HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-06/21/1983-Regular' June 21, 1983
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 5:30 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on
Tuesday, June 21, 1983, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the City
of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Council
members: Cassell, Clarke, Horak, Knezovich; Ohlson, and Rutstein.
Secretary's Note: Councilmember Elliott arrived at 6:05 p.m.
Staff Members Present: Arnold, Huisjen, Meitl, Krajicek, Eckman, Lewis, C.
Smith.
Agenda Review: City Manager
Mayor Knezovich stated that Councilmember Elliott had notified him that he
would be a little late but that he had requested Item #10, Second Reading
of Ordinance No. 72, 1983, Authorizing the Issuance of Industrial Develop-
ment Revenue Bonds for the Poudre Valley Oncology Center Associates Project
' in the Principal Amount of $1,350,000, be withdrawn from the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember Horak asked that Item #4, Consider Approving the Minutes of
the regular meeting of June 7, be removed from the Consent Agenda.
- Consent Calendar
This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and
energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends
approval of the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this
calendar be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately.
Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be considered separately
under Agenda Item #31, Pulled Consent Items, except items pulled by anyone
in the audience or items that any member of the audience is present to
discuss that were pulled by staff or Council. These items will be dis-
cussed immediately following the Consent Calendar.
4. Consider Approving the Minutes of the regular meeting of June 7.
5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 46, 1983, Vacating Easements in Hill
Pond aster an.
This ordinance
was unanimously adopted
on
First
Reading on April
19
and was tabled
on Second Reading on May
3
to the
June 21st meeting
at
-263-
go
9.
June 21, 1983 '
the request of staff. The vacation of two existing bike, pedestrian
and bridle path easements was requested as a condition for the grant-
ing of a replacement easement which would conform to the Spring Creek
Drainage Study.
In order to close on the replacement easement, a partial release by
the Public Trustee releasing the property from the lien of the Deed of
Trust to Penn Square Bank was required. Staff requested tabling this
ordinance on second reading because this partial release took longer
than expected due to the liquidation of Penn Square Bank by the FDIC.
The partial release has now been completed, and the vacation of
easements can be finalized through adoption of the ordinance on second
reading.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 68, 1983, Reappropriating 1982 Funds.
This ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on June
7, is itemized by fund and reappropriates monies in various funds
based on Article V, Section 5 of the City Charter.
If these funds are not reappropriated, all affected projects/programs
cannot be completed as scheduled.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 69, 1983, Appropriating Funds from '
Prior Year Reserves in the Parking Fund for Items Relating to the
Jefferson Street Parking Lot.
The Parking Fund has $110,186 available in prior year reserves. This
ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 7 and
appropriates a total of $82,959 from Parking Fund prior year reserves
for a $30,406 loan payback to the General Fund and for $52,553 in
construction costs for the Jefferson Street Parking Lot.
Second Readinq of Ordinance No. 70. 1983. ADDrODriatinq Unanticipated
This ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 7 and
appropriates $25,000 in the FAUS Grant Fund for the Traffic Signal
Control System alternative communication analysis. A Resolution
authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Transplan
Associates for the Traffic Signal Control System was adopted at the
June 7 meeting.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 71, 1983, Decreasing the Amount for
Payment In -Lieu -of Water Rights from $1500 to $1300.
In May, 1982 the City's in -lieu -of water rights cash rate was reduced
from $1700 to $1500. The price of CBT water has continued to decline,
indicating a need to again adjust the cash rate. The prevailing price '
for CBT water is approximately $1300.
-264-
I
June 21, 1983
As directed by Council, the Water Utility staff and the Water Board
has continued to monitor the situation. They recommend at this time
that the in -lieu -of cash rate be adjusted downward to $1300 per
acre-foot, in order to bring it into line with current CBT prices.
This ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on June
7.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 72, 1983, Authorizing the Issuance of
Industrial venue Bonds for the Pou re Va ey Onco ogy
Center Associates Project in the Principal Amount of $1,350, 000.
On April 5, 1983, City Council passed an inducement resolution for the
issuance of these Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for the Poudre
Valley Oncology Center Associates Project.
The applicants have provided City staff with a ten-year cash flow
analysis that demonstrates their ability to meet their debt service
payment. The staff has reviewed the cash flow analysis and the terms
of the loan agreement and determined that the project is well financed.
The City will collect its issuance fee at closing. The exact amount
of the fee will be determined'at closing and is estimated to be
approximately $5,000. This ordinance was unanimously adopted on First
Reading on June 7.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 73, 1983, Appropriating Unanticipated
Revenue in the DDA Fund for the Downtown Parking Study.
The DDA has negotiated a contract with Parsons Brinkerhoff to under-
take a parking study within the downtown area. The purpose of this
study is to provide long range solutions to the parking program with
emphasis on funding construction and operation in future years. Funds
for this project are part of the $3.1 million of Bond Anticipation
Notes issued. The study has been a part of the program initially
submitted to Council in March and reviewed by staff prior to that
time.
This ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 7 and
appropriates $35,000 in the DDA for conducting the parking study.
12. Items Relating to Creation of an Airport Authority for the Fort
Collins -Loveland Airport.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 74, 1983, Creating an Airport
Authority for the Fort Collins -Loveland Airport and Establishing
the Authority as Six Members with Three Members to be Appointed by
' the City Council of Fort Collins and Three Members to be Appointed
by the City Council of Loveland.
-265-
June 21, 1983
B. Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into an Agreement with
the City of Loveland for the Leasing of the Airport Facility to
the Fort Collins -Loveland Airport Authority.
During the last 18 months, the Airport Ad Hoc Committee and the
Chambers of Commerce of Fort Collins and Loveland have dealt with the
issue of creating an Airport Authority to govern the Fort Collins -
Loveland Airport. Several worksessions have been held in 1982 and
1983 with both City Councils and a joint worksession was held last
July in Fort Collins to determine the feasibility of creating the
Airport Authority. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First
Reading on June 7. The Resolution approving the lease agreement was
tabled on June 7 to June 21 to coincide with adoption on second
reading of the ordinance creating the Airport Authority.
13. Hearino and First Readin
n
as well as
ne.
f Ordinance No. 75, 1983, Amending Chapter
r the Issuance of Special Assessment Bonds
Pon Form and in Such Denominations as City
The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) passed by
the U.S. Congress as an amendment to the Internal Revenue Code re-
quires that in order to be entitled to tax-exempt treatment of in
terest, local government bonds must be issued in registered form.
Chapter 16 of the Code requires bonds to be in the form of Coupon
Bonds (Bearer Bonds).
Chapter 16 of the Code also requires that Special Assessment Bonds be
issued in convenient denominations of not more than $1,000. Current-
ly, the municipal bond marketers are saying registered bonds can be
issued with face amounts between $1,000 and $100,000 per bond.
The housekeeping changes in this Ordinance allow the City to issue the
required registered bonds in face amounts that are the most advan-
tageous for a particular issue relating to a Special Improvement
District.
14. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 76, 1983, Appropriati
On June 7, 1983, City Council approved Resolution No. 83-102, adopting
the 1983-84 Community Development Block Grant Program (copy attached)
totalling $1,089,000. The attached ordinance appropriates $1,089,000
to the Community Development Block Grant Fund.
15. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 77. 1983. Appropriati
The Cities of Loveland and Fort Collins jointly acquired a computer '
system for the Police Departments in 1982.
-266-
' June 21, 1983
Additional memory and software have been installed on the computer
system. Loveland's share of the costs is $7801, based on the original
funding formula for the system.
Loveland has been invoiced for their share of the additional memory
and software. An appropriation for $7801 of unanticipated revenue in
the Police Department budget is accomplished by this ordinance.
16. Hearing and First Reading Ordinance No. 78, 1983, Vacating a Portion
of a Blanket Easement in Underhill PUD, Phase I to allow the build-
ing envelope to extend into the easement less than 2 feet.
Underhill, PUD, Phase 1, was approved in 1981 with building envelopes
creating a "blanket" easement for all areas outside the building
envelope..
During the construction of buildings on Envelope "B" and Envelope "C",
the buildings were inadvertantly placed outside the envelopes by 1.63
feet on one corner. The developer has replatted building envelopes
"B" and "C" into Block 1 and Block 2 which was approved by the Plan
ning and Zoning Board on May 23, 1983.
' There are no utilities within the area requested for vacation, there-
fore the City has no interest in this area and staff recommends
approval of the vacation.
17. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional
Services Agreement with Greenhorne & 0 Mara, Inc., for Shepardson
Channel Design Services.
The Shepardson Channel is an open drainageway beginning at Lemay
Avenue approximately 1500 feet north of Horsetooth Road and extending
east to Lochwood Drive.
The Shepardson Channel, is eroding. Hydraulic analysis performed for
the Foothills Basin Master Plan indicates high velocities within the
channel would cause serious erosional damage to both the channel and
the adjacent bicycle/pedestrian path. Excessive erosion has already
made maintenance virtually impossible and threatens adjacent fences,
buried telephone lines, and private property. This project will
investigate solutions to these problems and provide a final design of
improvements.
18. Resolution Approving a Tem orary Use Permit with the Northern Colorado
Water Conservancy District or 9 Acre -Foot n is o CBT Water.
From
time
to time Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy
District (NCWCO)
'
water
is
turned over to the City of Fort
Collins for
satisfaction of
-267-
19.
June 21, 1983 '
water rights requirements. William C. Stover is transferring nine
units of NCWCD water to satisfy requirements on the Williamsburg
PUD.
To accomplish the transfer, the Conservancy District requires that a
Temporary Use Permit be approved by an appropriate resolution from the
City Council. Periodically, all NCWCD water owned and used under a
Temporary Use Permit is converted to use under a permanent contract.
Resolution Exercising an Option for Renewal with Erickson, Hunt &
Spillman, P.C., for the Performance of the City s 1983 Independent
A - _.I IT �-1-17:a
Ordinance No. 130, 1981, engaged Erickson, Hunt & Spillman, P.C. to
conduct the City's 1981 Independent Annual Audit, with the option to
renew the agreement for the 1982 and 1983 audits.
Last July, the City exercised the option for renewal for the 1982
audit. This Resolution would exercise the option for renewal for
performance of the 1983 audit.
The 1981 audit was performed for a fee of $36,000. The fee for
completion of the 1982 audit was $41,000, which included the Downtown '
Development Authority's 1982 audit and other activities of the City.
The 1983 audit will be performed for a fee of $44,000, which includes
a fee of $1,500 for performance of the DDA audit for 1983.
20. Resolutions Appointing John Tobin as Municipal J
Weinland as Assistant Municipal Judge.
e and Donald
The City Charter provides for the appointment of the Municipal Judge
and Assistant Municipal Judge for a term of two years.
A. Resolution Reappointing John Tobin as Municipal Judge.
Council has appointed John Tobin for a two-year term as Municipal
Judge beginning July 1, 1981 and ending June 30, 1983. The attached
Resolution provides for Judge Tobin's reappointment for another
two-year term beginning July 1, 1983 and ending June 30, 1985. Mr.
Tobin was initially appointed as Municipal Judge in 1952 and this
position first became full-time effective July 1, 1975.
B. Resolution Reappointing Donald Weinland as Assistant Municipal
Judge.
The City Council first appointed Donald Weinland as an Assistant
Municipal Judge for a one-year term in 1981, to serve in the absence '
of the Municipal Judge. In 1982, Mr. Weinland was reappointed for a
IN-1-11
June 21, 1983
term to run until June 30, 1983, which coincides with the biennial
appointment of the Municipal Judge. The attached Resolution would
reappoint Mr. Weinland for a term to run until June 30, 1985.
21. Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into An Agreement with the
State of Colorado for a Land and Water Fund Grant for Overland Park.
In 1978, the City acquired Overland Park, purchasing the 10 acre
neighborhood site for $45,000 with Parkland Fund money. Overland Park
site is located east of Overland Trail Road, north of Prospect, and
bounded by Virginia Dale Road and Pleasant Valley Road.
Last year we submitted a Grant Proposal request to the State of
Colorado -for matching Land and Water Fund monies to help us with this
development. Due to the cutback to the State in Land and Water funds
by the Federal Government, the State Parks and Recreation Board told
us that $60,000 would be the maximum amount that they would fund.
Our plan on this project is to move ahead. We will submit a total
budget for this Project later on this year. Our budget request will
cover the entire cost of the park development, and after the Project
is completed, we will be eligible to be reimbursed the $60,000.
22. Motion for Approval of Out -of -City Water Service for the Holiday Twin
Drive- n eatre.
Wesley D. Webb has requested a 3/4 inch commercial water service at
the Holiday Twin Drive -In Theatre located on Overland Trail, north of'
Drake Road. Water_ to service this property is available east of the
theatre building in Pipestone Drive.
At its April 15th, 1983 meeting, the Water Board recommended approval
of this request subject to the approval of the City Planning and
Zoning Board and on the condition that the applicants sign an Out -of -
City Service Agreement, which would require annexation when requested
by the City.
At its May 23, 1983 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended
approval of the request subject to the applicants signing an Out -of -
City Service Agreement, which the applicant has agreed to do.
23. Routine Deeds and Easements.
a) Agreement for purchase of property from MKH and Company, located
west of Overland Trail and north of the CSU stadium, needed for
' the Foothills Water System project. The cost of $18,175 for the
reservoir site and easements is based on the appraised value.
-269-
June 21, 1983
b) Easement from Bob Peterson located west of Shields and south of
Horsetooth, which is the last in a series of three easements
through Section 34 needed for the Warren Lake Trunk Sewer Line
project. This line will serve western developments such as
Stockbridge and Rossborough. Construction will take place no
later than the summer of 1984. The consideration for this ease-
ment is $1.
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 46, 1983, Vacating Easements in
Hill PondP.U.D.aster an.
Item #6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 68, 1983, Reappropriating 1982
Funds.
Item #7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 69, 1983, Appropriating Funds
from Prior Year Reserves in the Par ing un or tems Relating
to the Jefferson Street Parkins Lot.
Item #8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 70, 1983, Appropriating Unantici-
pated Revenue in the FAUS Grant Fund.
Item #9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 71, 1983, Decreasing the Amount
for Payment In -Lieu -of Water Rights from $1500 to $1300.
Item #10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 72, 1983, Authorizing the Issu=
ance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for the Poudre
Valley Oncology Center Associates Project in the Principa Amount
of $1,350,000.
Item #11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 73, 1983, Appropriating Unantici-
pate evenue in t e D A Fund or the owntown Par ing Stu y.
Item #12. A.
ree
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #13. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No
Chapter 16 of the Code to Provide or t o
Assessment Bonds in Registered as We as Cou
Denominations as City Council May Determine.
-270-
11
75, 1983, Amending
ssuance of Specia
n Form and in uc ,
June 21, 1983
Item #14. Hearing
and First
Reading
of Ordinance No. 76,
1983, Appropri-
ating
to the Community Deve opment Bloc
Grant un .
Item #15. Hearing
and First
Reading
of Ordinance No. 77,
1983, Appropri-
ating Unanticipated
Revenue
for the Police POSSE
System.
Item #16. Hearing
and First
Reading
Ordinance No. 78, 1983,
Vacating a
Portion
of a "Blanket"
Easement
in Underhill
PUD, Phase I to
allow the
buildina
enve nne
to artand intn tha aaeamant laee than
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein,
to adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar.
Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, and
Rutstein. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to Downtown Development Authority
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 79, 1983, Appropriating
Funds for Payment of Cost Incurred by the Downtown Development Author-
ity in Conduct of the Traffic Study.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 80, 1983, Appropriating
Funds in Connection with County Parking Lot Project.
C. Hearing and First -Reading of Ordinance No. 81, 1983, Appropriating
Funds for Payment of Legal Fees Incurred by the Downtown Development
Authority.
D. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 82, 1983, Appropriating
Funds for Payment of Legal, Financial and Other Costs in Connection
with the Issuance of Tax Increment BAN's.
E. Items Relating to the Linden Street Plaza Project.
1. Public Hearing on Linden Street Plaza Project.
2. Resolution Approving the Old Town Plaza Project of the Downtown
Development Authority.
3. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 83, 1983, Appropriating
' Monies for the Downtown Development Authority for Expenditure on
Linden Street Plaza Project.
-271-
June 21, 1983 '
F. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 84, 1983, Vacating a
Portion of Linden Street for Development of Plaza.
Each item is discussed in a separate agenda item summary. A general
overview of the Old Town project is also included with this item for
your information."
Councilmembers Cassell and Ohlson asked the record to show they did not
participate in the discussion or vote on Items E and F.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to
adopt Ordinance No. 79, 1983, on First Reading.
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"On March 15, 1983 Council adopted Resolution 83-54 approving the partici-
pation in and funding of a downtown Traffic and Circulation Study by the
Downtown Development Authority.
Resolution 83-51 authorized the City to advance $198,000 to the DDA for
acquisition of the County Parking Lot ($183,000) and for the Authority's
share of a Downtown Traffic Study ($15,000). These monies were to be '
repaid upon obtaining the Bond Anticipation Note proceeds, bearing interest
at the City's current investment rate. Ordinance Nos. 32 and 33, 1983,
appropriated the $198,000 in the DDA Fund.
At this time we need to appropriate Bond Anticipation Note proceeds for the
interest expense on the $15,000 used for the DDA's participation in the
Traffic Study. The $15,000 is being repaid to the City but does not
require an appropriation as it was appropriated as part of the $198,000
when the original loan was approved by Resolution 83-51. Additionally, we
need to appropriate monies to cover administrative expenses incurred in the
conduct of the study by the DDA as permitted by the State of Colorado
Downtown Development Authorities Act, Section 31-25-809 (2).
The attached Ordinance appropriates $1,813 in the DDA Fund as follows:
Interest $ 313
Administration $1,500
Total $1,813"
The vote on-Councilmember Clarke's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 79, 1983,
on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke,
Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, and Rutstein. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED. I
-272-
-7
June 21, 1983
Councilmember Cassell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to
adopt Ordinance No. 80, 1983, on First Reading.
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"On March 15, 1983, Council approved the DDA's purchase of the County
parking lot on Mason Street in Resolution 83-52.
Resolution 83-51 authorized the City to advance $198,000 to the DDA for
acquisition of the County Parking Lot ($183,000) and for the Authority's
share of a Downtown Traffic Study ($15,000). These monies were to be
repaid upon obtaining the Bond Anticipation Note proceeds, bearing interest
at the City's current investment rate. Ordinance Nos. 32 and 33, 1983,
appropriated the $198,000 in the DDA Fund.
At this time we need to appropriate Bond Anticipation Note proceeds for the
interest expense on the $183,000 used for the County Parking Lot acquisi-
tion. The $183,000 is being repaid to the City but does not require an
appropriation as it was appropriated as part of the $198,000 original loan
approved by Resolution 83-51. Additionally, we need to appropriate monies
to cover administrative expenses relating to the parking lot as permitted
by the State of Colorado Downtown Development Authorities Act, Section
31-25-808 (b). As the DDA did not wish to pay interest on money which it
did not immediately need, the initial appropriation for the County Lot
Project was only for the purchase of the property. The request for appro-
priation of the $20,919 is to provide funding necessary for completion of
the project. These monies will come from the $3.1 million Tax Increment
Bond Anticipation Note.
The attached Ordinance appropriates $20,919 in the DDA' Fund as follows:
Interest
Construction
Administration
Fees & Permits
Legal
Contingencies
Total
The vote on Councilmember
on First Reading was as
Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson,
THE MOTION CARRIED.
$ 3,819
11,000
3,600
1,500
1,000
1,000
$20,919"
Clarke's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 80, 1983,
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke,
and Rutstein. Nays: None.
-273-
June 21, 1983
Councilmember Ohl son made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
adopt Ordinance No. 81, 1983, on First Reading.
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"Section 31-25-807 (g) of the State of Colorado Downtown Development
Authorities Act provides for the retention and compensation of legal
counsel.
The DDA entered into agreement with the firm of Fischer, Brown, Huddleson &
Gunn in 1981 to pay them for their services from the proceeds of the Tax
Increment Bond Anticipation Notes, which have been issued. These are
services related to establishing the legal foundation for tax increment
financing; work on the DDA's Plan of Development, work with the County
Assessor's Office, and work with the DDA Board determining the extent,
nature, and type of projects that could be funded by tax increment monies.
Council authorized the issuance of $3,100,000 in Tax Increment Bond Antici-
pation Notes in Ordinance No. 53, 1983.
As the funds from the Bond Issue have been received, the DDA is under '
obligation to compensate the firm for its services. Appropriation of the
$25,100 in funds will allow the DDA to fulfill this obligation."
Councilmember Rutstein asked for an explanation of the legal fees mentioned
in this item and the next item.
Downtown Development Authority Director Bill Kingsbury stated the $25,000
item was for general counsel fees relating to activities leading up to the
issuance of bonds. These fees date prior to DDA staff when the firm of
Fischer, Brown, Huddleson & Gunn provided services to the DDA to make sure
the actions taken were in line with state law and bond practices. The
$20,000 in the next item covers.the cost of issuance of the bonds ($3.1
million BANS). He added the DDA had on file an itemized bill indicating
the work done and time involved.
The vote on Councilmember Clarke's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 81, 1983,
on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke,
Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, and Rutstein. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to
adopt Ordinance No. 82, 1983, on First Reading. '
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
-274-
IJune 21, 1983
"Section 31-25-809 (2) of the State of Colorado Downtown Development Au-
thorities legislation authorizes the payment of all legal expenses incurred
by the issuance of bonds.
Ordinance No. 53, 1983 authorized the issuance of Tax Increment Bond
Anticipation Notes on behalf of the Downtown Development Authority.
Section 2 of Ordinance No. 53, 1983 authorizes the payment of costs in-
curred in connection with the issuance of the notes. The costs of the
issuance of the $3,100,000 Bond Anticipation Notes include legal fees,
finance fees, and miscellaneous expenses.
Proceeds from the Bond Anticipation Note have been received. Appropriation
of these funds will permit the DDA to fulfill its obligations as follows:
Fischer, -Brown Huddleson & Gunn $20,000
Boettcher & Co. 34,100
Miscellaneous Expenses 10,900
Total $65,000
Fischer, Brown, Huddleson & Gunn served as bond counsel and Boettcher &
Company served as financial advisors. The miscellaneous expenses include
the printing of the actual notes."
Councilmember Rutstein asked for an explanation of the miscellaneous
expenses mentioned in this item.
DDA Director Bill Kingsbury replied they were travel expenses of the
attorneys and printing costs of the bonds. He added the $10,900 was a
maximum cost and it was expected to be somewhat less as the costs are
refined. The remainder of the $10,900 will return to the BANS for other
uses.
The vote on Councilmember Clarke's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 82, 1983,
on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Council members Cassell, Clarke,
Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, and Rutstein. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Knezovich pointed out this was a public hearing on the Linden Street
Plaza Project.
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"1. Public Hearing on Linden Street Plaza Project.
' 2. Resolution Approving the Old Town Plaza Project of the Downtown De-
velopment Authority.
-275-
June 21, 1983
3. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 83, 1983, Appropriating
Monies for the Downtown Development Authority for Expenditure on
Linden Street Plaza Project.
On April 5, 1983, City Council approved the concept set forth in an agree-
ment between the Downtown Development Authority and Old Town Associates to
work for the preservation and redevelopment of the historic old town area.
Included in the agreement is the construction of a pedestrian plaza in the
100 block of Linden Street by the DDA.
By agreement between the DDA and Old Town Associates, the maximum expendi-
ture by the Authority will be $1,739,186 for the Plaza, traffic improve-
ments, and administrative expense as set forth below:
Plaza Construction $1,592,186
Traffic Improvements 113,000
Administrative Expense 34,000
Total $1,739,186
The resolution asks Council to approve the project, as required by State of '
Colorado Downtown Development Authorities legislation, Section 31-25-807
(4) (a).
The appropriation of funds will allow the DDA to fulfill the obligations
outlined in the Implementation Agreement.
On May 10, 1983, the Planning and Zoning Board determined that the Old Town
Associates project conformed to the DDA's Plan of Development and the
City's Comprehensive Plan. The vote was 7-0."
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
adopt Resolution 83-111 Approving the Old Town Plaza Project of the Down-
town Development Authority.
Greg Denton, counsel to the DDA, outlined the provisions of the implementa-
tion agreement. He noted one of the projects of the Old Town Project is
the Plaza and another is the parking facility. Once the Plaza is built
there will be a need for a parking facility. He added the phrase "the City
will make every reasonable effort to fund the project" was in the Resolu-
tion to meet the contingencies so the implementation agreement will be
valid. The intent of the DDA statute and the DDA is to have the facility
built with the tax increment; however, the Resolution contains this lan-
guage because the same language appears in the $3.1 million BAN ordinance.
The estimates of the tax increment in the downtown area are sufficient to I
cover the notes or bonds to be issued for the parking facility.
-276-
IJune 21, 1983
The vote on Councilmember Clarke's motion to adopt Resolution 83-111 was as
follows: Yeas: Clarke, Horak, Knezovich, and Rutstein. Nays: None.
(Councilmembers Cassell and Ohlson withdrawn)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to
adopt Ordinance No. 83, 1983, on First Reading.
Councilmember Clarke felt it was important to note the Ordinance contained
a provision assuring the $1.7 million won't be spent until the DDA and the
City has made sure Old Town Associates has the financing to insure the
completion of the entire project.
The vote on Councilmember Clarke's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 83, 1983,
on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Clarke, Horak, Knezovich, and
Rutstein. Nays: None. (Councilmembers Cassell and Ohlson withdrawn)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
' adopt Ordinance No. 84, 1983, on First Reading.
"A request to vacate Linden Street between Mountain Avenue and Walnut
Street, except for a small triangle shaped piece in front of the Avery
Building and an alley, was submitted by Mitchell & Company as part of the
Old Town Associates' Redevelopment Project in Historic Old Town. This is
not a normal request in that the applicant will deed the vacated street
over to the Downtown Development Authority. The DDA will become the owner
of the vacated street not the adjacent property owners which is the normal
situation. The DDA will develop a plaza in conjunction with the Old Town
Associates' project. This transfer of the vacated portion of Linden Street
is outlined in the agreement between Old Town Associates and the DDA. This
agreement also outlines the control, operation, maintenance, security and
other aspects of the future plaza between Old Town Associates and the
DDA.
ISSUES
Utilities
Old Town Associates will dedicate a blanket easement over the street to
protect the utilities presently located in the street. After the new
utilities have been installed or relocated according to the new plaza
design, the blanket easement will be vacated and new specific utility
' easements will be dedicated. This arrangement is acceptable to the various
utility departments and companies.
-277-
June 21, 1983
Emergency Services
A 20 foot emergency access lane will be maintained during the construction
phase of this project and will be part of the final design of the plaza.
Traffic Circulation
The vacation of this segment of Linden Street is acceptable to the City
Transportation Services. Linden Street is limited in its capacity to carry
traffic by the design of the intersection with Mountain Avenue. However,
there will need to be modifications made to the intersections of LaPorte -
College -Walnut and Mountain -Walnut -Chestnut. The first intersection
will be opened up to left -turn from southbound College onto Walnut and
western traffic flow from Walnut to LaPorte by removing the temporary
improvements made 2 1/2 years ago. The second intersection will be chan-
nelized and signalized to accommodate the increased traffic. These im-
provements will be funded by the DDA as a part of $1.7 million committed by
the Authority to construction of the Linden Street Plaza project. These
funds are part of the proceeds of the $3.1 million Bond Anticipation Notes.
The Transplan and Associates Old Town Circulation Study prepared for the
Old Town Associates determined that these improvements should be done at
the time Linden is closed to handle the changes in circulation patterns.
In reviewing this study, the Transportation Services Division felt that
these improvements should follow closely the closure of Linden, but not
necessarily at the same time. With the closure of the street anticipated
in late June of 1983, the improvements should be in place by the end of
1983. The Historic Old Town Planning Committee reviewed these proposed
changes and voted to recommend approval. Their one concern was the in-
crease of truck traffic - especially concrete trucks taking short-cuts
through Old Town.
Timing
This vacation request is part of a series of lengthy reviews by the City,
bond counsel, and lending institutions. Due to delays, construction of
both the plaza and the Old Town Project is not scheduled to start until
September 6, 1983.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council approve this request to vacate
Linden Street and the associated alleys according to the submitted legal
description -subject to the following condition:
1. A blanket utility easement be dedicated over the whole
street until new utility lines are in place or relocated.
At such time, specific easements shall be dedicated."
-278-
June 21, 1983
Greg Denton stated the initial step in the project is for the City to
vacate the street. Under City Charter and ordinances, when a street is
vacated title vests in the adjoining property owners, in this case Old Town
Associates. Prior to the final ,effectiveness of the ordinance vacating the
street, Old Town Associates will file a special warranty deed with the
County Clerk and Recorder that will vest title in the DDA at the time the
vacation is complete, subject to certain conditions and restrictions con-
tained in the declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions. Old
Town Associates will have certain obligations, rights, and responsibilities
with regard to the Plaza. They will be required to maintain and control
the Plaza, etc. The DDA will not have title to all the property vacated as
some will be .retained by Old Town Associates although the DDA will receive
other property from Old Town which is now private property.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to adopt
Ordinance No. 84, 1983,
on First
Reading was as follows: Yeas: Clarke,
Horak, Knezovich, and
Rutstein.
Nays: None. (Councilmembers Cassell
and Ohlson withdrawn)
THE MOTION
CARRIED.
Secretary's
Note: Councilmember Elliott arrived
at this point in the
meeting.
Items Relating to the Construction
of a Frontage Road Along the
Reynolds Olds/Cadillac Property
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"A. Resolution Approving an Agreement among the City, Red Lobster, and
Reynolds Olds/Cadillac Relating to Construction of Frontage Road.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 85, 1983, Appropriating
$11,000 for Landscaping for the Median for the Frontage Road Project.
A Red Lobster Restaurant will be built this summer on lot B of the Villa
PUD on the 3300 block of South College Avenue. This is the former site of
a Vickers gas station. Because of the location of this property on College
Avenue Red Lobster will be required to construct a frontage road along the
front of their lot. There are two properties between Red Lobster and
Monroe Drive to the south. Markley Motors, which is on the corner of
College and Monroe, already has a frontage road. Reynolds Olds/Cadillac,
' the business between Red Lobster and Markleys' does not. It is highly
desirable that the segment of frontage road in front of Reynolds be con-
structed at this time. Benefits include the closure of four existing
-279-
June 21, 1983 '
curb cuts that outlet directly onto South College. This will reduce turning
movements to and from College Avenue in this area, which in turn will help
traffic move more smoothly. It will provide uniform access to the local
businesses, and increase the visual appearance of the roadway area. For
Red Lobster it will reduce costs by eliminating the need for construction
of a temporary exit. Approval of items A and B are required to allow
construction of this segment of the frontage road.
Staff originally thought that the project- could best be completed as a
single lot improvement district. Preliminary -plans and cost estimates were
prepared. Staff presented these to Mr. Reynolds and he was willing to
enter an improvement district. Efforts were then made to coordinate
construction with Red Lobster. This was necessary because Red Lobster
would not have access to their business if the frontage road in front
of Reynolds was not done by the time they were ready to open for business.
They would then have just cause for constructing the temporary exit onto
College Avenue they originally proposed on their plans. Staff felt that
this action should be avoided. Constructing the frontage road segments
concurrently was also desirable because it would sharply reduce the po-
tential for errors. However, it was difficult to achieve the necessary
coordination. Schedules could not be firmly fixed. It was also difficult
to establish a good communication link with Red Lobster, partly because '
their main office is in Orlando, Florida. Face to face discussions were
not possible. It became obvious to the staff working on the project that
it would be best if both Red Lobster's and Reynolds' segments of the
frontage road could be built as a single project. It would decrease unit
costs, decrease overall construction time, decrease chance for errors, and
result in a better end product. With this end in mind Red Lobster was
asked to enter the improvement district. They refused. They were un-
familiar with Fort Collins City government and did not want to become
involved in the political machinery necessary for initiating an improvement
district. They were on a tight time schedule and feared delays might occur
if they lost control of an important part of their project. Staff was
still strongly in favor of constructing the frontage road as a single
project. The merits of that approach far outweighed the alternatives.
After extensive negotiation with Red Lobster and Reynolds a workable
three party agreement was drafted. The City wanted Red Lobster to con-
struct the frontage road in front of Reynolds as part of their frontage
road project. Red Lobster reluctantly agreed as long as all costs attri-
butable to Reynolds' portion would be covered. Reynolds stated he was
unable to pay his cost all at once, and that he wanted to stay with the ten
year payment schedule of an improvement district. Therefore, the City
would initially pay for the improvements assessable to Reynolds, and
Reynolds would pay the City back as if he had entered an improvement
district. Interest for the payback period was set at 9 1/2 %, which was
the long term Treasury Note rate at the time the agreement was initiated.
Staff feels that this construction arrangment will provide for a better ,
frontage road for the City without incurring the cost in staff time neces-
sary for initiating and managing an improvement district.
June 21, 1983
Costs and actions can be divided into two areas:
A) The street construction requires Council adoption of the Resolu-
tion to approve the three party agreement. The costs, with interest, will
be recovered by the City. After staff discussion it was recommended to
treat it as a receivable account. Estimated costs are:
Materials and Labor $ 12,500
Construction Management 2,500
Total $ 15,000
B) Landscaping will be necessary for the median created by con-
struction of the frontage road. By current ordinance these costs are not
assessable to- Reynolds or Red Lobster. It is therefore necessary for
Council to approve the Ordinance to appropriate funds for this construc-
tion. Sufficient funds are currently available in the Minor Capital
Streets fund. Estimated costs are:
City Water Tap Fee $ 4,200
Materials and Labor 6,800
Total $ 11,000.1
Councilmember Cassell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to
adopt Resolution 83-112.
Councilmember Rutstein asked if grass medians would be a maintenance
problem for the City.
City Manager Arnold replied there were a variety of medians around the City
depending on the width of the medians and to maintain consistency. This
median is intended to be grass for consistency and will extend the main-
tenance problem. He pointed out that in certain areas private enterprise
maintains their own medians.
The vote on Councilmember Cassell's motion to adopt Resolution 83-112 was
as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezo-
vich, Ohlson, and Rutstein. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to
adopt Ordinance No. 85, 1983, on First Reading.
Mayor Knezovich asked if before Second Reading staff would approach the
property owners to see if they would agree to maintain the landscaping in
the median.
-281-
June 21, 1983 '
City Manager Arnold replied in the affirmative.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 85, 1983,
on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke,
Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, and Rutstein., Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Authorizing the Filing
and Execution of a
1984 Section 18 Operating Assistance
Grant for Transfort, Adopted
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"Transfort is seeking a grant in the maximum amount of $293,774 from
Section 18 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended, to
provide operating assistance for 1984. Region 2, which includes the City
of Greeley, City of Fort Collins, and the Larimer-Weld Regional Council of
Governments, has been allocated $78,031. An undetermined amount of
discretionary funds will be available. The total amount of Section 18
funds to include discretionary funds has not been determined at this time '
for our region.
The Section 18 grant proposal due for submittal on July 1, includes a
Transfort 1984 budget projection and requests that 50% of the eligible
operating deficit (expenses less revenues) be reimbursed. The 1984 budget
estimates are as follows:
$767,346 - eligible operating expenses
-179,797 - estimated revenues
$587,549 - eligible deficit
x 50% eligibility
$293,774 - Section 18 request
293,775 - City match
Care -A -Van has been included as a component of the Section 18 grant and
would receive a portion of the available funds on a pass -through basis. In
1983, the City received $86,642 in Section 18 operating assistance and
passed through $58,364 to Care -A -Van.
Approval of this grant would require City Council to formally commit a
matching share of up to $293,775. The 1984 Transfort budget, when approved '
by City Council, would provide the necessary matching funds. 100% funding
-282-
' June 21, 1983
is appropriated in the Budget for the Transfort operation and as State/
Federal funds are received the General Fund subsidy is reduced accordingly.
Subsequent grant approval would reduce the required General Fund subsidy.
Staff recommends adoption of this Resolution."
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
adopt Resolution 83-113.
City Manager Arnold noted the timing of this request was "out of sync" in
that the City had not begun the 1984 Budget process and the limits for the
1984 Transfort monies have not been set.
He pointed out the deadline for the grant request was July 1 and added
Council was not committing the City to any level of Transfort operation by
the receipt of this grant. He recommended going ahead with the grant
application since all options remain in terms of not spending or allocating
the money.
Mayor Knezovich expressed his concerns relative to Transfort operating
expenses and subsidies. He urged Councilmembers to defeat the Resolution
' because of his opinion that the City should not be involved with Trans-
fort's $600,000 deficit.
Councilmember Horak pointed out the need for Transfort and noted ridership
for the public at large for the month of May had increased 48%. He ex-
pressed support for the Resolution.
Councilmember Clarke noted that by taking advantage of this grant oppor-
tunity the City will be able to get the bus system in place and will then
begin to see a decrease in ridership costs and subsidies.
The vote on Councilmembers Horak's motion to adopt the Resolution was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Ohlson,
and Rutstein. Nays: Mayor Knezovich.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
of June 7, Adopted as Amended
Councilmember Horak asked that his comments relative to his vote on the
appointment to the Planning and Zoning Board be incorporated into the June
7 minutes.
I
City Clerk Wanda Krajicek indicated that would be done.
June 21, 1983 1
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to
approve as amended the minutes of the regular meeting of June 7. Yeas:
Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, and
Rutstein. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Authorizing the Issuance of
Industrial Development Revenue Bonds
for the Poudre Valley Oncology Center
Associates Project in the Principal
Amount of $1,350,000, Adopted on Second Reading
Following is -the staff's memorandum on this item:
"On April 5, 1983, City Council passed an inducement resolution for the
issuance of these Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for the Poudre
Valley Oncology Center Associates Project.
The applicants have provided City staff with a ten-year cash flow analysis
that demonstrates their ability to meet their debt service payment. The ,
staff has reviewed the cash flow analysis and the terms of the loan agree-
ment and determined that the project is well financed.
The City will collect its issuance fee at closing. The exact amount
of the fee will be determined at closing and is estimated to be approxi-
mately $5,000. This ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on
June 7."
Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cassell, to
adopt Ordinance No. 72, 1983, on Second Reading..
Councilmember Elliott asked if this form of funding for the Oncology
Center, which is a lower rate of financing that private financing, will
result in lower patient costs.
Dave Dwyer, bond counsel, replied the project was not considered to be
feasible until IDRBs were proposed. He added that free-standing facilities
on the average result in 25% savings over hospital based facilities. He
added that transportation costs and the costs of overnight stays in other
cities would be reduced with a local facility. He stated the philosophy of
the group was that they would treat everyone that needed this service even
though their insurance may not fully cover the cost of treatment.
Councilmember Cassell asked if information was available on what attempts
were made to find private sector financing and asked to see cash flow I
information that would indicate whether the project was still feasible with
private sector financing.
-284-
June 21, 1983
Dave Dwyer replied a facility of this type was much different than a
conventional building. The concrete work, lead shielding, and other costs
make construction costs over $100 per square foot. He added the facility
was expected to lose money in the first years of operation until patient
load increased.
Councilmember Cassell asked if there was a commitment to buy the bonds that
might expire and suggested the item might be tabled until more information
can be obtained.
Mr. Dwyer replied the commitment would expire October 31, 1983 unless bonds
were issued prior to then. Second Reading of the Ordinance would need to
be approximately 40 days prior to October 31 to meet their timetable.
Councilmember Elliott noted he was in favor of going ahead with the Second
Reading but had wanted to raise some questions about potential cost savings.
Finance Director Ron Wood noted the project was "break even" with IDRB
financing. With a higher rate of financing, the project would likely have
problems obtaining financing. He felt the project was justified based on
' the social good the community derives from it.
The vote on Councilmember Elliott's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 72, 1983,
on Second Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke,
Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, and Rutstein. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Citizen Participation
A. Proclamation Naming June 30 as Channel Six Day in Fort Collins will be
presentedon urs ay, une 30 during Channel Six Day ce a rations in
the Oak Street Plaza.
Dave Meyer, 513 Garfield, representing Citizens Against the MX, read a
letter recently sent to all Councilmembers that requested the City of Fort
Collins be represented at the scoping hearings to be held in Wyoming and
also that scoping hearings be held in Colorado, particularly Fort Collins.
He asked for time at a work session to pursue the issue to involve Fort
Collins citizens in the public scoping process mandated by federal law.
Mike Lohman, 1230 West Mountain Avenue, Parkway Preservation Society,
stated the majority of the residents of West Mountain Avenue were still
opposed to the installation of the trolley tracks on West Mountain Avenue.
' He asked the City to find the Railway Society in default of their contract
-285-
June 21, 1983
and form some sort of Resolution to park the trolley until a suitable
location can be found. He requested the City to direct the Railway Society
to complete all work started before proceeding to tear up any more of West
Mountain Avenue, specifically:
1. Complete the trolley barn (needs paint, permanent doors,
remove dirt piles, finish -roof).
2. Complete landscaping around barn and tracks (dirt piles - no
safety barricades).
3. Complete trolley car to operating condition. He noted there
were varying estimates of percentage of completion and no
assurance there will ever be an operating car even if the
tracks are laid.
4. Obtain an easement to cross the irrigation ditch on Bryan and
West Mountain Avenue with Larimer County No. 2. He stated
there was no guarantee the Ditch Company will give the
easement and requested all work be stopped until easement
obtained. '
5. Spend more time with the safety and esthetics around the
construction areas (barricades, etc.).
Carolyn Haase, 2307 Sheffield, read a letter sent to Councilmembers regard-
ing a review of the municipal election system. She recommended the Charter
be amended to allow seven Councilmembers to be nominated by districts and
elected at -large and suggested a study during 1983 to review the issue.
She noted the letter was signed by 37 concerned citizens.
Jim Woodward, 430 Garfield, spoke of the hazardous materials train that
passed through Fort Collins on March 19 and questioned what he felt was a
1 ack of acti on taken by the Fort Coll i ns Ci ty Counci 1 . He spoke of the
actions of a group who posted signs warning of increased shipments of
nuclear weapons through the community and noted two members had been issued
summonses for posting those notices. He asked for some official expression
of concern on the issue in the form of a request that these shipments cease
to be routed through Fort Collins.
Councilmember Ohlson asked for a clarification on the fairness issue of
enforcing the law noting the law would also apply to lost dog signs, garage
sale signs, etc.
Mayor Knezovich suggested staff address Councilmember Ohlson's concerns in I
the form of a memo on the enforcement issue.
mum
June 21, 1983
Resolution Approving Revisions
to the Intergovernmental Agreement
for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area,
and Its Related Elements, and Authorizing
the Mayor to Execute Said Agreement
with Larimer County, Adopted
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"Since mid -January 1983, the staffs of Larimer County, the City of Fort
Collins, and the City of Loveland have been meeting to review .all com-
ponents of the Intergovernmental Agreements which set up the Fort Collins
and Loveland _Urban Growth Areas. At the May 17th meeting, Council received
a detailed summary highlighting the staffs' findings and recommended
changes concerning the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins
UGA, and a revised version of all components of the Intergovernmental Z
Agreement. The Resolution was tabled from May 17th to an adjourned meeting \
on May 24th, to allow additional discussion of the issue.
On May 24th, the Resolution was tabled to June 21st, to permit time for
' public forums and hearings on the Anheuser-Busch issue. Four well -attended
neighborhood meetings were held on June 8th and 9th, and the notes taken at
the June 8th meetings are attached for your information. Similar comments
were heard at the June 9th meetings as are outlined in the notes from June
8th.
On June 15th, the Larimer County Commissioners and County Planning Commis-
sion held a public hearing on revisions to the Intergovernmental Agree-
ments. Both Commissions tabled further County action until August 3rd,
pending final decisions by Fort Collins and Loveland."
Councilmembers summarized the comments heard at the four neighborhood
meetings on the Anheuser-Busch issue.
Director of Planning and Development Curt Smith gave a chronological review
of the annual review process for the Urban Growth Area program. He added
this was the first comprehensive review of the program although there have
been changes throughout the program. He noted there had been five public
hearings over a six -week time frame and four neighborhood meetings all of
which afforded an excellent opportunity for comment and input on the
program. He outlined the proposed changes and the components of the
intergovernmental agreement.
The following persons spoke on this issue:
' I. Barbara Schofield, 1801 Lakeshore Drive, vice -chairperson of the DDA,
expressed the support of that group for the A-B project.
-287-
June 21, 1983
2. Joe Stern, 1221 Laporte, called attention to the City Manager's analy-
sis of the issue and questioned whether the City was taking an appro-
priate position in subsidizing a private industry. He suggested a
vote on the bond issue that would pay for A-B improvements might be an
appropriate way for citizens to make their opinions known in a formal
way.
3. Ralph Waldo, 1336 Tarryton Drive, expressed confidence A-B will comply
with air quality and water standards. He suggested A-B would broaden
the City's economic base and provide employment for the City's young
people.
4. Manuel Pineda, 38280 Weld County Road #19, addressed the issue of
prime agricultural land, noting the acres that are being taken out of
production. He stated there was an abundance of water in the area,
but that more storage facilities were needed and expressed support for
A-B.
5. Jane Montgomery, 824 East Trilby Road, spoke on the City's unemploy-
ment and expressed support for extending the UGA boundaries to include
the proposed A-B site. '
6. Ivan Nichols, 109 Princeton, noted he had lived in Larimer County for
45 years and was concerned about the quality of life in Fort Collins.
He supported enlarging the UGA boundaries to the north and east to
encourage development in that direction.
7. Howard E. Jones, 1805 Kedron Court, addressed problems he felt were
associated with expanding the UGA boundaries and the city of Fort
Collins.
8. Wayne H. Kirshner, Wellington, spoke on prime farmland and noted there
was not one acre of Larimer County that was classified by the Asses-
sor's Office as Class I land. He supported the expansion of the UGA
boundaries.
9. Alan Apt, 2301 Sheffield Drive, spoke on the waiver process and noted
his opposition to the use of coal at the A-B brewery northeast of Fort
Collins and suggested further negotiation on an alternate fuel.
10. Dan Keating, 2924 Brookwood Drive, supported moving the boundaries to
include the A-B site.
11. Elery Wilmarth, 825
Warren Landing, former
Mayor, gave a history of
the A-B negotiations
beginning in January of
1982.
,
s!
June 21, 1983
12. Karl Carson, 1119 Parkwood Drive, former Mayor, spoke on the history
of the tax base in Fort Collins.
13. Arvid Bloom, 1405 Parkwood Drive, former Mayor, spoke of the foresight
of past community leaders in the areas of raw water, water treatment,
and wastewater treatment.
14. Earl Wilkinson, 631 Monte Vista, former Mayor, gave a history of the
negotiations that took place prior to the location of Woodward Gov-
ernor, Hewlett-Packard, and NCR in Fort Collins.
15. Mable Preble, 825 Commodore Place, former Mayor, spoke of the planning
that took place in the early 70's to manage growth.
16. Charles Bowling, 1900 Seminole,
UGA formation and noted it was
changed, amended, and improved.
former Mayor, gave a history of the
a planning tool that was meant to be
17. Nancy Gray, 110 Fishback, former Mayor, stated the seven former Mayors
had felt it was important to give a historical perspective of the UGA
and the kind of thinking and rationale that went into it in the hope
their input would aid the current Council in making the difficult
decision.
18. Louie Swift, 6101 South County Road V , commented on the need for a
good tax base and supported the UGA boundary change.
19. Al Katona, 516 Spaulding Lane, expressed support for growth to the
north and urged Council to extend the UGA boundary to include the A-B
site.
20. Tom McKenna, 3500 Rolling Green Drive, expressed opposition to the
brewery and the expansion of the UGA boundaries because of water and
air quality concerns.
21. Janice Cox read a statement encouraging Council to welcome A-B to the
City.
22. Wayne Ude, 931 Vanderbilt Court, representing the Quality of Life
Coalition, commented on the issue and informed Council of his group's
intent to circulate petitions for the purpose of placing on a City
election ballot a Resolution concerning whether or not the UGA boun-
dary should be expanded at this time.
23. Roger Prenzlow, 1337 West Vine Drive, commented on the need for growth
to the north and urged modification of the UGA agreement.
IK-Rz
June 21, 1983
24. Max Hoffman, 215 West Oak, professional land developer, spoke on the
intergovernmental agreement and the cooperation he had received from
City staff.
25. Dolores Williams, 1520 Hillside Drive, expressed concern that the
industrial site surrounding the A-B site was too large, concerns about
air pollution and the coal burning issue, and concerns about the water
intensive useage of A-B.
26. Tom Dougherty, 1129 Miramont, developer, spoke of the importance of
developing a strong economic base to support the quality of life the
citizens of Fort Collins are accustomed to. He felt the A-B oppor-
nity was an opportunity to help develop that strong economic base and
encouraged expansion of the UGA boundary.
27 Hal Wiseman, 1800 Belmar, urged Council to extend the UGA and to
welcome A-B to the community.
Councilmember Cassell pointed out there was still a motion on the floor
from the May 24th meeting that was tabled to this meeting.
(Secretary's Note: On May 24, Councilmember Elliott made a motion, sec-
onded by Councilmember Clarke to Resolution 83-91 Approving
'
adopt Revisions
to the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area -
page 229 of May 24, 1983 minutes).
Councilmember Clarke noted the issues raised at the meeting would be
addressed in the future. He pointed out the City could not grow in any
direction without growing onto agricultural land. He addressed leap frog
development and noted in this instance the developer would pay the associ-
ated costs. He noted it was important to place the heavy traffic generated
by A-B, near the Interstate highway. He added A-B would submit a Master
Plan for the entire 1100 acres at the same time they submit a preliminary
plan for the 155 acre brewery site. He stated he felt the expansion of
the UGA boundary was a positive planning step.
Councilmember Elliott felt the changes in the UGA were necessary due to the
need to be in a long-range planning mode. He stated he felt a mix of uses
could exist in a responsible and forthright manner, and that there was a
need to maintain a healthy mix in the local economy of Fort Collins. He
noted the negotiation processs to encourage any company that might. be
looking at Fort Collins, should be a responsible one and felt the citizen
input was valuable in making the necessary decisions.
Councilmember Ohlson addressed the UGA changes and the proposed brewery.
He expressed his concerns regarding the agreeements already signed, the
apparent advocacy on the part of staff and Council for A-B the lack of
'
,
-290-
I
June 21, 1983
visability of A-B in the proceedings, the overall public participation
process and the impact on local air quality. He noted he would not cast
his vote on whether or not he favored or opposed A-B, but based on the
merits of the UGA changes. He stressed a "yes" vote on one issue re-
lating to A-B would not be contradictory to a negative vote at a later
time. He stated this request appeared to be a legitimate request for a
UGA change because there is no other site that would meet the needs of
A-B.
Councilmember Rutstein noted she opposed the Resolution and the changes in
the UGA boundary because the change is unwarranted at this time. She felt
granting this change at this time for a specific industry would not fit the
development criteria of the City's Land Use Policies Plan by not encourag-
ing infill development. She questioned what other industries A-B might
draw to Fort Collins and whether those industries would be wanted in Fort
Collins. She felt the monetary impact on the community for the first 15 to
20 years would be minimal since most of the A-B taxes are being committed
to improvements. She mentioned odor, truck traffic, and train traffic
and their impacts on the quality of life.
Councilmember Cassell spoke of the public hearings held and stated he would
vote in favor of amending the UGA.
' Councilmember Horak addressed concerns not related to the issue being voted
on that had been expressed by the public. He noted the EQUATAC Committee
had been formed to address Council's concerns about air quality and added
their report had pointed out problems. The Chamber also expressed concern
about those air quality problems. He stated the Committee would review the
next air quality permit application submitted by A-B and will advise
Council of their findings. He noted his focus was on the materials emitted
from A-B's stack and their treatment plant and what impacts those materials
would have on the community. He added many of the concerns would properly
be addressed at the PUD stage. He suggested Council might want to direct
the Water Board to examine the possibility of damming the Poudre and come
back with recommendations on the City's reservoir needs on the mainstem.
He stated as far as taxes, the City was talking of using parts of the tax
monies over the next 10 years -- not 20 years -- and after the third year
only 30%. The remaining 70%, approximately $500,000 to $800,000 would be
collected by the City for general tax purposes. He noted the A-B site
would provide a large capital tax base with a low demand for services. He
stated he did not feel the UGA was an appropriate item to be the subject of
a referendum. He stated the UGA change was basically a zoning issue and
that it was his feeling that if the then Council had known about the A-B
site at the time the original UGA boundaries were drawn, the site probably
would have been included. He stated he could easily support the proposed
boundary change on the basis of the known facts.
' Mayor Knezovich thanked staff, Council, and the public for their help in
the process.
-291-
June 21, 1983
The vote on Councilmember Elliott's motion to adopt Resolution 83-91 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich,
and Ohlson. Nays: Councilmember Rutstein.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the Lemay/Harmony
Special Improvement District No. 78
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"A. Resolution Regarding Initiation of Proceedings for Lemay/Harmony
Special Improvement District No. 78.
B. Resolution Adopting Report of Director of Public Works on Lemay/Har-
mony Special Improvement District No. 78 and Setting Hearing Date for
Ordinance Ordering Proposed Improvements.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 83, 1983, Creating and
Organizing Lemay/Harmony Special Improvement District No. 78.
D. Resolution Directing Staff to Proceed with Financing for Lemay/Harmony
Special Improvement District No. 78.
Nearly six months ago, the City staff was approached with the creation of
this special improvement district. It was different from other improvement
districts in several major areas:
• The size of the district. The total project is in excess of
$4,000,000.
The petitioners waived nearly all of the -requirements of Chapter 16
of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. By waiving these require-
ments, the petitioners took on a lot of additional responsibility
and work; however, they cut the time requirements associated with
formation of the district to a minimum.
• This district is far more complex than any district the City has
ever been involved with. There are a number of repay agreements
that have never been done before between the City and petitioners.
There are repay agreements between the petitioners themselves, and
there are property owners that are part of the district that will
not -be assessed.
The formation of this district also represents a major twist, in that the
petitioners are going to do all the work associated with bidding of the
project, construction management, and obtaining of all the appropriate
-292-
11
H
June 21, 1983
bonds for the contractors and subcontractors performing the work. The City
will do construction inspection normally associated with any developer
installed improvements.
The following is a description of the project with necessary explanations
of the documents needing Council action.
THE DISTRICT
Improvements
The improvements are divided into two phases of construction, with six
projects in the first phase and four projects in the second phase:
Phase 1
Project A. Construction and surfacing of Lemay Avenue to a width of
thirty-six (36) feet from Harmony Road to Fossil Creek.
Project B. Construction and surfacing of Southridge Greens Boulevard
I
adjacent to property of the Archdiocese of Denver and Fox Ridge
II.
Project C. Construction and surfacing of remainder of Southridge
Greens Boulevard to its terminus in Southridge Greens, including all
utility improvements; construction and surfacing of Front Nine Drive
from Southridge Greens Boulevard to Mail Creek Ditch; and construc-
tion and surfacing of Greenridge Parkway from Southridge Greens
Boulevard to its terminus in Southridge Greens.
Project D. Installation of water transmission main running from
Fossil Creek Parkway to Lemay Avenue and continuing south on Lemay
Avenue for 781.38 lineal feet and 14" waterline in Southridge Greens
Boulevard from the intersection of Lemay Avenue and Southridge Greens
Boulevard running east approximately 980 lineal feet.
Project E. Installation of all utilities crossing Southridge Greens
Golf Course;
Project F. Installation of offsite sewer line (Southridge Greens to
Trilby Road).
Phase 2.
Project
G. Construction
and surfacing of
Harmony Road to 3,682 feet
'
east of
Lemay Avenue and
to 1,960 feet west
of Lemay Avenue;
-293-
June 21, 1983
Project H. Installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk and other like
improvements on Lemay Avenue (from Harmony Road to 1,000 feet south of
Harmony Road);
Project I. Construction and surfacing of Oak Ridge Drive from Lemay
Avenue to Wheaton Drive; construction and surfacing of Wheaton Drive
from Harmony Road to Boardwalk; construction and surfacing of McMurry
Drive from Lemay Avenue to Wheaton Drive; and construction and sur-
facing of Boardwalk Drive from Lemay Avenue to Wheaton Drive including
all utility improvements therefor and;
Project J. Placement of a 20 inch waterline on Lemay Avenue from
Harmony Road to the southernmost property line of Lake Sherwood
Venture property.
Properties Included:
The following properties have petitioned into this district and will be
liened to the extent of the assessment against each particular property:
Oak Farm, Inc.
Everitt Development, Inc.
Lake Sherwood Joint Venture
Everitt Enterprises, Inc.
Everitt Lumber Co., Inc.
Bucain Corporation
Fox Ridge II
The Archdiocese of Denver
Properties Excluded:
The owners of the following properties have decided not to participate in
the district. Accordingly, their properties will not be assessed for the
district improvements nor be liened:
Cottonwood Farm, Inc.
Fossil Creek Meadows Development
Richard and Linda Rule
William and Florence Bialek
J. F. Riopelle
The first two properties, Cottonwood and Fossil Creek, are larger tracts of
land owned by investor groups who support the district but do not at this
time want to incur development costs.
The Rule, Bialek and Riopelle properties are relatively small tracts of
land which are currently being used as residences.
-294-
L
June 21, 1983
The petitioners have made several attempts to contact Mr. Riopelle by phone
and certified mail; no response has been received. The other two owners
have decided that the cost of their share of the improvements at this time
is too great, since neither has any plan to develop in the near future.
It should be noted that the City owns property adjacent to the proposed
Lemay improvement on the east side (golf course property) as well as a
small piece of property adjacent to the Lemay improvements on the west.
This property will not be included in the District since Chapter 16 of the
Code does not allow the City to finance improvements through special
improvement districts.
There is a memo in the material for this item from the Engineering Depart-
ment further describing the project.
Payment and Reimbursement
The entire assessable cost of the
district improvements will be
assumed by
the participating properties.
Costs for those improvements
benefiting
non -participating property owners
will be handled as follows:
'
Cottonwood Farm, Inc.: Lemay Avenue street improvement costs assumed
by the Bucain Corporation.
Lemay Avenue waterline costs
assumed by
Lake Sherwood Joint Venture.
Fossil Creek Meadows Development: street and offsite waterline costs
assumed by the Bucain Corporation.
Richard and Linda Rule: Lemay Avenue street improvement costs
divided equally between Lake Sherwood Joint Venture and the Bucain
Corporation. Lemay Avenue waterline costs assumed by Lake Sherwood
Joint Venture.
J. F. Riopelle: Lemay Avenue street improvements costs assumed by the
Bucain Corporation. Lemay Avenue waterline costs assumed by Lake
Sherwood Joint Venture.
City of Fort Collins: Lemay Avenue street and waterline improvement
costs assumed by the Bucain Corporation.
There will be two different types of reimbursement agreements. The first
type of reimbursement agreement will not involve the City. Bucain and
Everitt Development will enter into this type of .agreement providing for
reimbursement by Everitt Development to Bucain of all costs paid on behalf
of the Cottonwood property. (Everitt Development Company is assuming this
' repay obligation because of a prior contractual commitment with the owners
-295-
June 21, 1983
of Cottonwood Farm). Additionally, Bucain anticipates that it will enter
into a similar agreement with the Fossil Creek owners for repay of the
costs associated with that property. Reimbursement under these agreements
will be made at the time of development of the property or sale of more
than 35 acres of the property whichever first occurs. Bucain is also
attempting to negotiate this type of reimbursement agreement with Dick and
Linda Rule for costs associated with their property.
The second type of reimbursement agreement is the standard City repay
agreement. The Bucain Corporation and Lake Sherwood Joint Venture will
enter into repay agreeements with the City for reimbursement from the
owners of the Riopelle, Bialek, and possibly Rule properties which will
provide for reimbursement to Bucain and Lake Sherwood by such owners as the
owners develop the property.
It is important to note that no property excluded from the district will
pay any cost of the district improvements unless the property owner
decides to develop the property and then only upon actual development
unless the owner has agreed otherwise.
It should also be noted that the Bucain Corporation is assuming the cost of '
454 lineal feet of the Lemay improvements adjacent to City -owned property
(Southridge Golf Course). Bucain Corporation believes this is their
obligation under the intent of the agreement on development of the Golf
Course. Similarly, Everitt Development, Inc., is assuming the cost for 313
lineal feet of Harmony Road improvements adjacent to property of the
Harmony Cemetery Association and will not seek reimbursement from that
Association or the City.
Bucain Corporation has requested that the City reimburse them or pay the
cost of constructing approximately 150 feet of Lemay on the south end of
the project. This portion abuts City property only and provides access to
the golf course. Staff recommends approval of this request as being an
equitable cost of the City. The amount of this portion of the work is
approximately $4,000 for street improvements plus about $3,000 for water
line improvements in the street. Monies are available for these expenses.
Assessments
There will be different methods of assessment in this district because of
the many different kinds of improvements which will be constructed in the
district and the fact that some properties are not participating.
The different methods of assessment for each type of improvement are
specifically set out in the petitions and in the various resolutions and '
ordinance which establish the district. Street and utility improvements
-296-
u
June 21, 1983
are primarily done on a pro rata front foot basis, i.e., the amount of
a property owner's assessment adjacent to the street and utility improve-
ments will be based on the total amount of front footage of that property
adjacent to the street or utilities (with some variations due to rights -of -
way). Other improvements are paid for by a single property owner.
To the extent that a property owner is assuming the cost for improvements
benefiting a non -participating property owner, that pro rata cost is added
to the total assessment for the participating property owner and his
property liened for the entire amount assessed.
FINANCING
Estimated Costs of the Improvement
The total estimated cost of the district improvements is $3,039,544,
excluding costs for engineering, legal, advertising, collection, financing,
interest during construction and other incidental expenses (which may not
exceed 25% of the cost of such improvements). This figure does not include
the costs of security which must be provided in this district nor costs for
underwriting services.
Phasing
Due to the size of this special improvement district bond issue, (total
costs in excess of $4,000,000) it is anticipated that the issue will have
to be split into two issues of approximately $2,000,000 each. The phasing
of the bond issues will corrrespond to the phasing of the construction
project. Thus, Phase-1 of the construction project as described on the
petitions and in the resolution and ordinance will be financed with the
first series of bonds -and Phase 2 of the construction project with .the
second series of bonds. The City's financial advisors believe that split-
ting the issue in this way, will provide a larger market of potential bond
buyers and will improve the interest rate on the bonds.
Included in the material for this item is a memo from Jim Harmon further
discussing financing issues.
SPECIAL ISSUES
Management of the District Project
Since all of the improvements
owners in the area and will
owners in the district (with
are constructed
be paid for by
the exception of
-297-
for the benefit of property
the participating property
City oversizing costs and a
June 21, 1983
small cost paid by the City for City property benefited by the improve-
ments), it would seem to make sense to allow the property owners to manage
the district construction project. This is also consistent with the
City's policy of having the private sector perform private work. City
staff will review and inspect the work as we normally do for any privately
financed development where public improvements are constructed by the
developer then accepted by the City for future maintenance.
The ordinance establishing the district authorizes the City Manager to
enter into an agreement with the property owners of the district providing
for management of the entire construction project by the petitioners,
including all bidding for work on the project and awarding of contracts, so
long as the owners use a competitive bidding process and require appropri-
ate bonds of the contractors and subcontractors working on the projects.
The petitioners will utilize two local engineering firms to supervise and
monitor construction.
Street Oversizin
There are street oversizing costs in both phases of this project. With the
exception of Harmony Road, the affected property owners have agreed to pay
the total street cost, including oversizing, through assessments on their
properties in exchange for a comparable credit against street oversizing
fees owed on their respective properties as such properties develop. The
specific terms of this credit will be described in the agreement among the
City and the owners.
This mechanism is the same one used in the Boardwalk S.I.D. and will allow
us to defer and spread City oversizing costs over a period of years.
Harmony Road Oversizing
The amount of oversizing
The properties which will
including oversizing, are
Property Owner
for Harmony Road is estimated to be $336,900.
be assessed for the Harmony Road improvements,
as follows:
Percentage
of Assessable
Lineal Feet Lineal Feet
Oak Farm, Inc.
Everitt Lumber Company
Everitt Development Co.
TOTAL
1897 34.23%
842.94 15.21%
2802.06 50.56%
5542.00 100%
am
L
June 21, 1983
The property owners do not believe they could make use of this large amount
of credit against future oversizing fees and, unless the normal City
reimbursement were available for the Harmony improvement, would probably
choose to eliminate this portion of work from the District and not improve
Harmony at this time. When the property owners decide to complete Harmony,
the City's oversizing obligation will be triggered and the City will have
to reimburse the owners the entire oversizing cost.
Since we believe it important to have this section of Harmony completed,
but do not want to burden the oversizing fund with such a large amount
immediately, the City staff and representatives of the Everitt Companies
have discussed an approach whereby the Harmony Road improvement would be
completed as a part of the District and the entire cost of the improvement,
including the- oversizing cost, assessed to the affected property owners
(Everitt Lumber, Everitt Development and Oak Farm, for which the Everitt
Companies will pay all assessments). The City would then reimburse the
Everitt Companies over a period of ten years for the oversizing with the
reimbursement to include the actual oversizing cost plus interest in an
amount equal to the interest on the bonds.
Preliminary discussions have been held with bond counsel for the City to
determine the most appropriate financing mechanism for this type of reim-
bursement. Although we do not have a definite mechanism to recommend at
this time, there is a resolution in the packet relating to financing on the
district which addresses this issue and directs the staff to proceed with
study and development of a means to accomplish this financing.
APPROVAL PROCESS
At this meeting the Council is being asked to consider acceptance of the
petitions of the participating property owners and approval of two resolu-
tions and an ordinance which would create and establish the special im-
provement district. Additionally, there is a finance resolution which
would authorize the City staff to proceed with all necessary action for
financing of the district as well as development of a financing mechanism
for the reimbursement of Harmony Road oversizing cost. These documents are
summarized in a letter from the attorney for the district which is included
in the packet.
If Council approves all of the above documents at this meeting, there are
still a number of items which will need to be prepared, some of which will
be submitted at a later date to the City Council. Here is a brief summary
of the process remaining after this meeting:
1. Revisions
to
and execution
of the master agreement between the
City and
the
property owners
relating to such things as oversizing
-299-
June 21, 1983
costs, reimbursement agreements, and management of the district.
This must take place prior to second reading of the ordinance
creating the district.
2. Second reading of the ordinance creating the district.
3. Bidding and awarding of contracts may be done prior to the bonds
being sold but, to the extent that such costs are paid for by the
City, the Agreement will provide that those costs will be reim-
bursable to the City by the property owners if the bonds are not
sold or the bond transaction is not closed.
4. The ordinance approving the sale of the first series of bonds will
be introduced to the City Council in mid -August. This ordinance
will set the interest rates on the bonds and the term of the
bonds.
5. At the same August meeting, an ordinance approving the financing
instrument for the Harmony Road oversizing reimbursement will be
introduced to the Council for its approval as well as an ordinance
approving a mechanism for establishing and holding the security '
for this district. As other memos in the packet indicate, bond
and disclosure counsel for the City are requiring security for
this district above and beyond the lien automatically arising on
the property in the district. This is being required because the
district consists of largely undeveloped property. The forms of
security will most likely be a combination of letters of credit
and a financing mechanism which pledges the City's repay obliga-
tion on the Harmony Road oversizing.
6. After the bonds are sold, the remainder of the bids will be let
and the contracts awarded for the first phase of construction.
7. In September, an ordinance will be introduced to the Council
approving the sale of the second series of bonds to finance the
second phase of construction. After these bonds are sold, bidding
and contracting for the second phase of work can be done.
8. Inspection and acceptance of the completed construction project by
the City.
9. Council will act on the ordinance assessing the properties within
the district for the final costs of the improvement and all other
related costs and the assessment roll will be certified to the
County for collection. I
-300-
June 21, 1983
Timing is very important on this project. Completion of the first phase of
the project, which includes the Lemay Avenue improvement, will take a min-
imum of four months and, unless construction is underway by the beginning
of August, completion of Lemay before bad weather and/or the closing of the
cement plants would be unlikely. This would mean considerable delay,
probable cost increases on the project, and Lemay Avenue in a state of
construction for six months or longer until work could be resumed in the
spring.
ADVANTAGES
1. This will be private sector work done by the private sector consistent
with the City's stated position of allowing as much work as feasible to
be handled and managed privately. In bypassing the City's formal
bidding requirements, the project most likely will be completed sooner
and, in addition, may result in lower bids thus reducing the total cost
of the project.
2. There will be little staff time expended on this project. The property
owners have prepared the engineering and legal documents and are pre-
pared to handle the management of the construction project. However,
property owners have budgeted $20,000 for City administration time
which would primarily relate to the cost of City inspections of the
project.
3. Utilizing a special improvement district for these major improvements
provides continuity in street development and avoids a piecemeal
construction approach to arterial and collector street improvements.
4. Since the district bonds are tax exempt, the total. project cost should
be cheaper than if done with conventional financing. This may result
in more affordable housing for future homebuyers.
5. Utilizing a ten year payout approach on Harmony Road oversizing allows
the City to spread out its reimbursement obligation over a longer
period with a relatively cheap rate of interest since it is tied to
the interest rate on the bonds. Utilizing credits against street
oversizing fees for the remainder of street oversizing costs allows the
City to defer and spread out its oversizing reimbursement obligation.
6. Every property owner benefited by the project eventually pays a fair
share of the total project cost. However, no one will be paying a
portion of the district costs at this time unless he has chosen to do
so because of a perceived benefit to his property. Other property
owners, who are not participating in the district, will pay their share
' of costs only if their property develops and only at the time of
development as determined by the City.
-301-
June 21, 1983
7. There is no cost to the City in utilizing a special improvement dis-
trict in this way except for a minimum amount of staff time,'normal
oversizing costs and costs for improvements directly benefiting City -
owned property. The City is not liable for payment of the bonds."
Councilmember Cassell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to
adopt Resolution 83-114.
City Manager Arnold pointed out this was an unusual, complex, and innova-
tive project and reminded Council of the recent work session held on the
issue. He noted private enterprise would almost completely run this
S.I.D. and pointed out the advantages to the City in this process.
Assistant City Engineer Mike Herzig showed slides of the location of the
district and described the phasing of the project. He described the street
oversizing expenses and noted the oversizing fund would be billed over a
10-year period.
Controller Jim Harmon spoke of the financing for the project noting the '
bond issue would most probably be split into two $2 million segments a
month apart.
Assistant City Attorney Paul Eckman spoke on the process for initiating an
improvement district as outlined in the Code.
Councilmember Elliott asked if there were agreements between the non-
participants in the district.
Assistant City Attorney Eckman replied there would be a Master Agreement
presented prior to Second Reading and suggested Lucia Liley might comment
on the contents of the agreement.
Lucia Liley, attorney representing the petitioners and the district, spoke
on the reimbursement agreements noting there would be several kinds of
reimbursement agreements -- agreements between the petitioners, and agree-
ments between the petitioners and the excluded property owners -- as well
as reimbursement agreements between the City and some of the petitioners.
Agreements have been worked out with several of the excluded property
owners and those agreements will be done independently of any City involve-
ment. Only the properties that are liened will involve the City.
Councilmember Ohlson asked about the bidding process for this project.
Assistant City Attorney Paul Eckman responded that it was his understanding '
that the bidding process would be conducted as a competitive process, but
not through the City's Purchasing Division.
-302-
June 21, 1983
Lucia Liley noted the Master Agreement contained a specific requirement for
some sort of a competitive bidding process.
Bernie Cain, Bucain Corporation, stated they would competitively bid the
project, but certain selected contractors would be pre -qualified.
The vote on Councilmember Cassell's motion to adopt Resolution 83-114 was
as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezo-
vich, Ohlson, and Rutstein. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
adopt Resolution 83-115. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott,
Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, and Rutstein. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Mayor Knezovich, to
adopt Ordinance No. 86, 1983, on 'First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, and Rutstein. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
adopt Resolution 83-116. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott,
Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, and Rutstein. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
City Manager's Report
City Manager Arnold reported on the flood situation noting the dike around
Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 2 should have been completed prior to the
Council meeting. He noted the peak flow on the Poudre was expected to be
approximately 7,500 cfs.
Other Business
Mike Lohman, 1230 West Mountain, again expressed his concerns about the
trolley timetable and other trolley issues that he spoke of during Citizen
Participation earlier in the meeting.
' Mayor Knezovich summarized Mr. Lohman's concerns and suggestions as fol-
lows:
-303-
June 21, 1983
1. That the City staff work with the Railway Society to put
together a timetable for specific completion dates for the
barn, landscaping, and the trolley car.
2. That the safety issues be addressed.
3. That the Railway Society not begin laying track in the median
until they have secured an easement to cross Larimer County
Canal No. 2.
Mayor Knezovich stated he would work with the City Attorney to write a
letter to the Railway Society asking for a response on these issues prior
to the July 5th meeting.
Mr. Lohman stated that was acceptable to him.
Easement Agreement Between the City
and Lucile V. Anderson. Accepted
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"Due to the recent hot weather and corresponding rapid snow melt, the
Cache La Poudre River has recently been carrying such a volume of water as
to threaten the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant #2 and surrounding area.
In order to protect the Wastewater Treatment Plant, City personnel have
been involved in a 24-hour operation to shore up the banks of the Cache La
Poudre River upstream from the plant.
One of the necessary operations in order to protect the City's invest-
ment in its Wastewater Treatment Plant was to construct a higher dike
along the west bank of the Cache La Poudre River upon or adjacent to
property owned by Lucile V. Anderson. This construction operation would
require the gaining of access by the City across Anderson's property and
the obtaining of an easement for the location and maintenance of the
dike.
After meeting with Mrs. Anderson and other members of her party at the
site of the proposed dike, it was agreed between the City and Mrs. Anderson
that access could be gained to the property and the dike could be con-
structed. Accordingly, I have prepared an easement agreement which in-
cludes the various conditions and requirements as were discussed between
the City staff and Mrs. Anderson pertaining to this dike. Mrs. Anderson
has executed the .agreement and construction has begun upon the property in
an emergency effort to save the Wastewater Treatment Plant as well as
improvements upon the surrounding lands, including improvements upon the
Anderson property.
-304-
1
June 21, 1983
' Since an emergency did exist (and presently continues to exist) the City
Public Works Department has taken steps to construct the dike in advance of
the acceptance of this easement agreement by the Council. Essentially,
the easement agreement provides that the City shall construct the dike and,
since the dike will render useless a present stock fence upon the pro-
perty, the City shall also relocate the stock fence on the top of the
dike. The City will also relocate any corral fence that needs to be re-
located as a result of the construction of the dike. Other requirements
imposed upon the City are to install a small culvert for the purpose of
draining a marshy area that was created as a result of certain other road
construction in the vicinity of the property and to construct the dike so
as not to interfere with a certain livestock chute owned by Anderson as
well as to post the dike to prohibit usage thereof by the general public.
Anderson was cooperative in removing all livestock from her property that
may be affected by the construction of the dike and assisting in the
removal of other temporary fences that obstructed the access of the City
for the purpose of constructing the dike. Except for the above mentioned
conditions and obligations of the City, plus Ten Dollars ($10), the ease-
ment was granted to the City without charge. We believe that this agree-
ment is the outcome of cooperative discussions, in the face of an emer-
gency, between the City and a private property owner which will be of
substantial benefit to both."
'
Assistant City Attorney
of the easement noting
Paul Eckman explained the circumstances and details
it was to construct the dike around Wastewater
Treatment Plant No. 2.
He suggested a motion
to accept the easement.
Councilmember Cassell made
a motion, seconded by
Councilmember Horak, to
accept the easement as described by Assistant City
Attorney Eckman. Yeas:
Councilmembers Cassell,
Clarke, Elliott, Horak,
Knezovich, Ohlson, and
Rutstein. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
Councilmember Cassell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak,
to adjourn the meeting. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott,
Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, and Rutstein. Nays: None.
The meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.m.
ATTEST:
' City Clerk
Ma r
-305