construction 347,700
Total Participating Costs $431,200
Non -Participating Costs
(State Indirect,Costs) 8,800
Conceptual Project Estimate $440,000
Federal Participation
(78ge of $431,200) $336,336 ,
City Participation
(22% of 431,200) $94,864
Plus Non -Participating Costs $8,800
-310-
Project Total
103 664
$440,000 "
April 15, 1986
Councilmember Estrada made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
adopt Resolution 86-49.
Gary Diede, City Engineer, gave a history of the project and explained the
changes to the proposed funding.
Rick Ensdorff, Traffic Engineer, detailed the plans and timetable for the
traffic signal at Olive and Mason, noting it would be operational in late
May or early June.
The vote on Councilmember Estrada's motion to adopt Resolution 86-49 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers April, Estrada, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein,
and Stoner. Nays: Councilmember Horak.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to
adopt Ordinance No. 49, 1986 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers April,
Estrada, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmember
Horak.
' THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak asked that the process for reconsideration of an item
be discussed at the upcoming Council retreat.
Resolution Approving DDA Participation
in the Opera House Block Project Adopted
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
The City staff recommends incorporation of the Opera House Block Project
within the DDA's Plan of Development, and that the financing of the Project
be considered when the Authority's contingencies have been satisfied.
The Opera
House. Block,, Project is a mixed -use commercial development
consisting
of 'retail,
r6staurant, and office space. The project is located
in the middle"of:the
1006+block of North College Avenue. It is centrally
located in
the heart
of. Fort Collins' central business district which is
presently
undergoing
substantial revitalization and renovation. The
completed
Opera House
Block Project„ will be composed of three fully
'
renovated
renovated
buildings
buildings
and one four-story, new, infill structure. These
will be interconnected and integrated by an
attractive,
enclosed
mall and atriumr providing a much needed covered
pedestrian
link between
the LaPorte/America parking lot and North College
Avenue.
-311-
April 15, 1986
Background
1
The Opera House Block project consists of 28,784 square feet of net
rentable office space, 13,000 square feet of which will be "gold suite"
type space. Ample parking will be provided for tenants and their employees
within a one -block radius of the project. The project has 225 linear feet
of frontage along the west side of North College Avenue.
The developers of the Opera House Block project have requested Downtown
Development Authority financial participation for approximately $404,000 in
public improvements associated with the project. The DDA Board of
Directors voted unanimously to participate at their January 23, 1986
meeting and confirmed that vote with the passage of Resolution 86-5, March
27, 1986. This resolution approves participation in the project, subject
to a number of contingencies. The project is expected to generate almost
$500,000 in supportable tax increment debt.
The DDA's decision to participate in this project is based upon the
following:
1. The project conserves resources by renovating existing structures
and by making more efficient use of land which has been a part of
the city's urban environment for years.
The project constitutes a major restoration of a national and
local historic structure.
3. The project, located at the heart of the downtown retail district,
will help revitalize that area of downtown.
4. The project's location in relation to Old Town will help to
support the Old Town area and contribute to building the "critical
mass" necessary in providing an attractive, healthy, functional,
central business district.
The project is designed to provide a pleasant, weather -protected
pedestrian connection between North�'College and the parking on the
interior of block #21�'(CaPorte/America lot).
The project will make efficient use of the upper floors of the
structure which have been under-utilized for several years.. This,
plus a major new four-story addition to the building, will create
new jobs in the downtown area.
7. The known increase in property taxes generated,by this project and
the increase in sales taxes will help to reduce the impact of
possible future shortfalls in federal funds available to this
community.
Before the Authority proceeds with development of the.financial'package to
fund its portion of the public improvements associated with the Opera House
-312-
April 15, 1986
' Block Project, it is requesting City Council approval, in Resolution form,
of its participation. Bond and appropriation ordinances will be brought to
Council later this year."
Robert Steiner, Downtown Development Authority Director, described the
project and spoke of the review process the project had been through.
Dick Beardmore, A-E Design Association, described the physical project in
detail and noted his firm had been retained by Walt Brown to do the project
management and design for the project.
Walt Brown, developer of the project, spoke on the rental rates for the
project and noted the rates would be comparable to those in Old Town,
$11/square foot, triple net on the retail areas and.$9/square foot plus
utilities and expenses on the commercial area for the office.areas.
David Roy, Executive Director of Fort Town, read a statement from the Fort
Town Board expressing support for Downtown Development Authority
involvement in the Opera House project.
Jim Reidhead, 235 Linden, addressed the competitive impact of the project
on the downtown.
Councilmember April made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to
adopt Resolution 86-73.
Councilmember Estrada felt the project had a lot of merit and was one of
the most exciting projects to come before the Downtown Development
Authority in some time. He strongly supported the project.
Mayor Ohlson noted he would support the project and added he believed it
would generate more tax increment than it uses.
The vote on Councilmember April's motion to adopt Resolution 86-73 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers April, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson,
Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business';;,,
City Manager Burkett noted he had spoken with'Chief Glasscock and that the
hazardous materials transportation ordinance,; could be ready for Council
consideration at the May 6 meeting, if Council desired.
After discussion, Council consensus was to postpone ,consideration of a
local ordinance until the State legislature acts. In th-4 meantime, staff
will lobby for stronger language in the State bill.
-313-
April 15, 1986
Adjournment
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to
adjourn the meeting. Yeas: Councilmembers April, Estrada, Horak,
Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Mayor
ATTEST:
I10ML o
City Clerk
1
-314-