Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-09/15/1981-RegularSeptember 15, 1981 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, September 15, 1981, 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: Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Absent: None. Staff Members Present: Arnold, Liley, Lanspery, Krajicek, Lewis, Wood, O'Neill. Agenda Review: City Manager ' City Manager Arnold noted that there had been a request from the petitioner to table Item # 29, Appeal from the Building Board of Appeals - 1100 E. Elizabeth until October 6 and that under Other Business, Counc— wou d need to consider appointing a voting delegate to the National League of Cities Meeting in Detroit. Councilmember Clarke asked that Item # 17, Hearing and First Read in of Ordinance No. 124, 1981, Adjusting the Street Oversizing Fees, Item 8, Zoning of Trilby Heights Third, Fourth and Fifth Annexations, and Item # 2ZL, Warranty Deed Easement from Springmeadows Condominium Association, be removed from the onsent a endar. Dan Wilson, 836 Valleyview Road, requested that Item # 21, Resolution Awarding 1981 Insurance Bid, be removed for discussion. 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. 4. Consider approval of the minutes of the regular meetingof S and the adjourned meeting of September 8, 98 . 365 5 R 7 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 107, 1 Electric Code. September 15, 1981 ino the 1981 National This Ordinance was adopted unanimously on First Reading on September 1. Staff met with the Electrical Contractors to review the changes in the latest (1981 Edition) of the National Electrical Code and felt that the Code should be amended to require that, in residential construc- tion, garden level basements be wired whether finished or unfinished. The proposed amendments were reviewed and approved by the Code Change Committee. The Code Change Committee is a citizen's group knowledge- able about codes whose members review all code changes for reason- ableness and cost effectiveness. The committee consists of con- tractors, architects and engineers. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 108, 1981, Relating to Social Security Withholdinon —Sic ay. This Ordinance was adopted unanimously on First Reading on September 1. This ordinance establishes the City's plan for dealing with sick pay and is prepared to meet the State's requirements to enable its formal approval as required by the Federal government. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 110, 1981 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Revenue Sharing Fund. This Ordinance was adopted unanimously on First Reading on September 1. This Ordinance appropriates the $3,000 in Revenue Sharing Fund for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund to cover the cost of profes- sional services to design and prepare the specifications for the proposed conversion of ballfield lighting to metal halide systems. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 111, 1981, Appropriating Unantici Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund This Ordinance was adopted unanimously on First Reading on September 1. Ordinance No. 110, 1981 appropriated prior year reserves in the Revenue Sharing Fund for transfer to the Capital Projects Fund for the ballfield lighting conversion design ($3,000). 366 1 September 15, 1981 Ordinance No. 100, 1981 authorized the issuance of $3,000,000. in General Obligation Bonds to finance community park projects construc- tion through 1982. At this time, we need to appropriate $912,000 of the $3,000,000 in the Capital Projects Fund for current phases of the community park projects. As these phases are completed, we will request appropriations for the next phase of the project. 9. Second Readi Revenue in t of Ordinance No. 112, 1981 Community Development Bloc an iatina Unantici This Ordinance was adopted unanimously on First Reading September 1. This Ordinance appropriates a total of $872,953 in unanticipated revenue in the Community Development Block Grant Fund. The following is a breakdown of the specific revenue items which comprise the total appropriation: 1981-82 Program Income 776,000 Loan Program Income 44,205 Grant Program Income 1,500 Collateral and Interest Income 25,248 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 1981, Authorizing the Issuance of o�Anticipation Notes. This Ordinance was adopted unanimously on First Reading on September 1. The City has been anticipating a sales tax bond issue this fall for Airport projects costing $2,000,000. The schedule for issuing these bonds has been in limbo because of negotiations with the FBO and other parties, the unstable nature of the bond market, and specific identi- fication of projects and their cost. Immediate financing is needed for refinancing existing debt and for the cost of the water and sewer utility extensions. 11. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 118, 1981, Authorizing the Issuance of Par and Fee Revenue Bonds in the Principa mn oar' 2 5,000. At the August 4th Council Meeting, Council authorized the staff to proceed with the purchase of a neighborhood 'park and to finance the purchase over five years with Parkland Fee Revenue Bonds. 367 September 15, 1981 12. Hegring and First Reading of Ordinance No. 119, 1981, Appropriating the Proceeds of the 98 Par and Fee Revenue Bonds in the Par and Fund. Ordinance No. 118, authorized the issuance of Parkland Fee Revenue Bonds for the purpose of property acquisition for a neighborhood park. Of the total $215,000 bond issue, this ordinance appropriates $165,000 for property acquisition and bond issue expenses. The remaining $50,000 will be deposited in the Parkland Fund for a reserve for debt service. 13. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No.120, 1981, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Revenue Sharinq Fund. This Ordinance appropriates prior year reserves of $65,890 in the Revenue Sharing Fund for Phase I - Round Two of the Methane Fuel Project. These funds will be transferred to the Capital Projects Fund for conversion of an additional 41 vehicles. ' 14, Hearin and First Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 1981, Authorizing the Trans er o Appropriate Amounts from the Revenue aring and to t e Caoital Protects Fund. We are ready to begin Phase I - Round Two of the Methane Fuel Conver- sion Project. In order to complete the project as originally plan- ned, a transfer from the Revenue Sharing Fund to the Capital Projects Fund needs to be completed so that the project is budgeted in one place. This Ordinance authorizes the transfer of $65,890 from the Revenue Sharing Fund for completion of Round II of the project. 15. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 1981, Vacatin4 a Portion of Easements and Ri t-o -Way Dedicate on the Plat of Par Place, to be Amended bv the Rea at ot Park Place. This is a request for vacation of a portion of easements and right- of-way dedicated on the Plat of Park Place at The Landings PUD, Book 1938, Page 0743. The applicant had previously requested a,replat, of this portion of Park Place to correct the alignment of Troutman Parkway and Boardwalk Drive. September 15, 1981 16. Hearing and First Readin of Ordinance No. 123, 1981, Vacating Ease- ments Pertaining t—First eo at o oardwa . This is a request for vacation of existing easements shown on the previously approved plat of The Boardwalk at The Landings PUD as recorded in Book 1938, Page 0742 relating to the Replat of The Board- walk at The Landings PUD. 17. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 1981, Adjustin street Oversizinq Fees. This Ordinance raises the fees to the following: Residential: $290 per dwelling unit Industrial: $2750 per acre Commercial: $3500 per acre 18. Zoning of Trilby Heights Third, Fourth and Fifth Annexations. ' A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 1981, Zoning Trilby Heights Third Annexation. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 1981, Zoning Trilby Heights Fourth Annexation. C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 1981, Zoning Trilby Heights Fifth Annexation. This agenda item relates to the Trilby Heights Annexations. These ordinances zone Trilby Heights Third, Fourth and Fifth Annexations. All of these zoning ordinances are identical to those initially brought to and adopted by the City Council, with one exception. The ordinance zoning Trilby Heights Third Annexation has, like the an- nexation ordinance adopted by City Council on First Reading September 8th, been modified by the addition of a new legal description which excludes the ownership interest of REA. 19. Resolution Acceptin_, Approving and Adopting Design Criteria and Standards for treets. Staff has prepared a manual entitled "Design Criteria and Standards for Streets" to clarify and explain City requirements regarding street design standards, structural design criteria, construction standards and standards concerning curbs, gutters and sidewalks. t.• September 15, 1981 20. Resolution Amending Resolutions # 65 and 66, 1981, as They Relate to The Vine -LaPorte -Taft Annexation. This agenda item will correct dates in an earlier annexation resolu- tion relating to the Vine -LaPorte -Taft Annexation. 21. Resolution Awarding 1981 Insurance Bid. Council will award bids for insurance to those companies submitting, the most favorable quotations for the desired coverages as follows: COVERAGE Auto, General Liability, Misc Property Bond & Crime Public Official Police Liability Umbrella ($5 mil.) Earthquake & Flood AGENT/INSURANCE CO Flood & Peterson/ C.G. Aetna L.C. Wilson/Hartford Unimark-McDonald/ Vanguard Unimark-McDonald/ Vanguard Flood & Peterson/ Republic Flood & Peterson/ C.G. Aetna 22. Routine Deeds and Easements. CURRENT COST COST SAVINGS $100,675 $253,265 $152,590 1,890 incl. above -- 9,731 20,430 10,699 22,610 35,989 13,379 12,380 no current (12,380) cov. 6,855 11(6,855) $154,141 $309,684 $157,433 A. Street and Easement Dedication from James and Margaret Stockover, located north of the Trail West Su division on Overland rai 1. The utility easement is needed to provide electric service to Trail West. Consideration: $1.00. B. Warranty Deed Easement from N. 0. Nelson Company for a drainage easement located on Riverside Drive nort west of Prospect. Consideration: $1.00. C. Warranty Deed Easement from Springmeadows Condominium Association for a 12,550 sq. ft. easement, located north of Stuart between Lemay and Stover, for a portion of the Spring Creek Trail. The City has now acquired 9 of the 14 parcels needed in this section of the Spring Creek project. Consideration: $12,550. 370 1 September 15, 1981 Ordinances on Second Readings were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk. Item # 5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 107, 1981, Adopting the 1981 National Electric Code. Item # 6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 108, 1981, Relating to Social Security W11 0 ingon is Pay. Item # 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 110, 1981, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in t 6 Rev�haring dun . Item # 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 111, 1981 Unanticipat�e evenue in the Capital —Projects Fi Item # 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 1981 Unanticipated Revenue in t-eCmmunity Deve o Fund. opriatin appropriatin nt`TTocT7ran Item # 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 1981, Authorizi Issuance of on Anticipation Notes. the ' Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk. Item # 11. Hearinand First Reading of Ordinance No. 118, 1981, Author- ' n n the Issuance of Par land ee Revenue Bonds 5 to Prin- cipa Amount of $215,000. Item # 12. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 119, 1981, Appro- priatin the Proceeds of the1 Parkland Fee Revenue Bonds in the Parkland Fund. Item # 13. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 1981, Appro- priating rior ear eserves in e evenueSh ing�unT Item # 14. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 1981, Author- izing the Transfer of Appropriate mounts from t e Rh— evenue Sharing Fund to the Capital Projects Fund. Item # 15. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 1981, Vacating a Portion o asements an Rig t-o -Way DedicateTon t e at of Park Place, to be Amended by the Rep at of Par P ace. Item # 16. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 1981, Vacating Easements Pertaining to the First Re plat of Boardwa 371 September 15, 1981 Item # 17. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 1981, Adjusting the Street OversiiIng Fees. Item # 18. A. Hearing and First Readiof Ordinance No. 125, 1981, Tnnina Tril�R 1e t TFii ngnnexation. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 1981, C. Hearin and First Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 1981,. oning ri y Jg is i t nnexation. Councilmember Cassell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance ' Adjusting the Street Oversizing Fees, Adopted on First Reading Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "Council voted that a street oversizing fund be established in September, 1979. The fees were established as follows: Residential - $221.00 Per Dwelling Unit Commercial/Industrial - $2,000.00 Per Gross Acre Council instructed staff to review the fee structure quarterly and adjust accordingly. One increase was authorized in August, 1980 to the following: Residential - $254.00 Per Dwelling Unit Commercial/Industrial - $2,296.00 Per Gross Acre This reflected approximately a 15% increase in construction costs. Staff has projected some sizable deficiencies in the commercial portion of the fee. For example, at the Arena project staff projects a deficit of approximately $30,000 and on sites such as the Brown Farm Commercial, a deficit of approximately $66,000 is projected. Staff recommends a 14% ' 372 September 15, 1981 increase in the residential fees; a 19.8% increase for the industrial fee alone; and a 27% increase in the commercial fee to gradually bring it closer to actual costs. The attached Ordinance raises the fees to the following: Residential: Industrial: Commercial: $290 per dwelling unit $2750 per acre $3500 per acre These adjustments were presented to the Homebuilders-Public Works joint meetings in June and July. There was no adverse comment from the home - builders. At Council direction, this issue was discussed at Council work session on September 8, 1981, and Section 2, Paragraphs B & C were changed to clarify these charges." Councilmember Clarke expressed his concern about the street oversizing fees and noted the fees were still lower than the recommended amounts. Councilmember Reeves asked if this would be on the agenda in January for review and adjustment. City Manager Arnold replied that it would. Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to adopt Ordinance No. 124, 1981, on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinances Adopted on First Readings Zoning Trilby Heights Third, Fourth and Fifth Annexations A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No Heights Third Annexation. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No Heights Fourth Annexation. C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No Heights Fifth Annexation. 373 125, 1981, Zoning Trilby 126, 1981, Zoning Trilby 127, 1981, Zoning Trilby September 15, 1981 Councilmember Clarke asked the record show he did not participate in the discussion or vote on Ordinance Nos. 125, 126, 127, 1981. Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to adopt Ordinance No. 125, 1981, on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. (Clarke withdrawn). THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to adopt Ordinance No. 126, 1981, on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. (Clarke withdrawn). THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to adopt Ordinance No. 127, 1981, on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. (Clarke withdrawn). THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution Adopted Awardinq 1981 Insurance Bid Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "Our insurance is bid for a three year period and Council approval is required for all contracts awarded for over two years. Our current insurance coverage expires October 1,1981. A consultant was hired, using our consultant selection process, in order to prepare proper bid specifications, advise the City as to the best way to secure good insurance bids, and to prepare an evaluation of all bids received. Although final decisions on exact coverages are still being made, it is apparent that the City will save approximately $150,000 over current costs and increase our insurance coverage. The most favorable quotations for the desired coverages were submitted by the following: COVERAGE Auto, General Liability, Misc Property AGENT/INSURANCE CO Flood & Peterson/ C.G. Aetna 374 CURRENT COST COST SAVINGS S100,675 $253,265 $152,590 September 15, 1981 CURRENT COVERAGE AGENT/INSURANCE CO. COST COST SAVINGS Bond & Crime L.C. Wilson/Hartford 1,890 incl. above -- Public Official Unimark-McDonald/ 9,731 20,430 10,699 Vanguard Police Liability Unimark-McDonald/ 22,610 35,989 13,379 Vanguard Umbrella ($5 mil.) Flood & Peterson/ 12,380 no current (12,380) Republic cov. Earthquake & Flood & Peterson/ 6,855 (6,855) Flood C.G. Aetna $154,141 $309,684 $157,433" Dan Wilson, 836 Valleyview Road, representing L. C. Wilson Agency, ex- pressed his concerns with regard to the procedure used in the bid selection process. He noted he felt the City should, if at all possible, acquire as much of their insurance as possible locally. Bill Giltner, Bill Giltner Insurance Agency, 421 S. Howes #1101, spoke in opposition to the process especially the manner in which the consultant assigned the markets. George Fischer, L. C. Wilson Agency, expressed his dissatisfaction with regard to the assignment process. Jim O'Neill, Purchasing Agent, noted the consultant was selected on the basis of the City's consultant selection procedure. He added the assign- ment process is recognized by the Public Risk and Insurance Managers Association as a way to select insurance carriers. Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to adopt this Resolution. Councilmember Reeves suggested that staff be directed to devise some way of giving preference to local companies at the time the insurance bids come up for consideration again. Councilmember Cassell agreed. ' Councilmember Horak stated he felt it was premature to pass this Resolution without adequately addressing the concerns expressed. 375 September 15, 1981 ' The vote on the previous motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Knezovich and Reeves. Nays: Horak and Wilmarth. THE MOTION CARRIED. Warranty Deed Easement from Springmeadows Condominium Association, Approved Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "The following are routine deeds and easements which have been reviewed and approved by affected departments and legal staff.... C. Warranty Deed Easement from Sprin meadows Condominium Association for a 12,550 sq. ft. easement, located north of tuart between Lemay and Stover (#5 on attached map), for a portion of the Spring Creek Trail. The City has now acquired 9 of the 14 parcels needed in this section of the Spring Creek project. Consideration: $12,550." Councilmember Clarke asked if the price paid for this acquisition was I comparable to costs for other properties along Spring Creek. Right -of -Way Agent, Ron Mills, replied that it was very similar to other acquisitions. Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Knezovich, to approve the warranty deed easement from Springmeadows Condominium Asso- ciation. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: None THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution Making Findings Regarding the Landmark, P.U.D., Preliminary Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "At the September 1 regular meeting, Council voted 5-1 to continue to September 15 the hearing on the appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board decision of July 27 on Landmark,P.U.D., Preliminary. Additionally, Council stipulated no further public comment or input would be permitted on Sep- tember 15 and that a Resolution making findings would be considered at that tune. ' 376 September 15, 1981 The staff reviewed the Landmark P.U.D. against the density criteria of the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS). A variance to the criteria of being within 3,500 feet from an existing or reserved neighborhood park, without crossing an arterial street, was recommended for approval by staff for the following reasons: 1. The project is within 3,500 feet of Rolland Moore Park which will serve as the neighborhood and community park for this area; 2. Due to large land holdings of CSU within the section bounded by Prospect Street, College Avenue, Horsetooth Road and Shields Street, the City does not anticipate building a neighborhood park in the area; 3. A pedestrian and bicycle underpass will be improved under Shields Street in 1982 which will provide a safe and convenient connection for properties east of Shields Street to Rolland Moore Park; 4. Where community parks serve as neighborhood parks, not varying the requirements of not crossing an arterial street would give unfair density advantage to properties on one side of a street since all community parks are located on arterial streets (this fact is being considered in the evaluation of the LDGS). The Planning and Zoning Board agreed with the above reasons and granted the variance requested. The Planning and Zoning Board has granted similar variances for other projects based on the above reasons. If this variance is not approved, the density proposed on the Landmark P.U.D. is above what the LDGS would allow and the project would have to be resubmitted at a lower density. In reviewing the Landmark P.U.D. against the design criteria, it was felt that the importation canal would be best handled by covering it completely. This solution provides more usable open space for the residents and elim- inates all potential hazards. The treatment to the canal does not affect the points or density allowed on the site. Staff has re-evaluated the points awarded in Point Chart A in response to comments at the public hearing and with one exception, are supportive of our initial evaluation. The one exception is the 2-points awarded for structured parking (Criterion ii). These points were awarded by mistake. The effect of deleting these points, however, does not change our overall evaluation or recommendation on this project and still allows the density ' requested. 377 September 15, 1981 ' In summary, the staff believes the Landmark P.U.D, is in compliance with all the requirements of the LDGS and is compatible through design with the neighborhood. These findings are the basis for the staff recommendation for approval of this project." Councilmember Clarke asked the record show he did not participate or vote on this item. Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to adopt the Resolution (Alternate "A") with the following modifications: Section 2: add, "except that of the absolute criteria set forth in the Land Development Guidance System" after the word "criteria" in the third line of Section 2. Section 3: add, "provided the density does not exceed 120 dwel- ling units" at the end of Section 3. City Attorney Liley noted the language of Councilmember Knezovich's motion would have to be altered slightly to achieve Councilmember Knezovich's intent and that she would make those changes. Councilmember Cassell stated he felt as long as the City was going to use ' the Guidance System and until it is changed, the scoring should be followed and the project should be approved at the requested density. The vote on the previous motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Elliott, Horak, Knezovich and Reeves. Nays: Councilmembers Cassell and Wilmarth (Clarke withdrawn). THE MOTION CARRIED. Citizen Participation A. Proclamation Congratulating the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners and Local 1340 on the Unions's Centennial Anniversary. Mike Shotland, 1724 Hastings, accepted the proclamation on behalf of the union. Mr. William Grover, 2407 Wapiti Road, spoke about the intersection of Horsetooth and Timberline, noting fie felt it was dangerous. Bob Lee, Traffic Engineering, stated he would report back to Council after traffic counts are reviewed. I 373 September 15, 1981 John Vetterling, 2701 ,Alexander Drive, stated that he felt the Police Department was undersized and suggested that concept was not keeping Fort Collins a quality city. Second Public Hearing for the Recommended 1982 Budget The first Public Hearing for the Recommended 1982 Budget was held September 1, 1981. This is the second hearing prior to adoption of the Appropriation Ordinance on October 6, 1981. City Manager Arnold gave a slide presentation that gave a brief overview of the budget process. The following persons spoke at the second public hearing on the 1982 Budget: 1. Bill Lauer, 2206 Hiawatha Ct., President of the Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce, who presented a paper addressing 8 items ' included in the 1982 Budget. 2. Jim Law; Executive Director of Administrative Services, Poudre R-1, asked for reconsideration of school crossing guard budget item. 3. LeRoy Wade, 1313 S. Bryan, reviewed the budget. He suggested no cuts be made in public safety and necessary services that cannot be provided by private enterprise. He suggested cuts in services that have not demonstrated a need by a large segment of the community and are not cost effective. He named the Airport and Transfort as examples and suggested they be turned over to private enterprise. He addressed the Light and Power revenue and profit figures and concluded by stating the proposed tax increases are burdensome to the taxpayer, are only needed to prop up services which have proven themselves to be unnecessary, and are contrary to established policy of running the utilities at a profit and having the users pay for the cost of services. 4. Jim Woods, Chairman of the Downtown Parking Commission, proposed a joint venture project concerning the train depot site on Jefferson Street. 5. Freeman Smith, 1000 W. Prospect, spoke in support of the school crossing guard program. 379 September 15, 1981 6. Marianna Dunning, 1048 E. Prospect, expressed concern with regard to the elimination of the school crossing guard program. 7. Betty Cummings, 1309 Lindenwood, asked that the pool/ice rink be included in the Capital Improvement Program and requested the $709,560 earmarked for Block 31 be put into a fund for the pool/ ice rink. 8. Pat Geist, 1020 Skyline Drive, spoke in opposition to "free from fare" Transfort and the real estate transfer tax. 9. Steve Barbier, 522 E. Elizabeth, Executive Director of Neighbor to Neighbor, recommended the final engineering design for the North Lemay extension be included in the 1982 Budget and followed up in 1983 with right-of-way acquisition. 10. Kathy Warner, 3112 Killdeer Drive, spoke on behalf of the Beattie School parents and expressed their concerns regarding the elim- ination of the school crossing guards. 11. Ed Van Driel, 1212 W. Mountain, spoke in opposition to "free from ' fare" Transfort. 12. Bruce Lockhart, 615 Mathews, spoke regarding advertising on Transfort and the use of private "jitney" cabs. 13. Jim Evenson, 1308 Teakwood Drive, spoke on policy considerations - the categorization of City services - Enterprise Funds. 14. Frances Gescheidt, 3124 Gatlin Street, spoke in favor of free enterprise. 15. Jim Eckerman, 3500 Winslow Drive, stated he felt there had to be some free enterprise alternative to the City spending $100,000 on the train depot project mentioned by Jim Woods. Ordinance Amending the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Establish Limitations Regarding Campaign Contributions, Adopted on First Reading Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "At the August 25, 1981, Work Session, Council was presented with several forms of a proposed ordinance regarding campaign contributions. fhe ' 380 ' September 15, 1981 consensus of the Council was that the "short form" should be used, with the addition of an aggregate contribution limitation regarding contributions to multi -purpose committees. It was recommended that the dollar limitation be left blank for further discussion. Accordingly, the requested form of campaign contribution ordinance is attached for your consideration. Changes in this ordinance are found in Section 9-15 (D) wherein the "contribution in -kind" definition has been simplified by the deletion of the second sentence as contained in the original form. An additional change is found in Section 9-17 by the provision of some language requiring a statement of the specific purpose of the contribution in the event of a contribution to a multi -purpose committee. The primary change is found in Section 9-18 (A) wherein the aggregate contribution limitation is specified. Section 9-18 (A) requires the addition of the dollar amount of the campaign contribution limitation by the Council." City Attorney Liley noted this was the modified short form of the Ordinance presented at the August 25 work session. She noted two blanks would have to be filled in. The first blank is a limitation on contributions to any ' candidate or aggregate contribution. committee on an issue. The second blank is for any total Councilmember Knezovich asked if there could be language to limit a con- tribution by a person's dependent minor children. City Attorney Liley replied that she felt a limitation of that type would be supportable. Dick Albrecht, Executive Vice President of the Chamber of Commerce, in- quired whether the Chamber could form a political action committee and have a major fund raising drive when the committee has no specific purpose and the Board of the Chamber is allowed to expend the funds as they see fit. City Attorney Liley replied that the intent would be not to allow the expenditure of funds which were raised in that way unless contributions were clearly designated by the donor. This would be in a municipal elec- tion only. Mr. Albrecht stated fie felt this section of the ordinance was unconsti- tutional and suggested its removal. He added that legal.counsel in Wash- ington, D.C. would be reviewing this matter. Councilmember• Knezovich asked that the phrase referring to gifts in the definition of "contribution" be removed and that a person's dependent minor children be included in the definition of "person". 381 September 15, 1981 , Councilmember Elliott suggested the ballot language from the April election be the basis of an ordinance to limit campaign contributions. Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt Ordinance No 131, 1981 on First Reading incorporating Council - member Knezovich's comments in the definitions section regarding "persons" and "contributions" as an amendment to the Ordinance, deleting any refer- ence to an aggregate amount in Section 9-18, setting the amount in Section 9-18 at $100.00 and changing the language in Section 9-18(A) to read "on behalf of a candidate or independent committees". Councilmember Cassell spoke in opposition to the motion because of the unconstitutional question and because he felt the Ordinance was unenforce- able. Mayor Wilmarth indicated he felt portions of the ordinance were hard to understand and cumbersome and that he had questions with regard to the constitutionality of the document. The vote on the previous motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Horak, Knezovich and Reeves. . Nays: Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott and Wilmarth. THE iMOTION CARRIED. Ordinance Changing the Regular Council Meeting Time to 5:30 P.M., Adopted on First Reading Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "At the meeting of September 8th on a 4-3 vote, Council directed staff to prepare the attached Ordinance, which changes the Council's regular meeting time to 5:30 p.m. from 6:30 p.m. If adopted on Second Reading on October 6th, the Ordinance would take effect for the regular meeting of October 20th." Councilmember Reeves made a motion to amend Ordinance No. 129, 1981, by inserting the phrase "7:00 p.m." in place of the phrase "5:30 p.m.". The motion died for lack of a second. Councilmember Cassell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to adopt Ordinance No. 129, 1981, on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, and Wilmarth. Nays: Councilmembers Horak, I Knezovich and Reeves. 332 1 September 15, 1981 THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance Authorizing the City to Enter into an Agreement for Independent Annual Audits, Adopted on First Reading Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "Section 17 of Article II of the City Charter states in part that, 'The Council shall provide for an independent audit at least annually by a certified public accountant of all books and accounts of the City...'. On July 7, 1981, Council passed Resolution 81-93 authorizing the Finance Department to begin a process of soliciting proposals from auditing firms for performance of the 1981 annual audit. This Ordinance is the final step in the auditor selection process. On Wednesday, September 9, 1981, the four firms selected for personal interviews by the Finance Committee, from the eleven firms submitting proposals, were interviewed. The four firms were: Erickson, Hunt & Spillman, P.C., Ft. Collins Welsh, Thompson & Assoc., P.C., Ft. Collins Alexander Grant & Co., Denver Arthur Young & Co., Denver The City requested fee proposals for the annual audits of 1981, 1982 and 1983. Engaging auditing firms for up to three years at a time is mutually beneficial to both the City and the auditors. Multiple year fee proposals allow the City to budget auditing fees in advance and allow the auditing firms to plan and recover, in some instances, increased initial year costs over more than one year. This ordinance is drafted to allow Council to negotiate and ratify both fees and further engagements at the end of each annual audit and prior to July 1, of the then current year." Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmernber Cassell, to adopt Ordinance No. 130, 1981, on First Reading inserting the name of Erickson, Hunt and Spillman in Section 1 and the dollar amount $36,000 in Section 2. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezo- vich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. 383 September 15, 1981 ' Appeal from the Building Board of Appeals 1100 E. Elizabeth, Tabled until October 6 Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to table consideration of this appeal until October 6 at the request of the petitioner. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezo- vich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Storm Drainage Map and Storm Drainage Master Plans Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "A. Resolution Adopting the Storm Drainage Map. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 1981, Adopting Final Master Drainage Plans for the McClellands and Mail Creek, Foothills, and Fox Meadows Drainage Basins. The formal public hearing on the Ordinance adopting Final Master Drainage ' Plans for the McClellands and Mail Creek, Foothills, and Fox Meadows Basins will be held at the time of Second Reading on October 6 in order to meet the legal publication requirements. In the storm drainage ordinance of 1976 the City Council determined "that the owners of property within drainage basins in the City should provide the drainage facilities necessary for the drainage and control of flood and surface waters. Therefore, the cost of installing drainage facilities in a drainage basin should be assessed, in whole or in part, against the lands in the drainage basin. The City Council further finds, determines and declares that all real property within a drainage basin will be benefited by the installation of drainage facilities within the basin to the extent possible, the charges assessed against lands in a drainage basin for construction of drainage facilities should take into account the amount of stormwater which will run off such lands after they have been developed." This ordinance also created the Storm Drainage Board, charging it to divide the city into separate drainage basins, develop drainage basin master plans recommending the necessary improvement for each basin, and propose a method of financing these improvements. The Storm Drainage Board has delineated the boundaries and developed basin master plans for nine (9) major drainage basins in the city, and now recommends that the City Council officially adopt these boundaries, three final basin master plans and six interim basin master plans. I 384 September 15, 1981 STORM DRAINAGE MAP "After receiving the report and recommendation of the Storm Drainage Board, the City Council shall officially adopt by resolution a Storm Drainage Map or Maps delineating the boun- daries of the storm drainage basin in the City and in areas which may hereafter be annexed to the City." Storm Drainage Ordinance, Section 93-6 The Storm Drainage Board recommends the City Council adopt the attached Storm Drainage Map. The boundaries of the nine major drainage basins have been delineated after thorough investigation by the engineering consultants preparing the basin master plans. The basin boundaries represent the limits of the distinct and separate systems drainage improvements designed in the master plans. The basins are also the basic building blocks of the proposed financing plan; the amounts of the basin fee and monthly utility fee will be unique to each basin. STORM DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN "The Storm Drainage Board shall also review and make recommen- dations to the City Council on a master storm drainage plan to be developed for city-wide facilities by the city administration, such recommendations to include proposed methods of funding any master drainage plan as finally adopted." Storm Drainage Ordinance, Section 93-5 C. A storm drainage master plan has been completed for.each of the nine major drainage basins. The master plans describe the system of storm drainage improvements required to provide safe and effective drainage within the basins. The plans were prepared by qualified consulting engineers working closely with the city staff. The improvements recommended are based on the results of cost -benefit analyses, where such analyses were appropriate, and on the adopted storm drainage design criteria. The master plans have been reviewed and accepted by the Storm Drainage Board. Each roaster plan consists of a report in three volumes; an executive summary, a main report, and a technical addendum. In addition to a plan of the proposed drainage improvements, the master, plans include hydrologic and hydraulic data, floodplain plan and profiles, cost estimates, economic analyses, and improvement phasing schedules. The plans have been sum- marized on the attached map, the Storm Drainage Master plan, which outlines the proposed major improvements. I The Storm Drainage Board recommends the City Council adopt the Storm Drainage Master Plan as follows: 385 September 15, 1981 ' (1) The Foothills Basin, the Fox Meadows Basin, and the McClellands- Mail Creek Basin should be adopted as final master plans, including the full engineering reports; and (2) The remaining basins should be adopted as interim master plans, with final adoption of the engineering reports to be in the near future. The storm drainage ordinance clearly indicates that final adoption of master plans should be accompanied by proposals for funding the im- provements. At this time the Storm Drainage Board has proposed, in con- junction with the 1982 budget, plans to finance the Foothills, Fox Meadows, and McClellands-Mail Creek Basins. Final adoption of the remaining basins will be recommended when financing plans for these basins have been completed. Copies of the executive summaries of the three finalized basins are attached for Council's review. The basin map and master plans presented above, together with the proposed financing plan, represent several years of concentrated effort by the Storm Drainage Board and the city staff to develop a sound, comprehensive storm drainage program. The Council and the Storm Drainage Board discussed these matters in some ' detail at the work session of September 8th. The Board again considered the overall storm drainage program at the September 9th meeting, and their final recommendations to Council are contained in the attached letter from Rex Burns, Board Chairman." Councilmember Horak asked what implications the adoption of the Master Plan had on funding since the budget was not yet adopted. City Manager Arnold replied the three drainage plans for adoption all have projects that need to be constructed in 1982 and are reflected in the budget. The six interim plans do not have specific projects. $279,000 is included in the Capital Projects Budget for these items. Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cassell, to adopt the Resolution adopting the Storm Drainage Map. Yeas: Council - members Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to adopt Ordinance No. 123, 1981, on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Knezovich and Reeves. Nays: Councilmembers Horak and Wilmarth.' I 336 September 15, 1981 THE MOTION CARRIED. Appeal of Zoning Board of Appeals Decision (ZBA # 1258 and # 1259) 320 - 322 North Loomis Avenue Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "On August 13, 1981, the Zoning Board of Appeals considered a variance request for the property at 320 North Loomis Avenue and a variance request for the property at 322 North Loomis Avenue. These requests, heard as Appeals #1258 and #1259 respectively, were granted by the Board with conditions. Evan Gilmartin, owner of the properties, is appealing these decisions. Both properties are located in the R-M (medium density residential) zone, which allows single family, duplex, and multi -family residential develop- ment. Due to the fact that both properties are under one ownership, and ' that the variance requests are similar, this memo will deal with both addresses. At one time, there was a single family dwelling on each of the lots in question. Due to fire and other causes, they were removed some time ago, and the lots have been vacant ever since. Mr. Gilmartin also owns the adjacent property at 318 North Loomis Avenue, which is currently the site of a single family dwelling. As the owner of the three adjacent lots, Mr. Gilmartin could demolish the house at 318 North Loomis and consider all three lots as one parcel of land. If he were to pursue this course of action, the 'new' lot would then be large enough to construct a brand new multi -family dwelling without the need for any variances. If he pursued this course of action, he would have to comply with the parking ordinance and screening requirements as set forth in the Zoning Code, consequently allowing the City some input into the appearance and treatment of the lot. However, Mr. Gilmartin desires to treat each lot separately and to move an older house onto the two lots in question and, convert each one to an over-under duplex. The need for the variances arises from the limited size of the properties. Specifically, the variances for both 320 North Loomis and 322 North Loomis would reduce the lot area requirement from 6,000 square feet to 4,900 square feet and the lot width requirement from 60 feet to 35 feet for each lot. In his request, Mr. Gilmartin asked that the variances be speci- fically for duplexes. Staff recommended approval of the variances with the ' condition that only single family dwellings be allowed on the lot. 387 September 15, 1981 On August 13, 1981, the Zoning Board heard the variance requests for both addresses. The request to reduce the lot area requirement and the lot width requirement was granted for both appeals #1258 and #1259. However, the Board granted the variances with the condition that it be for single family dwellings on each lot instead of duplexes. (The same variances are required for either single family dwellings or duplexes on these proper- ties). The variances were conditionally granted by a vote of five to zero. The petitioner is appealing only that portion of the variance restricting the use to single family dwellings. City Council will be reviewing the decisions made by the Zoning Board of Appeals rather than conducting a new hearing. Council members are being furnished with verbatim transcripts of the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, as well as those materials submitted to the Board by Evan Gilmartin. In view of these facts, it may be advisable to limit presentations to the introduction of information not presented at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting and a summary of the two different positions of the applicant and the ZBA." Evan Gilmartin gave background information on the property he owns at ' 320-322 North Loomis Avenue noting that he desired to place two additional duplexes on the site. Pete Barnes, Zoning Administrator, clarified portions of the transcript of the original hearing for Councilmembers. Clarence Padilla, property owner in the neighborhood, spoke in opposition to Mr. Gilmartin's plans to move two houses on the lots and convert them to duplexes. Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to uphold the decisions of the Zoning Board of Appeals on both appeals. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: Councilmembers Clarke and Horak. THE MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney's Report City Attorney Liley noted that a hearing for a motion for a bill of costs in the Construction, Inc. lawsuit had been set for October 23. She asked for direction in appointing special counsel because of .ethical prohibitions against representing a client when anyone in the law firm is testifying as a witness. I September 15, 1981 Council consensus was to direct the City Attorney's office to make some contacts with the various attorneys in town and come back with some names for Council consideration. City Manager's Report City Manager Arnold reported that the Police Department had made a series of arrests based on under -age alcohol purchases on September 11. He noted the matter would be presented to the Liquor Licensing Authority at their next meeting. Other Business Councilmember Horak noted the Colorado Water Conservation Board had re- quested someone from the City be appointed to a study committee to look at the Poudre River. The Water Board took action and recommended Dr. Everett Richardson from ' their group. Councilmember Horak suggested a Councilperson be included. Councilmember Cassell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to recommend Councilmember Horak to the study committee and to confirm Dr. Richardson's appointment by the Water Board. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. National League of Cities Delegates Assistant City Manager, Verna Lewis, stated it would be necessary for Council to designate their voting delegates to the National League of Cities Conference to be held in Detroit. Councilmember Cassell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to designate Councilmember Peggy Reeves as the voting delegate and Coun- cilmembers Cassell and Horak as the alternate voting delegates. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. She further noted that Council needed to make an appointment to the Col- orado Municipal League policy committee which meets approximately 4 times a 1 year. t:8 September 15, 1981 Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cassell, to appoint Peggy Reeves to the Colorado Municipal League policy committee. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. qllzx- Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk ' 390