Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-08/28/1979-Adjourned (1:00 PM)August 28, 1979 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council - Manager Form of Government Adjourned Meeting - 1:00 P.M. An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, August 28, 1979, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Council - members: Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, and 14ilmarth. Absent: Councilman Wilkinson Staff Members Present: Arnold, Liley, and Lewis Ad.iourn into Executive Sessio Mayor Bowling announced the Policy regarding Executive Sessions as follows: "Henceforth, no Executive Session will be called until that Session has been cleared with both Mrs. Gray and myself and we have determined whether or not it is indeed a matter for an Executive Session. In case there is a doubt in our minds, we will poll the individual members of the Council." He then stated the next item will be held in open session. Special Counsel Appointed City Attorney Liley stated she wanted to talk about the pend- ing law suit against Construction, Inc., and Robb and Brenner, relating to the Municipal Building. Prior to discussing Special Counsel, she wanted to report on the following: 1. On Friday, the Legal Department had received a call from the Kellogg Corporation; they had received a subpoena to produce all files and documents relating to this building, as well as a notice to appear for oral depositions. They were to take place this week. 2. Yesterday, the City received a notice to produce all documents relating to this building; that was scheduled for Wednesday. Legal staff has gone to Court; the case has been assigned to Judge Dressell for protective order staying all discovery until the Special Counsel August 28, 1979 is hired, until an answer is filed, and until all the information is put together. That Order was signed yesterday at 4:30 p.m. In terms of the Special Counsel, the City Attorney provided the following list of Attorneys, and re- layed the criteria used in making up the list. Master List - Local Attorne.vs Charlie Bloom (Wood, Herzog, Osborn & Bloom) Ralph Harden (Harden, Napheys, Schmidt & Haas) Alden V. Hill (Hill & Hill) Mark Korb'(March, March, Myatt, Korb & Carroll) Randolph Schum (A-llen, Rogers, Metcalf & Vahrenwald) Robin Wick (Anderson & Sommermeyer) Refined List Local: Charlie Bloom (Wood, Herzog, Osborn & Bloom) $60 - $70 Mark Korb (March, March, Myatt, Korb & Carroll) $60 Denver: John Chilson (Cogswell, Chilson, Dominick & $75 Whitelaw) Lyle DeMuth (DeMuth & Eiberger) $50 - $80 Bob Treece (Yegge, Hall & Evans) The recommendation was for a local attorney; and the specific recommendation was appointment of Mark Korb of the firm March, March, Myatt, Korb & Carroll. Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Reeves, to appoint Mark Korb as Special Counsel to represent the City in the law suit against Construction, Inc., and Robb and Brenner. Yeas: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Reeves, and St. Croix. Nays: Councilman Kross. (Councilman Wilmarth abstained.) THE MOTION CARRIED Ordinance Adopted Authorizing a Lease/Purchase Agreement for Certain Business Equipment Following is a memorandum from Deputy Director of Finance. Peter K. Dallow to the Acting Purchasing Agent Opal Dick. -97- 1 August 28, 1979 The City of Fort Collins rents seven (7) Xerox copy machines. These machines have accumulated maximum rental credits toward purchase. A substantial cost savings would be attained if the City were to purchase these machines. A survey was conducted this past spring in order to accomplish the following objectives: -- Determine if the right equipment was in the right location. -- Determine if productivity could be increased while maintaining turnaround time. Determine if our present system is cost effective. The results of the survey provided data and analysis concerning copy machines volumes and utilization of required features. The survey ensured that the present machines can continue to meet the low volume copy requirements of the City. Based on the results of this survey and the potential cost savings ($50,000 over 5 years), it is my recommendation that the City of Fort Collins enter into an agreement with Xerox to lease/purchase the following copy machines. MACHINE Xerox 3107 if " 3107 of " LDC 11 11 If 11 Is " 4500 " " 660 LOCATION Service Center Municipal Building Human Resources Parks & Recreation Finance Municipal Building Parks Maintenance PURCHASE PRICE $ 6,b6u 6,308 5,092 5,092 5,092 11,400 1,440 $41.,2 _ ... Additional analysis and alternative comparisons are attached. Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilman St. Croix, to adopt Ordinance No. 105, 1979 on first reading. Yeas: Council - members Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. WE August 21, 1979 Other Business (A). Mayor Bowling requested that City Manager Arnold prepare a report regarding the editorial comments regarding the Lemay Avenue Extension. City Manager Arnold called Council's attention to two memorandums; one from Engineering Services Director Roy A. Bingman, and one from Assistant City Attorney Donald C. Deagle, and reported on the testimony he had presented at the P.U.C. hearings on the railroad cross- ings. The City Manager reported that the P.U.C. Hearing Officer will make a ruling on this in September. The two memorandums are made a part of this record. DATE: August 28, 1979 TO: John E. Arnold, City Manager FROM: Roy A. Bingmen, Engineering services Director RE: IAM*oy Extension The construction of.the Lemay Avenue Extension is proceeding on a schedule for completion of the basic contract at the end of November, 1979. The Railroads and the Public Utilities Commission have created a problem for the project with respect to the installation of railroad signals at the Riverside-Lemay intersection. The first meeting with railroad and P.U.C. officials was held in October 1978, during the design process. By December 1978, Centennial Engineering and the City staff understood that the design of the signal installation was approved by the P.U.C. and the Railroads. In early 1979, the formal application for the crossing was submitted to P.U.C. A hearing date in June was set for the project. One day before the hearing date the Union Pacific Railroad requested that the hearing be postponed because of "design problems" which they had identified. -99- r August 28, 1979 The hearing was then rescheduled to August 8. That late a date does not allow sufficient time for the installation of the railroad signal equipment before the completion of the rest of the project at the end of November.. The City acted in good faith by supposedly working out the design problems over a year ahead of the completion date for the construction. In the hearing, the City requested that the P.U.C. authorize the opening of the crossing on an interim basis, until the railroads can install the signals. Jack Beier of the P.U.C. staff indicated yesterday that the* Hearing Officer has not yet completed the findings of the hearing. He does not expect the findings earlier than sometime next week. The City staff feels that the crossing could be opened after the basic con- struction is completed, and before completion of railroad signal installation by use of a "crossing guard" if necessary. It should be noted that the same railroad tracks cross East Prospect Street near Sutherland Ltmiber Co. without the benefit of railroad signals. One crossing has no control; the other has a stop sign for traffic control. DATE: August 28,.1979 TO: John E. Arnold, City Manager FROM: Donald C. Deagle, Assistant City Attorney RE: Lemay Avenue Extension I am extremely concerned about the editorial which appeared in Friday's Coloradoan concerning the Lemay Avenue extension. The editorial was grossly inaccurate on a number of significant points and leaves the reader with the impression that "the City blew it again". I do not believe that to be the case and feel that it's important the record be set straight. Notwithstanding the fact the Coloradoan had no reporters at the hearing, had they been there I think they would have emphasized the following facts: (1) That in November of the preceeding year, representatives from the City, the Public Utilities Commission and the two railroads met "on site" to consider the design of the railroad crossing. -100- August 28, 1979 (2) Under the guidance of our consulting engineers, Centennial Engineering, the parties at that time agreed upon an acceptable configuration for the crossing. (3) Thereafter, the only issue to be resolved by the Public Utilities Commission was the apportionment of the signalization cost between the railroads, the City and the Public Utilities Commission Highway Protection Fund. By law, the railroads are held accountable for a minimum of 10% of the signalization costs, and the City was looking to the Highway Protection Fund for the remaining 80 to 90% on the basis that the Lemay Avenue extension was of regional benefit. (10 Construction on the Lemay Avenue extension proceeded according to schedule and the hearing before the Public Utilities Commission to determine the apportionment of costs was scheduled for June 27. (5) One day before the scheduled hearing, representatives of the Union Pacific Railroad requested a continuance of the hearing because their home office in Omaha was reporting that they had difficulties with the design of the crossing. It should be pointed out that despite our numerous requests, we never received any cost estimates from the Union Pacific nor did they at.any time give.any indication whatsoever that they had problems with the railroad crossing. Thus, for the first time, the issue to. be decided by the Public Utilities Commission was not only the question of apportionment of signalization expenses, but also the design of the crossing itself. ((,)When the hearing was held before the P.U.C. on August 8th, the two railroads and the City entered into a compromise agreement concerning the design of the crossing. The issues were quite technical and involved the relocation of a portion of the U.P. line, this relocation resulted in additional cost to the City; but it was also agreed that the State Crossing Protection Fund would bear an increased proportion of the entire signalization cost. Ultimately, it was determined this represented a good compromise to the signalization issue which would result in a safer railroad crossing and acceptable costs to the City. The proposal is now before the P.U.C. for approval. -101- August 28, 1979 As a result of the delays incurred in resolving the issues of the design of the crossing, it became apparent that the signals may not be installed at the time of the scheduled opening of the Lemay Avenue extension. In recognition of the delay caused by the Union Pacific's disapproval of the previously agreed upon crossing design, that railroad offered.to place the crossing on the top of its construction list and indicated that they would have their portion of the crosssing and signal installed by the scheduled opening date. The Colorado and Southern Railway, which does not stockpile signals, and which had no role to play in the delay, . was faded with a dilemma. They believed it would take them five or more months to order the necessary signals with which to complete the crossing. Again, in the spirit of compromise and in recognition of their role to play in the delay, the Union Pacific offered to explore the possibility of loaning the Colorado and Southern the necessary signals to complete the project. Negotiations on this "loan" are continuing and it appears the results will be favorable. All of these facts were disclosed to the Public Utilities Commission at the time of the hearing. We also asked the hearing examiner to permit the City and the railroads to explore some temporary type of crossing protection should it appear the signals would not be installed when the roadway is completed. While I leave it to Mr. Lauffer's sense of discretion as to what constitutes sufficient advanced planning, I do think its significant to point out that all parties had agreed upon the configuration for the signal in November of 1978, fully one year before the anticipated opening of the Lemay Avenue extension. The only reason that those plans were not carried into effect was because of the untimely opposition advanced by the Union Pacific Railroad. (B). City Manager Arnold then inquired into the Sound System and Council's concerns regarding the system. Adjournment Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilman Kross, to adjourn this meeting to 7:00 p.m. at Rocky Mountain High School for the Corridor Hearing. Yeas: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, and Wilmarth. Nays: None The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. -102- ATTEST: Mayo -103- August 28, 1979 I