HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-07/19/1983-RegularJuly 19, 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, July 19, 1983, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the City
of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Coun-
cilmembers: Cassell, Elliott, Horak, Ohlson, and Rutstein.
Secretary's Note: Councilmember Cassell arrived at 5:40 p.m.
Councilmembers Absent: Clarke and Knezovich.
Staff Members Present: Meitl, Caster, Huisjen, Lewis, Curt Smith, Mike
Smith, Krempel.
Agenda Review: City Manager
' No items were withdrawn from the Consent Agenda.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 #23, 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 July 5 and
the adJourned meeting of Ju y 12.
5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 87, 1983, Vacating a Portion of an
Alley Located in Block 4, Riverside Park Subdivision.
The alley in Block 4, Riverside Park Subdivision, was vacated on July
9, 1925, except for the south eighty-five (85) feet.
-337-
July 19, 1983
The abutting properties (Simpson Sheetmetal on the west and Colorado
Import Motors on the east) are desirous of improving their access to
Hemlock Street and making some landscaping improvements to their
common boundary.
Since this alley goes nowhere and this Ordinance, which was unani-
mously adopted on First Reading on July 5, will preserve an easement
for utilities (Light and Power currently has an overhead primary line
there), staff is recommending vacation of this alley.
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 88, 1983, Authorizing the City
to Enter into an Agreement for the Lease/Purchase of Vehicl—es.
In March 1983, Merit Finance was selected to provide financing for the
lease/purchase of various City vehicles. They were selected based
upon their low interest rate of 8.751%. Merit Finance is willing to
extend this rate to purchase two additional vehicles -step van and
cargo van -in July 1983.
The City proposes in the ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on
First Reading on July 5, to lease/purchase:
QUANTITY
1
1
ITEM
Step Van
Cargo Van
TOTAL COST
$12,260
$ 9,250
GRAND TOTAL $21,510
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 89, 1983, Ap
Reserves in the Sewer Fund for Purchase o the
LIFE
4 years
4 years
riating Prior Year
maartner Property.
This Ordinance which was adopted by a 5-1 vote on First Reading on
July 5, 1983, appropriates prior year reserves in the Sewer Fund for
purchase of the Baumgartner property, located immediately south of and
adjacent to the City's sludge management farm.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 93, 1983, Appropriating Unantici
Revenue in the Larimer County Library Services Fun .
This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 5 and
appropriates $25,578 in the Larimer County Library Services Fund. The
contract with Larimer County for operation of the library program in
the Larimer County jail provides for the $25,578 to be paid in quar-
terly installments of $6,394.50 payable on March 1, June 1, September
1, and December 1. The City has already received payments one and two
of this contract.
-338-
11
July 19, 1983
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 94, 1983, Annexing Property
Known as t e Sc nee er st Annexation.
This is a request to annex 33.5 acres located east of Lemay Avenue
north of Riverside Avenue.
10. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 95, 1983, Zoning Property
Known as the Schnee er 1st Annexation.
This is a request to zone 33.5 acres I-G, General Industrial, located
east of Lemay Avenue and north of Riverside Avenue.
11. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 96, 1983, Appropriating
Prior Year Reserves for the Department Incentive Program.
The Department Incentive Program, adopted by City Council as part of
the 1983 Annual Budget, was developed to provide incentives to depart-
ments to reduce costs and implement economies while maintaining
constant service levels. It provides an opportunity for departments to
keep monies unspent in any program area from one year to the .next.
. Departments did an excellent job of economizing in 1982 and actual
savings were significant.
12. Routine Easements.
The following are routine easements which have been reviewed and
approved by the affected departments and legal staff:
a) Cable Easement from the City to Mountain Bell. Mountain Bell has
been working with the project manager for Rolland Moore Park
concerning the placement of underground telephone cable. This
easement is being granted to Mountain Bell to allow the instal-
lation of underground cable to replace the original overhead
lines which had crossed the park property. The agreed upon
alignment is shown on the attached park site plan. The consi-
deration paid by Mountain Bell to the City for this routine
easement is $1.
b) Deeds of Easement from Everitt Lumber Company and Everitt Enter-
prises, Inc. for right-of-way needed for Harmony'Road Lemay
Avenue Special Improvement District No. 78, located' south of
Harmony Road. Engineering Professionals has been selected by
Bucain Corporation and Everitt Enterprises to obtain right-of-way
for the district. Right-of-way will eventually be obtained from
' a total of four property owners. Consideration for these two
easements is $1 each.
-339-
July 19, 1983
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Debbie Caster, City
Clerk's Office.
Item #5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 87, 1983, Vacating a Portion of
an Alley Located in Block , Riversi a Park Subdivision.
Item #6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 88, 1983, Authorizing the City
Manager to Enter into an Agreement or the Lease Purchase of
Ve is es.
Item #7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 89, 1983, Appropriating Prior
Year Reserves in the Sewer Fund for Purchase of the Baumgartner
11
Item #8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 93, 1983, Appropriating Unan-
ticipatedRevenue in the arimer County Li rary ervices Fund.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Debbie Caster, City
Clerk's Office.
Item #9. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 94, 1983, Annexing
Property Known as the Schneider 1st Annexation. '
Item #10. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 95, 1983, Zoning
Property Known as the Schneider 1st Annexation.
Item #11. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 96, 1983, Appropri-
ating Prior Year Reserves for the Department Incentive Program.
Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson,
to adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar.
Yeas: Councilmembers Elliott, Horak, Ohlson, and Rutstein. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the Downtown Development Authority.
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 90, 1983, Appropriating Unanticipated
Revenue in the D.D.A. Fund for the preparation of Architectural and
Engineering Designs for a Downtown Parking Garage.
The budget for the initial phases of the development of the parking
garage is as follows:
-340-
July 19, 1983
Legal/Appraisal Fees $ 25,000
Design of Structure 125,000
Contingency (5%) 7,500
Administrative 4,000
Total $161,500
This ordinance was adopted on First Reading on July 5 by a 4-0 vote
and appropriates Bond Anticipation Note proceeds to pay for this work
and to cover the other costs associated with the garage development.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 91, 1983, Appropriating Unanticipated
Revenue in the D.D.A. Fund for a Hotel/Convention Center Feasibility
Study.
This ordinance was adopted on First Reading by a 4-0 vote and appro-
priates $25,000 from the $3.1 million BAN's for conducting a feasi-
bility study and providing engineering services for the development of
a hotel/convention center.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 92, 1983, Appropriating Unanticipated
Revenue in the D.D.A. Fund.(Larimer County Employment Training Act
Grant) .
This ordinance was adopted on First Reading on July 5 by a 4-0 vote.
The Downtown Development Authority has unanticipated revenue as a
result of: 1) receiving a grant from the Larimer County Employment
Training Act to develop the criteria and program for a downtown hotel/
convention center and, 2) the collection of fees for services provided
by the DDA to various developers. The criteria and program for the
development of a hotel/convention center in Fort Collins includes a
selection of a developer; negotiations concerning site location, scope
of facility, design, construction, time frames, financing terms and
guarantees; determination of community benefits; and the holding of
public hearings. For example, legal fees incurred by the DDA during
negotiations are to be paid by developers. This new revenue will be
primarily used for staff costs on the development of the hotel, legal
fees and as contingency funds.
Employment Training Act $21,280
Fees Charged 4,154
Total $25,434"
Councilmember Ohlson noted he would abstain but remain present for discus-
sion of these three items.
-341-
July 19, 1983 '
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to
adopt Ordinance No. 90, 1983 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Elliott, Horak, and Rutstein. Nays: None. (Councilmember Ohlson ab-
stained)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to
adopt Ordinance No. 91, 1983 on Second Reading.
Councilmember Elliott asked what impacts the announcement by John Q.
Hammons that he intends to build a Holiday Inn on West Prospect would have
on this feasibility study.
Downtown Development Authority Director Bill Kingsbury replied the study
would consider that impact and would be a part of the consultant's report.
The vote on Councilmember Rutstein's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 91, 1983
on Second Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Elliott, Horak,
and Rutstein. Nays: None. (Councilmember Ohlson abstained)
THE MOTION CARRIED. ,
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to
adopt Ordinance No. 92, 1983 on Second Reading. Yeas: Rutstein, Elliott,
and Horak. Nays: None. (Councilmember Ohlson abstained)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Secretary's Note: Councilmember Cassell arrived at this point.
Resolution Making Appointments to the
Fort Collins -Loveland Airport Authority, Adopted
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"In June, Council adopted Ordinance No. 74, 1983, creating the Fort Col-
lins -Loveland Airport Authority for the purpose of operating and maintain-
ing the Fort Collins -Loveland Airport. The Authority will be made up of
three members appointed by the Fort Collins City Council and three members
appointed by the Loveland City Council.
At their July 5th meeting, Council, by motion, determined the composition
of the Fort Collins representation on the Authority would consist of one I
Councilmember and two citizens at large.
-342-
July 19, 1983
Applications were received from 22 persons interested in being appointed to
the Authority to represent Fort Collins. Interviews were conducted by
Barbara Rutstein and John Knezovich to screen the applicants. To qualify
for appointment, applicants must live within the City limits and be tax-
paying electors.
As provided for by State statute, the appointed members of the Authority
will draw lots to determine which half of the members will serve for
initial two-year terms and which half will serve for four-year terms. In
the future, the staggered terms will run for four years."
Councilmember Rutstein spoke of the interview process conducted by Mayor
Knezovich and herself. She noted their recommendation was that A.R.
Chamberlain and Joseph E. Phillips be appointed to the Authority. She
added the third member would be a Councilmember and could be selected at
this meeting or on August 2 when the full Council is present.
Assistant Mayor Horak stated he felt it would be better to wait until
August 2 to appoint the third member since the full Council and the newly
appointed Councilmember would be present.
Councilmember Cassell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to
approve Resolution 83-124 with the insertion of the two names recommended
by Councilmember Rutstein and to bring a second Resolution on August 2 to
appoint the third member of the Authority. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell,
Elliott, Horak, Ohlson, and Rutstein. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Authorizing the City Manager
to Enter into an Agreement with
Black & Veatch Engineers for Services
During Construction of Water Stabilization
Facilities at WTP #1 and WTP #2,
Not to Exceed $195,805, Adopted
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"History of the Project:
This project has two primary goals. The first is to correct the electro-
chemically aggressive (corrosive) water conditions at both WTP #1 and WTP
#2. The other is to remedy the alum carryover at WTP #1 which results in
alum deposits within the water distribution system.
-343-
July 19, 1983 '
The first problem, corrosivity, is caused by the water source. Treated
water produced from snowmelt sources is usually very soft and usually
electrochemically aggressive. Staff is very much aware of these tendencies
and has made periodic checks over the last several years for signs of
corrosion in the water mains. However, very little corrosion has been
witnessed on the dozens of pipe samples cut from water mains each year. In
1979 the Water Quality Division of the Water Utility was established.
Creation and staffing of the division made more research possible. Renewed
research relating to the corrosion tendency found that the aggressive water
was attacking the customer's copper plumbing instead of the City's water
mains.
a) The quality of water first drawn from the tap after several
hours of non-use is degraded due to relatively high dissolved
metals, particularly copper, lead, iron and zinc depending on
the plumbing materials used by the customer. The copper,
iron and zinc create an aesthetic problem. The lead concen-
tration is not in violation of the safe drinking water
standards, but some samples show concentrations that are
uncomfortably high.
b) The cost of the corrosion is born by each customer in the '
form of a shortened useful life of water pipes, hot water
heaters and appliances.
c) The third spin-off is that copper is concentrated in the
sludge produced at the Wastewater Treatment Plants. This
sludge is to be "recovered" at the Resource Recovery Farm
in the form of fertilizer. The useful life of the sludge
farm was evaluated by Black & Veatch as a part of the sludge
disposal design contract, and it was indicated that the
potential useful life of the site due to accumulation of
copper was 20 years. If the copper concentration in the
water source (and ultimately the sludge) is reduced, that
would extend the useful life of the farm. Copper deposited
in the soil may also inhibit seed germination.
The second problem, alum carryover at WTP#1, resulted from a change in
treatment standards. The Safe Drinking Water Standards were changed in
1977 and included lowering the allowable treated water turbidity standards
from 5 units (NTU) to 1.unit. The chemical dosages required to meet these
new standards changed significantly. Additional alum was required which
had the impact of lowering the pH of the water. Lowering the pH increased
the corrosivity, and, consequently, more lime was required to return the pH
to normal. But in the process of raising the pH back to normal, it resol- '
ublized some of the increased alum that had previously been added. When
-344-
' July 19, 1983
this soluble alum (with very little buffering capacity left in the water)
was subjected to final chlorination following filtration, a slight pH shift
caused some alum to deposit in the transmission main. The alum carryover
and subsequent deposition in the mains caused a very significant reduction
in water conveyance capacity. The proposed project will relocate the point
of lime addition to correct the problem.
Evaluation of the Problem:
After identifying these two problems, staff recommended that a study be
the City Council authorized an agreement with a consultant in the summer of
1981 to study and make recommendations addressing these and various other
deficiencies at WTP #1. The study identified processes and facilities
needed to remedy the corrosion and alum carryover problems. In July
1982 the City Council authorized the same consultant to proceed with design
of the necessary improvements as defined by the study. This decision to
complete the design was made by City Council upon recommendation to do so
by the Water Board, after extensive consideration of costs to the customer,
health impacts and the knowledge that renovation or relocation of WTP #1
may occur as soon as 1986.
Remedial Construction:
' The proposed construction to remedy the corrosion and alum problems in-
cludes an addition to the filter building at WTP #1 and WTP #2 and exten-
sive site work to improve the efficiency and safety of delivering chemicals
to WTP #2.
At WTP #1, a two story, 1300 sq. ft. addition will house chemical feed
equipment for lime, sodium bicarbonate and the future addition of poly-
phosphate. The first two additives reduce the corrosity of the water, the
third additive (if necessary) will reduce the corrosion potential by
protecting the pipe materials.
At WTP #2, a single story, 1230 sq. ft. addition houses the same type of
chemical feed facilities as found at WTP #1. The study has shown that
water from Horsetooth Reservoir is more easily stabilized than the more
variable waters from the Poudre River.
The majority of the mechanical equipment installed at each plant will be
interchangeable to minimize maintenance costs and stocking of spare parts.
The mechanical equipment at WTP #1 is designed for easy relocation to the
renovated or relocated plant anticipated in about 1986.
The total cost of constructing this project is estimated to be $;1,520,000.
The estimated project costs are shown on the last page of this document.
The difficulty with making close estimates is currently compounded by the
' anticipated economic upswing and, therefore, warrants the somewhat higher
than normal contingency for this project.
-345-
July 19, 1983 '
Three major impacts will be observed as a result of these improvements:
a) The water quality will be improved by reducing the dissolved
metals content of the water at the customers' tap.
b) The conveyance capacity of the water mains affected by alum
carryover can be permanently restored by cleaning operations.
c) The useful life of the Resource Recovery Farm will be ex-
tended significantly due to the lowered metal content in
the water (and ultimately the sludge).
Staff recommends proceeding with construction as soon as possible to
minimize health, corrosion, and Resource Recovery Farm impacts.
Engineering Services During Construction:
The staff has spent many hours working with the design consultant to
identify the scope of services required during construction and the level
of support necessary. The level of service required on the project is
higher than normal because the construction is essentially two small and
intricate remodeling jobs, located at two different job sites 14 miles '
apart. The type of agreement proposed is for manpower costs plus overhead
and expenses, with an upper limit. The services required of the consultant
will be:
• Review drawings and data submitted by the construction
contractor
e Administer the construction in the office and on site
• Meet with the City concerning progress
• Interpret the meaning of the contract documents, as necessary,
and render decisions required by the contract documents
• Hold regularly scheduled construction meetings with the
contractor
• Attend special meetings with City or other agencies at the
request of City not to exceed 650 hours
• Prepare change orders to the contract documents
• Observe initial field tests of equipment
• Revise drawings to conform to construction records '
-346-
July 19, 1983
Consultant Selection Process:
The consultant was selected for the study from a group of 10 highly quali-
fied firms by the standard selection procedures outlined in the Capital
Project Management/Control System (CPM/CS--this system of project manage-
ment was prepared for and endorsed by the City Council in the fall of
1979). The CPM/CS recognizes the need for project continuity and includes
the following language in the Contract Formulation and Administration
Subsection on page 27a:
"Consultants retained for conceptual or preliminary design
work may be retained for subsequent design phases of the project
without repeating the consultant selection procedure..."
Although continuity through the construction phase is not specifically
addressed in this portion of the manual, the need for continuity from
design through construction has been recognized on many occasions by City
Council. The initial study was authorized by City Council in Resolu-
tion 81-69 of May 5, 1981. The consultant, in this instance, is Black &
Veatch and the language contained in the background summary supporting the
' resolution authorizing the initial study reads:
"The staff also recommends that Black & Veatch be contracted
with, at the appropriate time, for all engineering services
required for future phases of this project."
The study was completed and City Council then authorized the next step, the
design phase, in Resolution 82-88 on July 6, 1982. The language in the
background summary supporting the resolution concerning the engineering
design agreement contains the following language:
"It was intended that the engineer selected would perform not
only the study, but also any subsequent design work..."
"This is in accordance with the initial intention to have one
engineering firm be responsible for this continuing project,
from the study phase through the construction phase."
"Having more than one engineering firm involved in the inter-
related segments of this project can only result in a dilution of
the engineer's responsibility in addition to exposing the City to
additional costs and headaches during the construction phase of
the project."
The City Attorney has
advocated use
of one engineer
through design
and
'
construction because of
the dilution
of responsibility
when more firms
are
-347-
July 19, 1983 '
involved. The City's standard professional services agreement was used for
the design phase, but after extensive discussion between staff and the
consultant, a special supplemental agreement was prepared especially for
this project to address the dilution of responsibility issue. The sub-
stance of the supplement reads:
"It is anticipated that the Engineer shall prepare and deliver a
preliminary engineering report furnished under this Agreement and
that after approval by the City of the report and the scope of
services and level of reimbursement for detailed design services,
the Engineer will be retained to perform detailed design ser-
vices. In the event that the Engineer is not retained by the
City to prepare the detailed design, plans and specifications and
construction documents for this project, the within stated
conditions of this contract that the design reports and drawings
prepared and services rendered by the Engineer shall be suffi-
cient for the purpose intended and shall be free from material
defects shall be null and void and the City shall waive any right
to proceed against the Engineer pursuant to said conditions.
City Council was advised at the time the consultant was selected for the '
engineering study that staff may recommend continued use of the same
consultant for design work and services during construction. The study was
completed successfully and staff recommends we proceed with design using
the same consultant. The design is complete and we now are recommending
that the services during construction be performed by the same consultant.
There are good reasons to use the competitive professional services
selection process to get another consultant for service during con-
struction. They include:
• Selecting a different consultant may result in a "peer review"
of the design. Costs would probably be higher, but the
product may be an improved design.
• The second consultant may offer to provide the same quality of
service at a lower cost. This may be a result of the com-
petitive process or because of the diffusion of responsibility
that goes with introducing another party to the process.
• The second consultant may be more objective when interpreting
the meaning of the construction documents.
We have already discussed some of the benefits of retaining the same
consultant through the design phase. A summary of these reasons would I
include:
-348-
IJuly 19, 1983
• Retaining the same consultant provides for continuity of
design intent because the expertise involved in the design
will be more available during construction.
• Using the same consultant provides for continuity of responsi-
bility and therefore the consultant has more interest in
successful completion of the total project. A second consul-
tant could not ethically take responsibility for work not
performed under his direction. If more parties are involved,
it will be more difficult to determine who is responsible for
activities or problems.
• Using the same consultant minimizes lost effort, confusion and
expense when transitioning from design to construction.
• The same consultant can help minimize costly communications
problems between the design and construction professionals.
• Improved opportunity for future work encourages the design
professional toward better performance.
The work and professionalism of Black & Veatch has been excellent through-
out both the study and design. Black & Veatch has estimated the cost of the
defined services to be $195,805. Staff has evaluated this fee and finds it
to be competitive. Staff therefore strongly recommends continuing through
the construction phase with services provided by Black & Veatch.
Funding:
Funding for the Construction Phase of this project was approved in the 1983
Capital Projects Program budget. The Construction Phase cost estimate of
$1,592,000 includes the $195,805 for the professional services proposed
herein. Currently, $1,592,000 is budgeted and available. Staff will
evaluate the budget again after receipt of the construction bid."
Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cassell, to
adopt Resolution 83-125.
Director of Operations Mike Smith gave a brief summary of the materials
contained in the Council packet.
Councilmember Horak asked if this work would result in a rate increase.
Director of Operations Mike Smith replied that a rate increase would result
both in 1983 and 1984. The amount of increase associated with this project
' would be approximately 4%. The rate increase in 1983 was 11.5% and 10% is
projected for 1984.
-349-
July 19, 1983
The vote on Councilmember Elliott's motion to adopt Resolution 83-125 was
as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott, Horak, Ohlson, and
Rutstein. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Enter
into an Amended Agreement with Baller Livestock
Company for the Purchase of Storage Capacity in
the Meadow Creek Reservoir. Adopted
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"Among the principal water policies of the City are:
• Development and acquisition of new raw water sources.
• Maximizing use of foreign water and the reuse of foreign water.
• Providing for city water needs while minimizing the impact on I
irrigated agriculture.
Accordingly, Resolution 82-156, adopted at the November 9, 1982 City
Council meeting, authorized the City Manager to enter into an agreement
with Baller Livestock Company for the purpose of purchasing 1200 acre feet
of storage capacity in the Meadow Creek Reservoir in Jackson County,
Colorado. By releasing replacement water from this reservoir to the
Michigan River, the City will be allowed to increase its diversion from the
Michigan Ditch by an estimated 754 acre feet per year. Capacity in Meadow
Creek Reservoir was offered to the City at $1100 per acre foot of net
yield, or $829,400. The memorandum to City Council from me dated November
1, 1982 and the "Report on the Acquisition of Storage Rights in Meadow
Creek Reservoir" by Michael Smith and Dennis Bode dated September 1982,
gives considerable detail regarding this acquisition. (both attached).
The agreement entered into with the Ballers contained a number of condi-
tions which had to be met before the contract could be executed. Those
conditions have been met with the exception of one which has been sub-
stantially met; however, the Ballers were not able to obtain a sign -off
from the State Engineer that satisfied the exact language of the agreement.
This condition involved the construction of the reservoir and the possi-
bility of future restrictions which couldreduce its usable capacity. You
find the State letter attached. Because of this situation, City staff has ,
continued to seek an agreement which it believes to be equitable and meets
-350-
July 19, 1983
the needs of the City. As explained in the November 1, 1982 memo, there
was concern about leakage through the Meadow Creek Dam. This condition has
been extensively studied and monitored during the past year by Hydro -Triad,
Ltd. Engineers. They have concluded the following:
1. From the water rights standpoint the quantity of water loss from
the reservoir is not of concern.
2. From the structural integrity of the dam standpoint, there has
been no evidence of any immediate danger of failure of the embank-
ment or abutments due to the seepage condition that now exists.
3. The moderate hazard rating placed on the dam assumes the possi-
bility of property damage in case of failure ( flooding of agri-
cultural lands) but no loss of life would be envisioned.
The staff believes there is some chance that the State Engineer may some-
time in the future place a restriction on the amount of water stored in the
reservoir. It is unlikely, however, that a restriction would require the
maximum water level be'Iowered by any more than 10 or 15 feet. Since
there is some risk of having the capacity restricted at some future time,
staff believes the price should be reduced by about 10%. After negotiating
with Ballers, the parties agreed to reduce the price from $829,400 to
$745,000 or 10.2%.
The acquisition of capacity in Meadow Creek Reservoir continues to appear
desirable when considered in light of the City's raw water policies and
other alternatives. It would allow the City to more fully utilize its
Michigan Ditch and Joe Wright Reservoir facilities. It has reuse potential
and would not take water from agricultural users in the Poudre Basin. An
equivalent amount of CBT water with an average yield of .75 acre feet per
unit, priced at $1300 per unit, would cost $1,307,000.
Specific language regarding assurances from the State Engineer's office is
being changed to reflect the assurances given in the June 2, 1983 letter
from the State Engineer's office. Any other changes to the agreement are
minor and of little significance.
Although there is usually a certain amount of risk associated with a
project of this nature, we believe the benefits outweigh the costs. The
staff recommends that the revised agreement to purchase water storage
capacity in Meadow Creek Reservoir be approved.
The City Couuncil appropriated $829,400 for this acquisition in 1982. This
money is being held in an interest -bearing account until negotiations have
been completed and approved by the City Council.
-351-
1
July 19, 1983
The attached memorandum to the City Council from Special Water Counsel Ward
Fischer more fully describes all the conditions of closing on the Meadow
Creek Reservoir water acquisition."
Councilmember Cassell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to
adopt Resolution 83-126.
Ward Fischer, attorney, reviewed the contract and noted it had been exe-
cuted by the City in 1982. He stated it would have closed under the
original conditions the contract specified except some things have come up
that require slight modification of the contract. He described the back-
ground of the original agreement and explained the proposed modifications.
The vote on Councilmember Cassell's motion to adopt Resolution 83-126 was
as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott, Horak, Ohlson, and
Rutstein. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
City Attorney's Report '
City Attorney Huisjen noted he had distributed a memo relating to the
LaForte Yamaha condemnation and the settlement that had been discussed in
the past. He asked Council to evaluate and review this confidential
memo.
City Manager's Report
Deputy City Manager Meitl reported on the "Free Ride Week" sponsored by
Transfort June 6-13. He noted the week was a success with a 41% increase
in total ridership over June, 1982.
Deputy City Manager Meitl called Council's attention to the semi-annual
report from the Fort Collins Railway Society relating to the trolley
project.
Councilmembers' Reports
Councilmember Elliott reported on his recent trip to Fairfield, California
to view the Anheuser-Busch plant.
Councilmember Rutstein amplified on the Fairfield trip pointing out the I
differences and similarities between that location and Fort Collins.
-352-
1
July 19, 1983
Councilmember Ohlson reported on the town meeting chaired by Mayor Knezo-
vich regarding the proposed MX missile sites in Wyoming and Nebraska. He
noted Congressman Hank Brown had attended and added there would be con-
tinued pressure on the Air Force to hold scoping hearings in Colorado.
Assistant Mayor Horak reported that the University of Denver had consented
to do a study to look at the feasibility of a trail system between LaPorte
and Greeley. The study will be done over the next year.
Assistant City Manager Verna Lewis reported one application had been
received for the Council vacancy and reviewed the qualifications and
procedure for filling the vacancy.
Citizen Participation
A. Proclamation Naming July 18-24 as The Quilts of Fort Collins Week was
accepte y ary ou mit w o encourage everyone to see t e quilts
exhibit at the Lincoln Center.
B. Presentation of Certificate of
Appreciation to the Fort Collins
on DUI arrests.
lice
Chief Ralph Smith accepted the certificate of appreciation on behalf of
the Police Department and described the program and procedures on DUI
arrests.
Annexations and Zonings Located in Northeast Fort Collins
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"The following six agenda items, petitions for annexation and requests for
zoning, are related. They are:
A.
Hearing
and
First Reading
of Ordinance No. 97, 1983, Annexing
approximately
164 acres known as East Vine Drive 6th Annexation.
B.
Hearing
and
First Reading
of Ordinance No. 98, 1983, Zoning
Property
known
as East Vine
Drive 6th Annexation.
C.
Hearing
and
First Reading
of Ordinance No. 99, 1983, Annexing
approximately
500 acres known as East Vine Drive 7th Annexation.
D.
Hearing
and
First Reading
of Ordinance No. 100, 1983, Zoning
Property
known
as East Vine
Drive 7th Annexation.
-353-
July 19, 1983 '
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 1983, Annexing
approximately 295 acres known as the Country Club East Annexation.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 1983, Zoning
property known as Country Club East Annexation.
There have been a number of recent events which have encouraged development
proposals in northeast Fort Collins and have stimulated additional requests
in this vicinity. These events include: (1) the completion of the Lemay
Avenue extension; (2) the approval of the alignment of Lemay Avenue north
of Lincoln; (3) approval by the Planning and Zoning Board of final de-
velopment proposals for Redwood Village PUD; (4) annexation of the Car-
penter -McAleer property; and (5) the announcement of Anheuser-Busch's
option on near -by properties. The Colorado statutory requirements for
annexation and the annexation requirements mandated by the Intergovern-
mental Agreement for properties within the Urban Growth Area, have also
prompted recent annexation petitions.
At the time of the Carpenter -McAleer Annexation proposal and the A-B
announcement, property owners in the northeast approached the Planning
Office for information regarding annexation and further development re-
quirements. The Planning staff met with the property owners individually; '
discussed the unique aspect of their properties; and the elements that
were common to all owners. The staff encouraged the owners who expressed
interest in pursuing annexation to work together as a group to coordinate
their engineering work; and submit their annexations in an aggregated form
to be processed in the fewest number of parcels. The combined annexation
requests can be processed in an orderly fashion. The three annexations
were considered at one Planning and Zoning Board hearing and can be simi-
larly considered as a group on first reading by City Council. Action
on Second Reading will be done sequentially, which then meets all conti-
guity requirements. This is the same procedure that was used for the five
Trilby Heights Annexations. The following time schedule has been estab-
lished for the Second Readings:
August 2, 1983
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 97, 1983, Annexing approximately 164
acres known as East Vine Drive 6th Annexation.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 98, 1983, Zoning Property known as
East Vine Drive 6th Annexation.
August 16, 1983
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 99, 1983, Annexing approximately 500
acres known as East Vine Drive 7th Annexation. I
-354-
July 19, 1983
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 100, 1983, Zoning Property known as
East Vine Drive 7th Annexation.
September 6, 1983
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 1983, Annexing approximately 295
acres known as the Country Club East Annexation.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 1983, Zoning property known as
Country Club East Annexation.
The Planning staff has also discussed zoning options with each owner. The
T-Transitional zone, which allows only the existing use at the time the
property is annexed, was suggested as a reasonable zone for the property
whose owners were actively farming.
After numerous discussions with all owners, one owner declined annexation
at this time, although adjacent property owners had sufficient land and
number of owners to force annexation. The Planning staff recommended, when
possible, that the annexations should by-pass the owner who prefers not to
' annex at this time."
Planning and Development Director Curt Smith briefly reviewed the three
annexation petitions and the three requests for zoning and noted the three
annexations contained 959 acres of land. He noted all three annexations
were 100% voluntary and were submitted consistent with the criteria of the
Urban Growth Area, which stipulates that any property that is eligible to
annex will be considered favorably for .annexation as long as it is within
the UGA. The County will not consider any development on such a piece of
land so the property owner would be in a state of "limbo" unless the City
annexes it.
Ordinance Annexing Approximately 164 Acres
Known as East Vine Drive 6th Annexation,
Adopted on First Reading
Following is the staff's memorandum on this. item:
"The applicants are seeking to annex approximately 163.9 acres of property
located north of East Vine Drive and east of the Carpenter/McAleer Annexa-
tion, east of Lemay Avenue. Approximately 133 acres of this annexation, the
portion owned by East Vine Properties, lies immediately east of the Car-
penter/McAleer Annexation. Approximately 20 acres of this annexation, the
' portion owned by Summitview Properties lies east of County Road 9E. The
remaining 10.9 acres (approximately) of this annexation is made up by the
-355-
July 19, 1983
East Vine Drive right -of --way and property south of East Vine Drive owned by
the Burlington Northern Railroad. This annexation achieves its one -sixth
contiguity requirement with the boundaries of the City of Fort Collins
through a common boundary with the Carpenter/McAleer Annexation.
This annexation is a voluntary annexation in that 100% of the property
owners of the area of annexation are in agreement with the annexation.
Policies contained in the City's Land Use Policies Plan and City agreements
with Larimer County contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the
Fort Collins Urban Growth Area indicate t e ity will annex property within
theU.G.A. when such property meets the State of Colorado's statutory
requirements for annexation.
This annexation is in the service area of ELCO Water District and Boxelder
Sewer District.
The Planning and Zoning Board recommended annexation of the East Vine Drive
6th Annexation by a vote of 6-0 at their June 29, 1983 meeting.
Second reading of the annexation ordinance is scheduled for August 2." '
Councilmember Cassell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to
adopt Ordinance No. 97, 1983 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Cassell, Elliott, Horak, and Ohlson. Nays: Councilmember Rutstein.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Zoning Property
Known as East Vine Drive 6th Annexation,
Adopted on First Reading
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"The applicants are seeking to zone approximately 163.9 acres of property
located north of East Vine Drive and east of the Carpenter/McAleer Annexa-
tion, east of Lemay Avenue. The requested zoning is T-Transitional.
The T-Transitional zoning district was added to Chapter 118 of the Code of
the .City of Fort Collins, commonly known as the zoning ordinance, in 1977.
The district is used for properties which are in a transitional stage with
regard to ultimate development. The T-Transitional zone is only applied at
the property owner's request. The owners of property within this annexa-
tion are East Vine Properties and Summitview Properties, c/o Jim Hesse, '
Managing Partner.
-356-
July 19, 1983
There are no uses by -right in the T-Transitional district, except uses on
the property on the date the property was placed in the district. The
owners of property zoned T-Transitional may request, at any time, the City
remove the T-Transitional zoned property within sixty (60) days of the
matter being considered by the Planning and Zoning Board.
The term "transitional" applies only to the property's status in regard to
ultimate development. The term is not meant to predetermine a certain type
of land use traditionally used in classic zoning theory as a transition
between potentially incompatible land uses, for example, medium density
between low density and high density residential uses.
The T-Transitional district is the only zoning district in which planned
unit developments, as defined by Chapter 118-83, i.e., the Land Development
Guidance System, are not a use by -right.
The Planning and Zoning Board recommended zoning the East Vine Drive 6th
Annexation T-Transitional by a vote of 6-0 at their June 29, 1983 meeting.
This zoning Ordinance will be scheduled for second reading on August 2nd,
' to coincide with the second reading of the annexation Ordinance for the
East Vine Drive 6th Annexation."
Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cassell, to
adopt Ordinance No. 98, 1983 on First Reading.
Councilmember Elliott asked what type of public input there was at the
Planning and Zoning Board meetings.
Director of Planning and Development Curt Smith noted the minutes of the
meeting had been included in the packet and that the public input had been
minimal with one individual speaking in opposition to the Country Club East
zoning.
The vote on Councilmember Elliott's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 98, 1983
on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott,
Horak, and Ohlson. Nays: Councilmember Rutstein.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Annexing Approximately 500 Acres
Known as East Vine Drive 7th Annexation,
Adopted on First Reading
' Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
-357-
July 19, 1983 '
"The applicants are seeking to annex approximately 500.3 acres of property
located north of East Vine Drive and on both sides of County Road 50. The
area located east of County Road 9E and south of the Larimer and Weld Canal
is not part of this annexation request. A small portion of this annexa-
tion, approximately 24 acres in size, owned by Howard I. Holtzinger,
et al., is located north of County Road 50 and east of County Road 11.
Approximately 350 acres of this annexation, the portion on both sides of
County Road 9E, north of the Larimer and Weld Canal and south of County
Road 50, is owned by K & M Company, approximately 123 acres of this annexa-
tion, located north of East Vine Drive, west of County Road 9E and south of
the Larimer and Weld Canal, is owned by Summitview Properties. The re-
maining 3.3 acres (approximately) of this annexation is made up by the
East Vine Drive right-of-way and property south of East Vine Drive owned by
the Burlington Northern Railroad. This annexation will achieve its one -
sixth contiguity requirement with the boundaries of the City of Fort
Collins when the City Council approved the East Vine Drive 6th Annexation.
This annexation is a voluntary annexation in that 100% of the property
owners of the area of annexation are in agreement with the annexation.
The policies contained in the City's Land Use Policies Plan and City
agreements with Larimer County contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement
for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area indicate the City will annex pro- '
perty within the U.G.A. when suc property meets the State of Colorado's
statutory requirements for annexation.
This annexation is in the service area of ELCO Water District and Boxelder
Sewer District.
The Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of East Vine Drive 7th
Annexation by a vote of 5-1 at their June 29, 1983 meeting. Mr. Ross voted
negatively because he objected to the Holtzinger property being "tied on"
to this annexation rather than being submitted as a separate annexation.
Second reading of the annexation ordinance is scheduled for August 16th."
Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to
adopt Ordinance No. 99, 1983 on First Reading.
Councilmember Rutstein commented she was voting against these items because
she felt there were undeveloped lands within the City suitable for indus-
trial and residential development and that these annexations were not in an
orderly development pattern. She expressed the hope that annexations would
be contiguous to developed land to prove the need for more housing and
industrial development.
Assistant Mayor Horak pointed out that if -the City did not annex land that
proposed to annex voluntarily, the City would be in violation of the UGA I
agreement.
-358-
July 19, 1983
The vote on Councilmember Elliott's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 99, 1983
on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott,
Horak, and Ohlson. Nays: Councilmember Rutstein.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Zoning Property Known as
East Vine Drive 7th Annexation,
Adopted on First Reading
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"The applicants are seeking to zone approximately 476.3 acres of property
located north of East Vine Drive and on both sides of County Road 50. The
requested zoning for this property is T-Transitional. A small portion of
this annexation, approximately 24 acres in size, is located north of County
Road 50 and east of County Road 11. The requested zoning for this property
is R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential.
The T-Transitional zoning district was added to Chapter 118 of the Code of
the City of Fort Collins, commonly known as the zoning ordinance, in 1977.
The district is used for properties which are in a transitional stage with
regard to ultimate development. The T-Transitional zone is only applied at
property owner's request. The owners of property within this annexation
requesting to be zoned T-Transitional are K & M Cmmpany, c/o John R. Moore,
Managing Partner and Summitview Properties, c/o Jim Hesse, Managing Part-
ner. K & M Company is requesting a condition be placed on their T zoning
to better define the uses which existed at the time the property was placed
in the T zone.
There are no uses by -right in the T-Transitional district, except uses on
the property on the date the property was placed in the district. There is
an addendum considered part of the K & M Company annexation petition and a
condition of the zoning request request which defines which uses existed on
the property at the time it was placed in the T-Transitional zone (see
attached addendum). The owners of property zoned T-Transitional may
request, at any time, the City remove the T zoning and place it into
another zoning district. The City must rezone T-Transitional zoned pro-
perty within sixty (60) days of the matter being considered by the Planning
and Zoning Board.
The term "transitional" applies only to the property status in regard to
ultimate development. The term is not meant to predetermine a certain type
of land use traditionally used in classic zoning theory as a transition
between potentially incompatible land uses, for example, medium density
' between low density and high density residential uses.
-359-
July 19, 1983 '
The T-Transitional district is the only zoning district in which planned
unit developments, as defined by Chapter 118-83, in the Land Development
Guidance System, are not a use by -right.
The requested zoning for the portion of this annexation located north of
County Road 50 and east of County Road 11 is R-L-P, Low Density Planned
Residential. The owners of this property are Howard I. Holtzinger, et
al.
Since the adoption of the Land Use Guidance System, there is essentially no
difference between the R-L-P and R-L, Low Density Residential, zoning
districts. Both zones allow single family subdivisions or any use pro-
cessed and approved as a planned unit development. Conditioning property
zoned in the R-L-P district to be developed as a planned unit development
requires all development proposals on that property to use the Land
Development Guidance System.
The Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the T-Transitional
zoning for the Summitview area; t-transitional with conditions for the K &
M Properties and R-L-P conditional for the Holtzinger property by a vote of
6-0 at their June 29, 1983 meeting. '
This zoning ordinance will be scheduled for Second Reading on August 16th,
to coincide with the Second Reading of the Annexation Ordinance for
the East Vine Drive 7th Annexation."
Councilmember Cassell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to
adopt Ordinance No. 100, 1983 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Cassell, Elliott, Horak, and Ohlson. Nays: Councilmember Rutstein.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Annexing Approximately 295
Acres Known as the Country Club East
Annexation, Adopted on First Readinq
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"The applicants are seeking to annex approximately 294.7 acres of property
located north of County Road 50, east of County Road 11, and south of
County Road 52. The northern half (approximately) of the property is owned
by Globe Homes, Ltd., while the southern half is owned by Howard I. Holt -
zinger, et al., This annexation will achieve its one -sixth contiguity
requirements with the boundaries of the City of Fort Collins when the City
Council approves the East Vine Drive 7th Annexation. I
-360-
' July 19, 1983
This annexation is a voluntary annexation in that 100% of the property
owners of the area of annexation are in agreement with the annexation.
Policies contained in the City's Land Use Policies Plan and City agreements
with Larimer County contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the
Fort Collins Urban Growth Area indicate the City will annex property within
the U.G.A. when such property meets the State of Colorado's statutory
requirements for annexation.
This annexation is in the service area of ELCO Water District and Boxelder
Sewer District.
The Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Department indicates the long range
parks plan calls for a potential community park of between 50 to 100 acres
in the general area of this annexation.
There are presently two County approved master plans on the subject pro-
perty. When annexed, both master plans will cease to exist in terms of
providing publicly approved future land planning guidance of the property.
Master plans will need to be resubmitted through the City Planning process.
The City will, however', have to accept the Nineteenth Green PUD, Phase 1,
' subdivision plat for 58-units. The acceptance of this plan includes the
requirements imposed by the County as a condition of approval which extend
to January, 1984. If Phase 1 is not started before January, 1984, develop-
ment requirements would have to be renegotiated.
The Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the Country Club East
Annexation at their meeting of June 29, 1983 by a vote of 5-0 (Ross ab-
stained).
Second Reading of the annexation ordinance will be scheduled for September
6th."
Council member Ohl son made a motion, seconded by Council member Cassell, to
adopt Ordinance No. 101, 1983 on First Reading.
Councilmember Rutstein asked for an explanation on the County requirements
imposed as a condition of approval.
Director of Planning and Development Curt Smith replied the basic require-
ment dealt with street improvements. The County imposed a condition on the
19th Green PUD that requires a developer to pay a fee of $500 per unit
toward improvements of the arterial street system. That condition has been
accepted in lieu of imposing new conditions on the property. That only
applies to the preliminary phase of the 19th Green, involving two small
tracts. If the owner chose to replat that phase the City would apply its
' own development standards.
-361-
1
July 19, 1983
Gary Boyack, 2109 North County Road #11, commented that he was in agreement
with -Council member Rutstein with regard to how the City is growing within
the Urban Growth Area. He asked how County Road #11 improvements would be
paid for.
Director of Planning and Development Curt Smith replied the City's policy
is that the developer would provide the design of the road to City stand-
ards at developers' cost. The developer then builds the road and is
reimbursed from the City for the difference between the local share of the
street and any oversizing to a collector or arterial street. The funds for
City participation are generated from development fees paid by residential,
commercial, and industrial developers. He added that when an improvement
is made adjacent to existing property, the normal policy of the City has
been to assess each property a front footage cost of a local street with
the City picking up the difference. Since it is unlikely the City will
annex the area where Mr. Boyack's house is located, close coordination with
the County and participation by the property owners will have to take place
before significant improvements are made.
The vote on Councilmember Ohlson's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 101, 1983
on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott, '
Horak, and Ohlson. Nays: Councilmember Rutstein.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Zoning Property Known as
Country Club East Annexation,
Adopted on First Reading
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"The applicants are seeking to zone approximately 294.7 acres located north
of County Road 50, east of County Road 11, and south of County Road 52.
The requested zoning is R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential. The
northern half (approximately) of the property is owned by Globe Homes,
Ltd., c/o Parmer Gillespie, and the southern half is owned by Howard I.
Holtzinger, et al.
Since the adoption of the Land Development Guidance System, there is
essentially no difference between the R- -P an R-L, Low Density Residen-
tial, zoning districts. Both zones allow single family subdivisions or any
use processed and approved as a planned unit development. Conditioning
property zoned in the R-L-P district to be developed as a planned unit
development requires all development proposals on that property to use the
Land Development Guidance System. '
-362-
July 19, 1983
There are presently two County approved master plans on the subject pro-
perty. When annexed both master plans will cease to exist in terms of
providing publicly approved future land use planning guidance of the
property. Master plans will need to be resubmitted through the City's
planning process.
The City will, however, have to accept the Nineteenth Green PUD, Phase 1,
subdivision plat for 58-units. The acceptance of this plat includes the
requirements imposed by the County as a condition of appoval which extend
to January, 1984. If Phase 1 is not started before January, 1984, develop-
ment requirements would be have to be renegotiated.
The Planning and Zoning Board voted to recommend approval of the R-L-P
zoning with the condition that the property be developed as a planned unit
development at their June 29, 1983 meeting by a vote of 5-0. (Ross ab-
stained.)
This zoning ordinance will be scheduled for second reading on September
6th to coincide with the second reading of the annexation ordinance for
the Country Club East Annexation."
Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cassell, to
adopt Ordinance No. 102, 1983 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
' Cassell, Elliott, Horak, and Ohlson. Nays: Councilmember Rutstein.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Cassell thanked Council and staff for their support during
his tenure as Councilmember. He encouraged Council to attempt to keep in
mind the wishes of the people in District 4 when appointing his replace-
ment. He spoke of the importance of Council functioning as a team rather
than each member pursuing his or her own personal interests.
Deputy City Manager Meitl spoke of the social services and day care faci-
lity report Council had requested.
Assistant Mayor Horak stated he had read the recommendation which was to
take the issue back to the CDBG Steering Committee and come back to Council
with their recommendation. He noted he would like to see the item come
back as an agenda item on August 2 or 16 so the interested agencies have
the opportunity to discuss the issue.
Adjournment
' Councilmember Cassell made a motion, seconded by Assistant Mayor Horak,
-363-
July 19, 1983 '
to adjourn the meeting. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott, Horak,
Ohlson, and Rutstein. Nays: None.
The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
A$3I5IA"' Mayor `
AATTTTTEiSTT::lA
City Clerk '
-364-
1