HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-10/19/1976-RegularOctober 19, 1976
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, October 19, 1976, at 5:30 P.M. in the
Council Chambers in the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll
call was answered by Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray,
Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson.
Staff Members Present: Brunton, Kaplan, Smith, Bingman, Ferluga,
Liquin, Steadman, Deibel and Dowell.
Also: City Attorney Arthur March Jr. and Assistant Staff Attorney
Lucia Liley.
Minutes of the Regular Meetings of September 21, 1976
and October 5, 1976 and the Adjourned Meeting of
September 28, 1976 Approved As Published
Mayor Wilkinson called for a motion to approve the minutes of the
regular meeting of September 21, 1976, October 5, 1976 and the
adjourned meeting of September 28, 1976; hearing no corrections,
Councilman Bloom made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Gray
to approve the minutes of the regular meetings of September 21,
1976 and October 5, 1976 and the adjourned meeting of September 28,
1976 as published. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray,
Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
Ordinance Tabled on Second Reading Annexing the
Vance First Annexation to the City of Fort Collins
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"At its October 5, 1976, meeting the Fort Collins City Council
adopted the aforementioned ordinance on first reading. At the
time of adoption on first reading there were objections by the
property owner because the owner had not determined what zoning
he desired. Administration recommended that the ordinance be
passed on first reading, but that the City table the second
reading if the zoning issue had not progressed at the time of
second reading. The owner is still meeting with the parties
interested in purchasing and developing the land and has not
' yet determined what zoning is desirable from his standpoint.,
318
Recommendation: The Administration recommends that the City Council
table the second reading of this ordinance to the meeting of
November 2, 1976."* ,
Councilwoman Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Gray
to table Ordinance No. 46, 1976 on second reading. Yeas: Council -
members
Bowling, Grav, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson.
Nays: Councilman Bloom.
Ordinance Adopted on Second Reading Annexing the
Gallegos Property at 720 Wood Street to the City
There was no discussion on this item.
Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Reeves
to adopt Ordinance No. 78, 1976 on second reading. Yeas: Council -
members Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson.
Nays: None.
ORDINANCE NO. 78 ; 1976,
BEING AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING CERTAIN TERRITORY IN
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
WHEREAS, the property hereinafter described has for
more than three (3) years been entirely contained within the I
boundaries of the City of Fort Collins; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins desires to annex said
property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS:
Section 1. That all of the territory more particularly
described as situate in the County of Larimer, State of
Colorado, to -wit:
A tract of land situate in the SW 1/4 of Section 2,
Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., which
is more particularly described as: Beginning at a
point which is S 89*58' E 50 feet, and again N 00°02' E
246.18 feet from the West 1/16 corner on the South line
of said Section 2, and run thence N 00002' B 171.25
feet, thence S 89158' E 162.26 feet, thence S 66*17' E
116.50 feet, thence S 00002' W 124.45 feet, thence N
89*58' W 268.96 feet to the point of beginning. The
foregoing description considers the South line of the
SW 1/4 of said Section 2 as bearing S 89.°58' E.
* There was a motion made later in the meeting to adjourn the '
regular meeting of November 2, 1976 to November 9, 1976.
319
be and it hereby is annexed to the City of Fort Collins and
made a part of said City, to be known as the Gallegos Annexation.
Section 2. That in annexing said territory to the City
of Fort Collins, the City of Fort Collins does not assume
any obligation respecting the construction of water mains,
sewer lines, gas mains, electric service lines, street or
any other services or utilities in connection with territory
hereby annexed except as may be provided by the ordinances
of the City of Fort Collins.
Section 3. Within ninety (90) days from the date this
ordinance becomes effective, no building permit shall be
issued for any of the lands herein described unless said
lands have been zoned under the zoning ordinances of the
City.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and
ordered published this 5th day of October A.D., 1976, and to
be presented for final passage on the 19eh day of October
A.D., 1976. %�— _
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk CIZ
Passed and adopted on final reading this 19th day of
October A.D., 1976.
ATTEST:
City C��:!C�L�..
First Reading: October 5, 1976
Second Reading: October 19, 1976
Dates Published: October 10, 1976
Attest:
k'-t�
City Clerk (Deputy)
320
(Vote: Yeas: 7, Nays: 0)
(Vote: Yeas: 7, Nays: 0)
and October 24. 1976
Ordinance Adopted on Second
Zoning of the Property
Known as the Galle
Reading Relating to the
at 720 Wood Street
os Annexation
There was no discussion on this item.
Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilman Suinn to
adopt Ordinance No. 79, 1976 on second reading. Yeas: Council -
members Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson.
Nays: None.
ORDINANCE NO.' 79 , 1976
BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 118 OF THE CODE OF
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE ZONING
ORDINANCE AND CLASSIFYING FOR ZONING PURPOSES THE
PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE GALLEGOS ANNEXATION TO THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS:
Section 1. That the Zoning District Map adopted by
Chapter 118 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, be and
the same hereby is changed and amended by including the
property known as the Gallegos Annexation to the City of
Fort Collins, Colorado, in the C, Commercial District.
Section 2. The City Engineer is hereby authorized and
directed to amend said Zoning District Map in accordance
with this ordinance.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and
ordered published this 5th day of October, A.D. 1976, and to
be presented for final passage on the 19th day of October,
A.D. 1976.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
/rl //NW.Mg,
321
1
1
1
1
Passed and adopted on final reading this 19th day of
October, A.D. 1976.
vi��
Mayor
ATTEST:
Z�rx...<� (SCE
City Clerk !enuty
First Reading: October 5, 1976 (Vote: Yeas: 7, Nays: 0)
Second Reading: October 19, 1976 (Vote: Yeas: 7, Nays: 0)
Dates Published: October 10, 1976 and October 24, 1976
Attest:
City Clerk (Deputy)
Ordinance Adopted on Second Reading Rezoning
Southmoor Village. Seventh Filing
The City Manager's memo regarding this follows:
"At its October 5, 1976, meeting the Fort Collins City Council
adopted Ordinance No. 81, 1976, on first reading. The City Council
has previously approved the plat of Southmoor Village, Seventh
Filing, which was a Replat of a Portion of the Southmoor Village,
Third Filing. Originally, this area was intended for a planned
unit development but has been replaced as a conventional subdivision
anticipating 16 family lots and 10 duplex lots. The proposed
rezoning is in accordance with the plans presented at the time
the Replat was approved. The Planning and Zoning Board has
recommended favorably on this rezoning."
Councilman Russell made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bowling
to adopt Ordinance No. 81, 1976 on second reading. Yeas: Council -
members Bloom, Bowling, Cray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson.
Nays: None.
322
ORDINANCE NO. Q/ , 1976
BEING AN. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS BY CHANGING THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS:
That the zoning district map of the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado, adopted by the zoning ordinance of the
City of Fort Collins, is hereby amended by changing the
zoning classification from R-P, Planned Residential District
to R-L, Low Density Residential District and the R-L-M, Low
Density Multiple Family Residential District for the following
described property in the City, to -wit:
All of Southmoor Village, Seventh Filing, being a
replat of Lots 175, 176, 177, 178„ 179, 180, 181, 182,
183 and Tract M of Southmoor Village, Third Filing, in
the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
The portion of said property placed in the R-L, Low Density
Residential District is more particularly described as:
Lots 194 through 210, inclusive, of said Subdivision; and
the portion of said property placed in the R-L-M, Low Density
Multiple Family Residential District is more particularly
described as: Lots 184 through 193, inclusive, of said
Subdivision.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and
ordered published this 5th day of October, A.D. 1976 and to
be presented for final passage on the 19th day of. October,
A.D. 1976.
ayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 19th day of
October, A.D. 1976.
ATTEST:
C'e, x .,.
City Clerk (Deputy)
323
1
1
1
1
1
1
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Dates Published
Attest:
October 5, 1976
October 19, 1976
October 10, 1976
City Clerk Deputy
(Vote: Yeas: 7, Nays: 0)
(Vote: Yeas: 7, Nays: 0)
and October 24, 1976
Ordinance Adopted on Second Reading Relating
to the Vacation of an Alley in Block 136
The City Manager's memo follows:
"Ordinance No. 82, 1976, was adopted on first reading at the
October 5, 1976, meeting. The owner of the adjacent property,
A. Ruth Cowan, had petitioned for a vacation of an alley in
Block 136 upon which a residence encroaches. The City's policy
in the past has been to vacate enough of the alley to provide
for ownership of the encroached land in the name of the property
owner. The property owner is required to sign an agreement to
rededicate the alley if the improvements are ever removed."
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Reeves
to adopt Ordinance No. 82, 1976 on second reading. Yeas: Council -
members Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson.
Nays: None.
ORDINANCE NO. kZ , 1976
BEING AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF AN ALLEY
IN BLOCK 136 IN THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
WHEREAS, the owners of the property abutting the same
have requested that a portion of an alley in Block 136, more
particularly described below, be vacated; and
WHEREAS, the portion for which such vacation is sought
is not open to use as an alley nor has the same been used as
an alley in the past, but a residence on the adjoining land
encroaches on this portion; and
WHEREAS, in the opinion of the City Council this portion
of this alley is not needed for municipal purposes and the
rights of the residents of the City will in no way be prejudiced
by the vacation of this portion of the alley.
324
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the following described portion of
the alley in Block 136 in the City of Fort Collins, to -wit:
.Begin at the Northeast corner of Lot 7, in said Block
136, and run thence South along the East line of said
Lot 7 a distance of 44.2 feet, thence East 1.3 feet,
thence Northerly to a point which is 0.7 feet East of
the Northeast corner of said -Lot 7, thence West 0.7
feet to the point of beginning;
be, and the same hereby is, vacated, abated and abolished.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading and
ordered published this 5th day of October, A.D. 1976, and to
be presented for final passage on the 19th day of October,
A.D. 1976.
ATTEST• Mayor
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 19th day of '
October, A.D. 1976.
ATTEST: ayor
City Clerk(Deputy)
First Reading: October 5, 1976 (Vote: Yeas: 6, Nays: 0)
Second Reading: October 19, 1976 (Vote: Yeas: 7, Nays: 0)
Dates Published: October 10, 1976 and October 24, 1976
Attest:
City Clerk Deputy
325
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Gray
to authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement agreeing to
rededicate the alley if the improvements are removed. Yeas:
Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and
Wilkinson. Nays: None.
Ordinance Adopted on Second Reading Transfering
Surplus Funds in the Landmark Preservation Account
and the Youth Center Construction Account of the
Capital Improvements Fund to the Seven -Year Capital
Improvements Program Account of the Capital Improvements Fund
The City Manager's memo regarding this follows:
"Ordinance No. 83, 1976, was adopted on first reading at the
October 5, 1976, meeting. The Landmark Preservation money will
be transferred to the Seven Year Capital Improvement Program
for additional work on the Avery House. The Youth Center
Construction Fund which was obtained by the City transfering
money from the General Fund to the Special Capital Revolving
Fund over a period of years will be used to pay part of the
costs of the new Fort Collins Community Building. Both of these
sums of money have been computed in the entire seven year capital
program budget."
Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Reeves
to adopt Ordinance No. 83, 1976 on second reading. Yeas: Council -
members Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson.
Nays: None.
ORDINANCE NO. 83, 1.976
BEING AN ORDINANCE TRANSFERING SURPLUS FUNDS IN THE
LANDMARK PRESERVATION ACCOUNT AND THE YOUTH CENTER
CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNT OF THE CAPITAL ZM,p ROVEMENTS FUND
TO THE SEVEN YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
WHEREAS, there has been created within the Capital Improvements Fund
an account known as the Landmark Preservation Account and an account known
as the Youth Center Construction Account, and
WHEREAS, these accounts were established in connection with proposed
projects and the projects proposed have been acquired but were acquired from
funds in the Seven Year Capital Improvements Account -of the Capital Improve-
ments Fund, and
WHEREAS, the acquisition of such projects from other sources render
surplus the amounts on hand in the Landmark Preservation Account and the
Youth Center Construction Account, and
326
WHEREAS, the Council desires to transfer such surplus funds to the
Capital Improvements Account which funded the projects for which the other
accounts were created.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the balances on hand (with all interest accrued thereon) in the
Landmark Preservation Account and the Youth Center Construction Account of
the Capital Improvements Fund be and the same hereby are transfered to the
Seven Year Capital Improvements Account of the Capital Improvements Fund.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published
this 5th day of October, A.D. 1976, and to be presented for final passage on the
�9 1CCvv day of L _ A.D. 1976.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this
A.D. 1976.
ATTEST:
City Clerk (Deputy).
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Dates Published
Attest:
October 5, 1976
October 19, 1976
October 10, 1976
O(* (/ix_«_ci
City Clerk Deputy
327
/i.
19th day of October
(Vote: Yeas: 5, Nays: 0)
(Vote: Yeas: 7, Nays: 0)
and October 24, 1976
fl
1
Ordinance Adopted on First Reading Relating to
the Salary of the Municipal Judge
The City Manager's memo regarding this follows:
"The salary of the Municipal Judge is established by ordinance.
When the present salary of $25,000 per year was approved, it
was the same salary as that of the County judges. The salary
of the County judges is now $30,000. The City Council, however,
feels that the City Judge should receive the same salary increase
as other City employees, which means the new salary effective
January 1, 1977, would be $26,250."
Councilwoman Cray made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bloom
to adopt Ordinance No. 84, 1976 on first reading. Yeas: Council -
members Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and
Wilkinson. Nays: None.
Consider Agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Allen G. Richardson
for ExhanRe of Sewer Tap for Water Tap
Following is a portion of the City Manager's memorandum
"A Right -Of -Way Agreement was acquired by the City in 1963 with
Mr. and Mrs. Richardson. Under the terms of this Agreement, a
part of the consideration was an agreement by the City to grant
a sewer tap. Mr. and Mrs. Richardson have requested that this
be changed to a water tap, and the Water and Sewer Utilities
Department have advised that this would be acceptable to them.
The City Attorney's office has prepared the Agreement for the
exchange which is attached. Before this can be executed on
behalf of the City, it requires Council approval.
Recommendation: The Administration recommends that the City Council
approve the Agreement to exchange the sewer tap for a water tap
and authorize the execution of this Agreement by the City Manager
and City Clerk."
Councilwoman Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Gray
to approve the agreement to exchange the sewer tap for a water
tap and authorize the execution of the agreement by the City Manager
and the City Clerk. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray,
Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
Resolution Adopted Approving Revised Employee
Pay Plan for the City of Fort Collins
Following is the City Manager's memorandum regarding this item:
328
"The City of Fort Collins has four employee unions or associations;
namely, the AFL-CIO Firefighters Union, the American Federation
of State, County and Municipal Employees, the Police Association,
and the general Employees Association. We have had several meetings
with each of these groups and some joint meetings.
Initially our Personnel Division contacted comparable cities and
studied cost -of -living increases and salaries of positions we
commonly call "benchmarks." We then estimated the amount of
money that is available and needed to formulate a reasonable
salary package for the City. At that stage we reported to the
City Council and asked for direction. After receiving this
direction, we again met with each employee group and explained the
final package offered. We understand that all groups have now
agreed to the 1977 package.
The 1977 salary package consists of an across-the-board 5'/
salary adjustment, range adjustments for 86 classifications
(according to our salary study), and a 12% increase of medical
insurance premium costs above their present level. The total
cost of this package, excluding normal pay range increases, is
$317,317 for the General Fund and $182,913 for other funds, for
a grand total of $500,230. All increases have been included in
the 1977 budget that received tentative approval from the City
Council after work sessions and public hearings.
Recommendation: The Administration recommends that the City '
Councila opt the aforementioned Resolution establishing the
pay ranges for 1977."
Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bowling
to adopt the resolution. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling,
Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
RESOLUTION 76 - 68
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROVING A REVISED EMPLOYEE PAY PLAN FOR
THE CITY
WHEREAS, heretofore by resolution the City Council approved a
manual of class specifications and compensation plan for the municipal
service of the City of Fort Collins; and
WHEREAS, the Administration has reviewed the City's compensation plan
and has proposed revisions to such plan to be effective January 1, 1977; and
WHEREAS, such plan has been submitted by the City Manager and recom-
mended by him to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the same and desires to
approve the revised pay plan.
329
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
' COLLINS that the employee pay plan submitted to the city Council by the City
Manager, a copy of which is attached hereto, be, and the same hereby is,
approved effective January 1, 1977.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this
19th day of October, A.D. 1976.
Mayor
Attest:
city Clerk Deputy)
Ordinance Adopted as Amended on First Reading Relating
' to Political Signs
Councilman Bowling left the room during the discussion of this
particular item.
City Attorney March stated that Councilman Suinn suggested that
the ordinance be amended by adding a comma in Section 2, para-
graph A, the fourth line down after the words "political signs,"
thus indicating that -the limitation does apply to all of the
accepted types of signs.
Councilman Suinn made a motion, seconded by Councilman Russell
to amend Ordinance No. 85, 1976 as set out by City Attorney March.
Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and
Wilkinson. Nays: None. (Councilman Bowling out of room.)
Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilman Suinn to
adopt Ordinance No, 85, 1976 as amended on first reading,. Yeas:
Councilmembers Bloom, Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson.
Nays: None, (Councilman Bowling out of room.)
330
Woodwest Subdivision Sixth Filing: Final Plat
Approved Conditionally
Paul Deibel from the Planning Office reviewed this plat in detail
for the Council and the recommendation from the Planning and
Zoning Board. Following is the Board's recommendation:
"Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation: Conditional Approval
At its March and July meetings of 1975, the Board voted to recommend
approval of the plat conditional upon several revisions to the
plat and provision of the arterial street landscape plan.
These conditions have been met except for a guarantee of landscape
maintenance along the arterial street until the planting, is
established.
The staff recommendation is for approval of the plat conditional
upon provision of this guarantee."
The City Manager's memo regarding this item follows:
"The attached memorandum from the Planning Department presents
the background and the recommendations from the Planning and Zoning
Board and the planning staff. Both the planning staff and the
board recommend approval of the subdivision.
The developers of this subdivision have contended that they have
previously satisfied their obligation to provide water rights in
order to obtain water service for these lands. The City on the
other hand contends that this obligation has not been satisfied
and this controversy is now the subject of a law suit in Larimer
County District Court. This controversy should not hold up
approval of this subdivision, but any approval should make it clear
that the City still contends that water rights must be furnished
in order to receive water service to this site.
Recommendation: The Administration recommends that the City Council
approve the anal plat of the Woodwest Subdivision Sixth Filing
but with an expressed statement that this approval does not waive
the City's position that water rights must be supplied in order
to receive water service to the lots in this subdivision."
Bill Teller, Project Administrator
questions of the Council regarding
right-of-way along Shields.
for Wood Brothers Homes, answered
the maintenance of the City
1
11
Councilwoman Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Cray
to approve the Woodwest Subdivision, Sixth Filing, Final Plat
conditioned upon the developer providing the City with the necessary '
landscape maintenance agreement and with the understanding that
this approval does not waive the City's position regarding the
water rights to be supplied in order to receive water service.
331
fb-t9�?10*
Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell and
Wilkinson. Nays: Councilman Suinn.
' Proposed Hewlett Packard Contract
for Water and Sewer Service
City Attorney March stated that the present agreement as drawn up
does not include provisions covering the electric utility and
a provision should be added stating that Hewlett Packard will
participate in annexation when eligible and when requested by the
City, and a second provision that if they, Hewlett Packard,
initially take electric service from another utility that upon
annexation to the City and the ability of the City to serve
electricity they will connect to the City electric utility and
will pay the cost of making that conversion. On the other hand,
if they elect at this time to take electricity from the City
utility then we would assure them of power even though they are
outside the City and we would take the risk and fund
any costs if it ultimately became the case if the courts decided
the City could not serve them and they would have to convert to
the other utility and the City would pay the cost of that
conversion.
Councilman Suinn inquired into one of
the particulars of
the
agreement i.e. page 4"a 12 inch line
and also as to who initiated this particular
to a 16 inch water
contract, Hewlett
line,"
'
Packard or the City.
Councilwoman Reeves inquired into the
electrical service
provisions
and annexation stipulations.
Councilwoman Gray inquired into costs
for providing the
requested
services.
Councilman Bowling stated he felt that it should be made clear that
Hewlett Packard first came to the City regarding the providing of
utility services, the City did not solicit this agreement over
the outlaying districts.
Councilman Bowling made a motion,__ seconded by Councilman Russell
that the agreement above be approved including the provisions outlined
by Mr. March, and authorize the Administration to sign the contract
document. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves,
Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
Ordinance Denied Rezoning,
Seaman Subdivision
' Paul Deibel of the Planning Department described the area and
reviewed the discussion of the Planning and Zoning Board and their
332
recommendation to deny this request.
Mr. Rich Goodell, Realtor, presented the petitioner's reasons
for this request, to legally use this property as a duplex '
rental unit.
Mr. Dick Denney, owner of the property, spoke to his plans for
the property and the surrounding zoning.
Mr. Tim Halev asked the size of the area and what major streets
serve as a boundary to this area.
Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bowling
to deny Ordinance No. 80, 1976 on first reading. Yeas: Council -
members Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Suinn and Wilkinson.
Nays: Councilman Russell.
Consider Request for Out -of -City Water
Tap at 726 Wood Street
City Manager Brunton advised Council that this request had been
reviewed by the Water Board and their recommendation is for
approval and it is now being brought to Council for their approval.
Councilman Suinn inquired if the petitioner was fully aware of all
of the costs involved with this request.
Councilwoman Reeves inquired if the work could be started soon and
not delay the request if approved. Mr. Liquin of the Water Utility
Department stated work would begin as soon as the request is
approved.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman Suinn to
approve the request of Mr. John L. Duffy, 726 Wood Street, for
a water tap to his property provided he will agree to annexation
when appropriate. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray,
Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
Purchase of Property
Following is the City Manager's memo regarding this subject:
"We have been discussing for some time the necessity of expanding
our city garage and equipment department area. We do not have
enough room to adequately work on our present equipment and we do
not have adequate areas for equipment storage. The property
directly to the north of the present service'center is too small
and too expensive. The pipe factory land to the south of our
service center would be a good site but the owner does not want
to sell at the present time and the price would be substantially
333
higher than we would like to pay.
' After exploring many possibilities we decided that the best
site available is the six acres of land on the west side of
Wood Street slightly north of our present service center site.
We would install an economcial type building acquired under
a lease contract basis. Enclosed is a memo from Mike DiTullio,
Assistant City Manager, on this subject.
Our revised appraisal price for this property was $3,500. Our
City Attorney negotiated with the owner and his attorney and
the final offer came in at $4,000 an acre. We do not think
it is advisable to go to condemnation of this property. The
approximate cost would be $24,000 which is $3,000 high than if
we acquired if for our revised appraised price.
Recommendation: The Administration recommends that the City
Council authorize the City Administration to purchase the six
acres of land from Mr. Neutzeat a price of $4,000 per acre.
This land will be bought through the Equipment Fund."
Councilwoman Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bloom
to authorize the Administration to purchase the property from
Mr. Neutze at a price of $4,000 per acre. Yeas: Councilmembers
Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson.
Nays: None.
' Request to Change the Name of Robertson Street
Between East Elizabeth and Garfield Streets
The City Manager's memo regarding this item follows:
"Enclosed is a memorandum from our Planning Staff with regard
to a request to change the name of Robertson Street between East
Elizabeth and Garfield Streets. There are a number of problems
in connection with the street name. In December of 1959, Robertson
Street was platted between Prospect and Pitkin. In December of
1960, Robertson Street between Garfield and Elizabeth was platted.
It was expected that the section of Robertson between Pitkin and
Garfield would match up; however, when Robertson Street north of
Pitkin was platted, it started at Pitkin and curved around
Lemay Avenue. In 1973 and 1974 we had consideral verbal and
written correspondence with Ray Davies at 1105 Robertson with
regard to the street name. Mr. Davies wanted the property owners
on Robertson between Garfield and Elizabeth to change the name of
the street. It was the feeling of our then Planning Director,
Don Reynolds, that the property owners effected should have
the major voice in the consideration of the name change. This
was especially true since their section of the street was platted
' some five years prior to the section where Mr. Davies lived.
334
Enclosed is a copy of the letter I sent to Mr. Davies on this
subject which reiterates the problems involved with any street
name change. The present petitioner is one of the owners of '
property between Garfield and Elizabeth. However, he does not
want to drastically change the name of the street. At its
October 4, 1976, meeting the Planning and Zoning, Board voted
unanimously to recommend to the City Council that Robertson
Street between Garfield and East Elizabeth Street be changed
to a completely new name and that this name be recommended
to the City Council by the petitioner.
Recommendation: Although I personally feel that it would be
advantageous to change the name of Robertson Street between
Garfield and Elizabeth, I think that this is a decision that
has to be made with Dr. Harling and his associates. If he
can come up with a name acceptable to him and his neighbors and
at the same time accpetable to our emergency personnel, I think
we should honor this request."
Dr. Mallory T. Harling whose office is located at 1023 Robertson
spoke to the Council regarding this problem and requested that
possibly signs could be attached to the corner street signs at
Elizabeth and Lemay directing people to the professional offices
on Robertson.
An unidentified resident of the 1100 block of Robertson spoke in
favor of Dr. Harling's request for the signs. ,
Several members of the Council expressed concern that if signs
were allowed to be posted or attached to the street sign posts
this would set a precedent.
Councilman Bloom made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Reeves to
honor Dr. Harling's request with the intent and knowledge that
this is an experimental solution, to check with the parties
involved and to report back in six months. Yeas: Councilmembers
Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves and Russell, Nays: Councilmembers
Suinn and Wilkinson.
Support of Proposition I Denied
Following is the City Manager's memorandum regarding this item
"At its September 28, 1976, meeting„ the Parks and Recreation
Board reviewed a recommendation to support Proposition I in
the November election. Proposition I establishes a state lotter
with any surplus going to the Conservation Trust Fund. The
Conservation Trust Fund provides money to various cities and other
recreation activities. The Colorado Municipal League has supported
Proposition I.
Recommendation: T''ne Administration recommends that the City Council '
adopt a position in support of Proposition I."
335
Councilman Bloom stated he had been researching this proposition
very carefully and it is his feeling that it is a sweepstakes
' for the dog and horse racing industry and not a lottery.
Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Reeves
that the Council adopt a position in support of Proposition I.
Yeas: Councilmembers Gray and Reeves. Nays: Councilmembers
Bloom, Bowling, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson.
Possible Ballot Items for the April Election
Discussion of this item has been scheduled for a work session
on November 16. 1976.
Tennis Court Reservation Svstem
Following is the City Manager's memo regarding this memo:
At its September 28, 1976, meeting, the Parks and Recreation Board had
a
discussion on the tennis court reservation system. Enclosed is a copy
of
the minutes of the meeting pertaining to this section.
The Board recommended
that the City again use all six Edora courts for 1977 on
a reservation
system.
Other recommended changes are as follows:
'
1. Begin the reservation system the end of May rather than the first part
of May due to inclement weather.
2. Set the schedule as follows -- Weekdays
5:00 p.m. -
9:30 p.m.
jvery few players at
3:00 p.m.)
Saturdays & Holidays
9:30 a.m. -
3:30 p.m.
5:00 p.m. -
9:30 p.m.
Sundays
13:30 p.m. -
9:30 p.m.
3. Sell fifteen admission passes for $30 representing a 20% discount.
4. Add additional services such as a pay phone, pop machine, and lights around
the shed.
Recommendation: The Administration recommends that the City Council adopt the
first three recommendations with regard to the Edora Park tennis court reservation
system. The Administration further recommends that they be requested to
investigate the cost and feasibility of providing the additional services
suggested such as the pay phone, pop machine, and lights.
1
336
Councilmembers asked Tom Frazier of the Parks and Recreation
Department questions regarding the expenses and revenue and the
use of the system. (Summary report in Central Files.) '
Councilman Suinn made a motion, seconded by Councilman Russell
that the reservation system for the Edora Park Tennis Courts be
terminated. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves,
Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
November Meeting Dates Rescheduled
Mayor Wilkinson stated that since Tuesday, November 2, 1976 is the
General Election and a regular meeting day f= the Council, a
motion would be in order to change the Council meeting to the next
week. Also, since there are five Tuesdays in the month of
November the meeting of November 16th could be rescheduled to
November 23rd.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bloom
to adjourn the regular meeting of November 2, 1976 to November 9,
1976 at 5:30 P.M. and to adjourn the regular meeting of November 16,
1976 to November 23, 1976 at 5:30 p.m. Yeas: Councilmembers
Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson.
Nays: None.
Citizen Participation I
a. Proclamation for Youth Appreciation Week was read by Deputy
City Clerk LaVonne Dowell.
b. Proclamation for Toastmistress Members was read by Deputy
City Clerk LaVonne Dowell. Ms. Peggy Jordan from the local
Toastmistress Club was present to receive the proclamation.
C. Proclamation for the Right to Read Week October 25 to October 29.
d. Certificates of Appreciation for Outgoing Boards and Commissions
Members:
James L. MacNair, Liquor Licensing Authority
Ann Azari, Human Relations Commission
Abel C. Amaya, Parks and Recreation Board
Victor Baez, Human Relations Commission
Report from City Manager
1) The City sold a surplus fire truck, 1953 GMC to Adolph Coors
Company in Golden for $6,010.00.
2) Staff to meet, Tuesday, October 26, 1976 to go over,the new '
management accounts structure.
337
3) This was the last week for sending, out full agendas, the
Council will continue to receive full agendas but hereafter
1 the number of full agendas will be cut by 50%
4) The Liability Insurance Committee is meeting twice a month
and is currently working on risk management programs and with
Leonard Wilson on new specifications.
5) Ellen Thexton is working on getting seed money for various
programs so there is no financial loss to the City.
6) Three hundred and twelve dollars was received from the VFW
for the remainder of 1976 to take care of the transportation
program for the handicapped.
7) A grant from Larimer County and the Land Use Commission for
$3500 through HB-1041 was received to utilize our IMGRID
land use model.
8) The City through Mayor Wilkinson has been notified by
Jack Kinstlinger of the Colorado Department of Highways
that we will be receiving $267,094 for Urban Systems projects.
The City will need to match this with $93,844.
Dear Mr. Wilkinson:
' The State Highway Commission at their August 5th and September 16th, 1976
meetings allocated $10,172,870 in Federal funds for projects on the Federal -aid.
Urban (FAU) System as designated in the Federal -aid Systems realignment.'
effective July i, 1976. This sum represents $8,506,965 from the Fiscal Year 1977
FAU apportionment and $1,665,905 from the transitional quarter apportionment.
The total amount has been allocated by the Commission to the 22 urban places and
urbanized areas eligible for projects on the FAU system.
The sum of $267,094 in Federal funds has been allocated for projects within
your Urban Area. These funds will require a sum of $93,844 in matching funds,
resulting in a total of $360,938 for projects on the FAU system. The matching
funds can be state and/or local funds. However, by statute, state funds can be used
only for projects on the State Highway System. In addition, our records indicate
you still have $98,677 in unused Urban- Systems funds from previous year
allocations, resulting in a total of $459,615 available for projects on the FAU
system.
Our appropriate District Engineer will contact you shortly to be of assistance
in your process of selecting projects. As you well know, projects that are selected
must be agreed to by all eligible agencies within you5/Urban Area. A formal
agreement will be required. A j
Director
338
9) The Golf Board has elected the following officers:
President
Vice President
Secretary
Bud Crandall
Dell Goodman
Mel Davis
10) The Information Desk report for the three month period
ending in September - total inquiries, either by personal
contact or telephone were 7,632 averaging over 110 inquiries
per day.
11) Handouts:
1) Per capita revenue figures for Colorado Cities.
2) Analysis of City General Fund Budget.
3) Had a meeting with the Budget Committee in Denver with
the consultant who put the "Zero Base" budgeting system
in Garland, Texas and Wilmington, Maryland. Materials
on zero base budgeting for review and study.
4) Boards and Commissions Manual.
Report from City Council Members on Committees
Councilman Bloom stated he had attended a meeting regarding
Fire and Police Pension Plans with the Colorado Municipal League
in Denver on Thursday, October 14.
Councilman Bowling announced that the next site location meeting
for the Platte River Power Authority will be held at the Weld
County Exhibition Hall in Greeley at 7:30 on November 4.
1
1
Mayor Wilkinson stated he has a ballot from the National League
of Cities regarding changes in the bylaws. Material given to
Councilwoman Gray for review and to report back with a recommendation
on how to vote.
Resolution Adopting the 1977 Budget
The City Manager's memorandum regarding this item follows:
339 1
"The budget is a year-round process. In May, June, and July,
we had series of work sessions with departments and staff
personnel. A preliminary budget was submitted to Council
on September 3. Budget work sessions were held on September 8,
9, 13, and 14. The budget was revised slightly and the City
Manager's official budget submitted to Council on September 21.
The Council held public hearings on the budget on the evenings
of October 11 and 12. At that time a number of changes were made
by the City Council in an attempt to balance incoming revenues
in 1977 with outgoing expenditures. This means that we would not
use any of our reserve funds. Listed below is a summary of the
General Fund balance.
GENERAL FUND BUDGET SUMMARY
1977
Beginning Fund Balance (1/l/77)
Estimated 1977 Revenues
Total Revenues & Resources
Proposed Expenditures
Ending Fund Balance (12/31/77)
$ 837,006
8,471,036
30 ,
8,574,740
$ 733,302
' If we do not use any of our $100,000 contingency in 1977, we will
only spend $3,704 more than the revenues received in the same
period. However, because we view the budget only as authorization'
to spend and not as license to spend, we hope that we can end
1977 with an ending fund balance equal to or greater than the
beginning fund balance.
During this budget process we have focused on the General Fund.
The total budget, however, is $37,050,706. At several staff
budget sessions, there were considerable reductions made in all
three of our utilities and in the Equipment Fund. They come
under the same close scrutiny as General Fund departments. All
three of our utilities are well managed; however, because of
anticipated rate increases in both the electric and water utilities,
we plan to start the 1978 budget process in these two departments
the latter part of this year or the first part of 1977.
Recommendation: The Administration recommends that the City
Council adopt -the aforementioned Resolution adopting the budget
for the 1977 calendar year."
1
340
RESOLUTION 76- 69
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS-ADOPTING A BUDGET OF THE ESTIMATED
AMOUNTS REQUIRED TO PAY THE EXPENSES OF CONDUCTING THE BUSINESS OF THE CITY '
GOVERNMENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1977, AND FIXING THE MILL
LEVY FOR SAID YEAR PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE V OF THE CITY CHARTER.
WHEREAS, the City Manager has heretofore prior to the first Monday in
October, 1976, submitted to the Council a proposed budget for the next ensuing
budget year with an explanatory message pursuant to the provisions of Section 2,
Article V, of the City Charter, and
WHEREAS, the Council thereafter within 10 days after the filing of said
budget estimates set October 11 and 12, 1976, as the date for public hearings
thereon and caused notice of such public hearing to be given by publication
pursuant to Section 3, Article V, of the City Charter, and
WHEREAS, Section 4, Article V, of the City Charter provides that the
Council shall adopt the budget for the ensuing fiscal year and shall fix the tax
levy after said public hearing and before the last day of November of each year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS,
that the budget prepared in detail by the said City Manager in compliance with
the provisions of Section 2, Article V, of the City Charter for the fiscal year
ending December 31, 1977, be and the same is hereby adopted as a basis for the
annual appropriations ordinance for the fiscal year ending December 31, 1977,
as follows: ,
DISBURSEMENTS BY APPROPRIATIONS
GENERAL FUND:
$ 48,861
CityCouncil ............................... .........
128,330
..............................
City Manager ............
103,761
City Clerk
City Attorney ...... ...........................
3,410
Boards and Commissions ........................
66,782
Municipal Court ............................. ......••.
G.A.S.
48,407
Administration .................................••
93,433
Personnel...........................................
" �•�������
63,488
Purchasing ...................... " " " "
198,527
%lanagement Information Services ....................
236,579
,fi11dings and Grounds ..............................
41,424
Employee Health and Safety .........................
176,872
Stock Control ......................................
154,568
Transportation .....................................
•....
.........
260,519
Finance .....................................
�i70,851
70,851
Utility Billing ...............................• ••.
000
Insurance and Retirement ..........................
53,014
Comm. Projects and Open Space ............. .::::::::::.
148,659
Planning ..............................................
1,715,676
Police ..................................... .........
1,202,328
Fire ........................................
341
Human Resources ....................................... $ 220,685
Engineering Services
Administration ..................................... 47,647
Engineering ............... 290,569
Building Inspection ................................ 194,750
Traffic and Street Lights .......................... 473,790
Streets and Alleys ................................. 610,273
Parks and Recreation
Administration ..................................... 44,716
Recreation ......................................... 369,386
OutdoorPool ....................................... 46,943
IndoorPool ........................................ 144,144
Senior Citizens .................................... 35,252
Youth Centers ...................................... 44,832
Parks .............................................. 438,074
Forestry........................................... 106,637
Grandview.......................................... 143,021
Roselawn........................................... 44,158
Library ............................................... 434,308
Cultural Affairs ...................................... 45,597
Transfers ............................................. 10,000
Contingency ........................................... 100,000
Total................................................. $9,222,463
LESS INTER -FUND TRANSFERS 647,723
' TOTAL GENERAL FUND ..................$8,574,740
Total Capital Improvements ............................ 5,630,392
LESS INTER -FUND TRANSFERS .260,770
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS $5,369,622
Revenue Sharing .................. $ 914,928
LESS ENTER -FUND TRANSFERS 830,883
TOTAL REVENUE SHARING ................................. $ 84,045
Housing Rehabilitation ................................. $ 383,216
LESS INTER -FUND TRANSFERS 10,000
TOTAL HOUSING REHABILITATION $ 373,216
Equipment ............................................. $ 993,723
LESS INTER -FUND TRANSFERS ............................. 9932723
TOTAL EQUIPMENT ....................................... $ -0-
J4L
Golf ................................................. $ 316,394
LESS INTER -FUND TRANSFERS 26,234
TOTAL GOLF ........................................... $ 290,160
Water Fund
Source of Supply .................................. $ 123,520
Purification and Treatment ........................ 349,955
Transmission and Distribution ..................... 387,382
Administration and Billing ........................ 477,318
Transfers......................................... 1,255,850
Water Capital Improvements ........................ 8,517,000
Water Bond Payment ................................ 355,850
Total ................................................ $11,466,875
LESS INTER -FUND TRANSFERS 1,444,635
TOTAL WATER FUND ..................................... $10,022,240
Sewer Fund
Trunk and Collection .............. :............... $ 215,038
Sewage Treatment .................................. 757,550
Administration and Billing ........................ 300,375
Transfers ........................ 461,505 ,
Sewer Capital Improvements 703,000
Sewer Bond Payment 391,505
Total ............... $ 2,828,973
LESS INTER -FUND TRANSFERS 587,525
TOTAL SEWER FUND .................................••.• $ 2,241,448
Light and Power Fund
Purchase Power ....................... $ 5,534,023
Transmission and Distribution 743,794
Administration and Billing ...... 715,574
Transfers ...................... 1,392,260
Light and Power Capital ........................... 3,101,844
Total ............. .................. $11,487,495
LESS INTER -FUND TRANSFERS ............................ 1,392,260
TOTAL LIGHT AND POWER FUND ........................... $10,095,235
GRAND TOTAL EXPENDITURES .-•••" ....... .............. $37,050,706 '
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the mill levy rate for taxation upon all
the taxable property within the corporate limits of the city of Fort Collins
for the fiscal year ending December 31, 1977, shall be 10.00 mills, which levy
represents the amount of taxes for City purposes necessary to provide for pay—
ment during the ensuing budget year of all properly authorized demands against
the City. Said mill levy shall be distributed as follows:
General Expense......................................10.00 mills
being a total of 10.00 mills, which levy as so distributed shall be certified
to the County Assessor and the Board of County Commissioners of Larimer County,
Colorado, by the Director of Finance as provided by law.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of
Fort Collins this 19th day of October A.D. 1976.
�n���i1�32CJ
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk. (Deputy)
' Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilman Russell
to adopt the resolution adopting the 1977 budget. Yeas: Council -
members Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: Council -
members Bloom and Bowling.
Ordinance Adopted on First Reading Concerning the
Annual Appropriation Ordinance for the 1977 Calendar Year
The City Manager's memorandum regarding this follows:
"Ordinance No. 86, 1976 is the companion ordinance to the
resolution adopting the budget. The Appropriati m Ordinance is
a requirement of state law and the City Charter. The City makes
its expenditures on the basis of the Appropriation Ordinance.
Only under certain conditions and with Council approval can these
appropriations be altered. The ordinance allows for expenditures
of $37,050,076 in the 1977 calendar year."
Councilwoman Gray made a motion,_seconded by Councilman Suinn to
adopt Ordinance No. 86, 1976 on first reading. Yeas: Council -
members Gray,. Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays:
Councilmen Bloom and Bowling.
344
Consider Implementing Remaining Portions of Seven Year
Capital Improvements Program
City Manager Brunton reviewed again his memo to the Council
dated October 12, 1976.
Recommendation I - That the City Council adopt the August 31 1976, estimate
SIS_838.770 for the Seven -Year Capital Program.
Projected Revenue for Seven -Year Capital Program
Sales Tax -April 1 1973 to March 30, 1980
Interest and Youth Center Funds
1973 $ 991,632 (9-month)
1974 1,670,935
1975 1,883,535
1976 2,207,894
1977 2,539,078 (tax on food)
1978 2,423,549 (no tax on food)
1979 2,787,083 (no tax on food)
1980 758,017 (3 months -no tax on food)
Sub -total $15,261,723
Interest Income 500,000 ,
Youth Center Funds 76,547
Total $15,838,270
Recommendation II - That the City Council confirm the previously allocated or
council approved allocation in the amount of $15,216,326.
Seven -Year Capital Improvements Program
Previously Allocated or
Approved by Council
Long Range Plan $ 62,892
Avery House 100,000
Downtown Redevelopment 250,000
Library 1,877,500
Fort Collins Museum 275,000
345
1
1
Previous Allocated or
Approved by Council
Lincoln Community Center
$ 2,200,000*
New Fire Station 3 Replacement
155,000
New Fire Station 2 Replacement
200,000
Lincoln Junior High School
304,740
Fort Collins Community Building
440,793
Open Space
2,300,000
Municipal Building
2,004,451**
Park Land Transfer
175,000
Sewer to Andersonville
76,395
Storm Drainage
2,000,000
Transportation Study
26,555
Transportation System
720,000
Street Improvements
1,600,000
Financial Reserve
Interest
50,000
Administration
400,000
TOTAL
$15,218,326
* Excludes expenditures from private contribution
**Includes $1,866,000 for new construction and expenditures to date
Recommendation III - That the remaining $619 944 be allocated as follows:
Project
Previous Amount
Amount Added
New Total
Street Improvements
$1,600,000
$ 200,000
$1,800,000
Library (parking lot)
1,877,500
70,000
1,947,500
Fire Station 3 Replacement
155,000
70,000
225,000
Fire Station 2 Replacement
200,000
50,000
250,000
Fire Training Center
---
100,000
100,000
Downtown Redevelopment
250,000
129,944
379,944
Total
$4,082,500
$ 619,944
$4,702,444
191M
Recommendation IV - That the two remaining ro'ects namely the i.ce-skating
rink and swimmin ool be deferred and be eventually financed
through an extension of the sales tax capital prozram
from Community Development entitlement monev or other sources
Recommendation V - That the administration be directed to complete a revised
cash flow projection for all projects through March 31,
1980. The report should be available on November 15, 1976,
Mr. Brunton stated that the Administration is requesting tacit
approval of each of the recommendations or officially consider
each recommendation.
Mr. Herb Brauer, 421 South Howes, spoke to the monies allocated
to the Auditorium project.
Councilmembers expressed the following views on each of the
recommendations:
Councilman Bloom:
Recommendation I - an estimate of revenues.
Recommendation II - confirmation of allocations.
Recommendation III
A. Street Improvements - necessary
B. Library Parking Lot - need to look at other sources
first.
C. Fire State Replacements - should acquire land but
defer building to later on.
D. Fire training center - wants further justification
as to need.
E. Downtown Redevelopment - no comment until later in
meeting when there is discussion on this item.
1
1
Recommendation IV - Ice skating rink and the swimming pool - these
projects should be kept at least on paper at this
time; to delete them at this time would be a disservice
to the community, at sometime in the future these
projects may have to be deleted, delay decision
until then.
Recommendation V - Full agreement that revised flow projections
are needed.
Councilman Bowling: Full agreement with Councilman Bloom on
Recommendation I and II.
Recommendation III - the surplus should be divided but not sure
of how just yet.
347
A. Street Improvements are short, yes.
B. Library parking lot, wait to see if it is needed.
C. Fire stations - perhaps we should hold.
D. Training Center - not convinced that this amount
should be spent and that the facility is needed.
E. Knows critical state of the Downtown and would
like to see reserves in case we do need more to
put into this project.
Councilwoman Cray: concurs with Councilman Bloom on Recommendation IV
that it be put on a low priority; all of the rest
of the recommendations look fair and reasonable;
believes the fire training center,has been thoroughly
studied and justified.
Councilwoman Reeves: no additional comments on Recommendations I
and II.
Recommendation III - feels the administration is asking
for direction on how to allocate the remaining funds;
should go ahead and purchase the property for the
Library parking lot; has concern about the Fire
Station replacement, Fire training center to be
placed at the Power Plant; should contribute addi-
tional funds to the downtown redevelopment.
' Councilman Russell: no additional comments on Recommendation I and
II, should proceed with the Library parking, lot
negotiations; Downtown Redevelopment needs more
cash input, defer the swimming pool and ice skating
rink; the assumption that the extension of the sales
tax is an even break in that the desires of.thP ci_ti— s
regarding the entire capital improvement fund
predicated on the premise that in '77 our income
does include food sales tax and possibly no sales
tax from there on would leave the Council in a
negotiable position on other committments.
Councilman Suinn: no action on Recommendation I; Recommendation II
has already been acted on; Recommendation III,
Library parking lot, no action at this time;
Fire station replacement and training center there
has been previous justification for the training
center and feels that he is being asked for an
additional $220,000 allocation. Until there is
a statement as to why that increase is needed and
a statement of alternatives for resolving the issue
he is unwilling to vote on this issue; on Downtown
Redevelopment he is being asked to vote before
hearing the proposal and wishes to defer his comments
until later. Recommendations IV and V prefers to
348
use the word priority with the understanding that
probability of getting to it is minimal.
Mayor Wilkinson: Recommendations I and II have been acted upon.
Recommendation III - the $200,000 should remain, the
Library parking lot property should be purchased,
there has been considerable input on the Fire
training center and it is needed, the Downtown
Redevelopment proposal should be presented first
even though it has his full support.
Recommendation IV - should be deferred.
Recommendation V - supports fully.
An unidentified handicapped woman spoke to the Council regarding
parking facilities near the Library for the handicapped.
Consensus of the Council was tacit approval of the City Manager's
Recommendations I, II, IV and V, Recommendation III action deferred
until after report from Downtown Redevelopment Task Force Report.
Consider Recommendation and Possible Allocation
of Communitv Development Entitlement Funds
Discussion of this item deferred until after report of the Downtown I
Redevelopment Task Force Report.
Consider Recommendation from Larimer County Human
Resource Board for Funding Recommendations
for Calendar Year 1977
The City Manager's memo regarding this follows
"In 1973 the City of Fort Collins began receiving Revenue Sharing
money. Revenue Sharing was and is considered by many local officials
to be a "federally collected and locally shared" tax. The major
purpose of Revenue Sharing is to alleviate restrictive financial
situations in most cities. At the same time, the federal government
started to phase out many of their categorical grant programs and
Office of Economic Opportunity projects in the social service
delivery area with the philosophy that the people at the local level
are best able to determine what types ofprograms and projects should
be funded. This philosophy is one of the justifications for our
City's involvement in human resources, especially the social service
financial assistance program. Another justification for the City
assisting the financing of various social service agencies is that,
if these agencies do not remain solvent, there will'be either a
service vacuum left in the City, or the City may have to take over ,
the program. The City's financial contributions to most projects
349
are a minor but essential part of the budget.
' Listed below is a summary of the actual expenditures or budgeted
amount of financial assistance to social service agencies:
1973 $ 4,567
1974 63,044
1975 77,075
1976 85,774
1977 85,000
Initially, the City determined the fund allocations on its own.
After the first year, however, the Larimer Human Resource Board was
created, consisting of representatives from the Cities of Fort
Collins and Loveland and tarimer County. Earlier this year, the
City Council informed the Larimer County Human Resources Board that
they could make the funding allocations for a sum not to exceed
$85,000. City Council, however, would still retain the authority
to review and approve each one of the funding agencies. Robert W.
Sherwood, Chairman of the Board, and all of the other Board members
did an excellent job in preparing this year's report. Conies of
this report were previously submitted to all Council members.
Enclosed is a copy of the 1977 Recommended Allocations by Participating,
Governments. Since in effect the City of Fort Collins is purchasing
services from the various agencies, we will have to prepare the
necessary contracts after receiving final approval from the Council.
There has been some discussion of
the role of City government in
funding social agencies in view
of
our economic situation. Any
evaluation of the type and level
of
services funded by the City
of Fort Collins should be discussed
along with other 1978 budget
items during January, February,
and
March, 1977.
Recommendation: The Administration recommends that the Citv Council
approve the 1977 recommended allocations for the City of Fort Collins
and instruct the Administration and City Attorney to prepare the
necessary service contracts."
Council was further advised by the City Manager that each agency
agreement would have to be discussed individually at a, later date.
Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilman Russell to
accept the recommendations of the Human Resources Board. Yeas:
,Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and
Wilkinson. Nays: None.
350
Consider 1977 Recreation Fees
Following is the proposed fee schedules and a letter from I
Robert J. Hunt, President of the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board:
I^ REATION RATE ANALYSIS - 197' Exhibit I.
1977
Present 1977 Proposal 1977 Proposal 1977 Activity
ctivity Fee Revenue.. I Revenue II Revenue Costs
o -
wchery - 4 160 4 160 10 400 567
lasketball:
Adult
125
JAA -
5
Ponytail
5
la ton
4
:oating:
Rec. Boat Program.
varies
Small Crafts Inst.
rafts, Adult
ance:
Belly Dancing
Children's - Tap; Ballet
Ft. Collins Folk Dancers
Modern Dance
og Obedience
ootball:
Flag
Grandstand Quarterback
JAA
i.tness, Adult
un Time
U
12,500
130
13,boo
150 15,000
12,216
4,250
6
5,100
10 8,500
11,494*
2,450
6
2,94o
10 4,9oo
8,092*
132
4
132
10 330
540
4,000 4,000 4,000
2,100 2,100 2,100
4,800 8 4,800 10 6,000
8
5,600
8
5,600
10
7,000
3
300
4�
400
5
500
•75
498
.75
498
.75
498
8
400
8
400
10
500
25
600
25
600
25.
600
3,61'
1,4or,
4,79'.
3,064
1,227
48o
500
115
3,220
125
3,500
150
4,200
3,122
0
0
0
80
6
4,5oo
6
4,500
10
7,500
6,946
0
0
8
1,200.
10
1,500
1,092
10
5,000
10
5,000
15
7,500
6,696
351
'reenware Ceramics 14 812 20. 1,160 25 1,450
3stics, Junior 4 400 5 500 10 1,000
Saturday 0 0 0
,lVacation 0 0 0
i,andicapped varies 4,000** 4,000 4,0oo
Ice Skating 5 500 6 600 10 1,000
Intramurals (H.S.;.JAA) 3 360 3 36o 3 360
Judo, Junior 4 40o 5 500 10 1,000
Playgrounds 3 1,950 5 3,250 10 6,500
Pottery, Adult (adv.:) 35 7,000 45 8,700 50 9,600
(Be Int.)( 30 37 40
9•: J
" Children's 10 12 15
Senior Citizens varies 4,000 4,000 4,0oo
Skiing:
Alpine varies 22,500 22,590 22,500
Specials varies 500 500 500
Slimnastics 8 2,200 8 2,200 10 2,750
SoOnytail
r:
5 1,750 6 2,100 10 3,500
5 1,000 6 1,200 10 2,000
Softball:
Adult 145 23,200 l60' 24,300 175 28,000
Invitational 60 960 70 1,120 75 1,200
JAA 5 1,750 6 - 2,100 10 3,500
Ponytail 5 1,825 6 2,190 10 3,650
Tournaments 25 fast 45 1,800 50 6,0o0
slow 38 3,o40
Special Events (Elitches; 6.757 1,260' 7 1,26o
track meets; frisbee;
spook house)
ipecial Interest Act. 8 1,600 - 8 1,600. 10 2,000
(guitar; cooking, etc.)
352
urvival, Wilderness
16
512
urvival, Winter
16
320
ennis:
Adult
8
2,400
Jr. League
6
540
Jr. Lessons
5
2,250
Private Lessons - i
15
1,400
1.
30
Semi -Private ': -
11
- 1
22
Reservations, Court
2.50
3,000
Tumbling
4
400
Volleyball:
Adult-
50
6,00
Co-ed'
.Mixed
5
9
Yoga, Adult
20
2,8
Mouth Centers
varies
'9
t6.
512
16
512
16
320
16
320
8
2,400
10
3,000
8
720
10
goo
6
2,700
7.50
3,375
15
1,400
15
1,400
30
'
30
11
I
22
22
2.50
3,000
2.50
3,000
5
500
10
1,000
65
7,800
75
9,00
00 5
00 20
00 . .
146,889
C Contractual.
Includes present rate for custodians.
** Contract of service with Foothill Gateway
*** Includes $850 in capital.
*** Includes $360 in capital.
353
goo
2,800
goo
164,762
330, 321
1,920
1.,629 .
6,685***'
1,000
2,o49
520
0 8,444*
10 1,800
720*
20 2,800
2,4'''
goo
20,3�
201,305
275,120
1
October 14, 1976
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Fort Collins
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
Re: Fee Structure for Recreation Programs
Dear Council Members:
Members of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board were on hand October 11,
1976 to assist Council with input relative to the recreation fee structure
and overall cost drafts. In a short discussion at break time with the
Mayor and City Manager, it became apparent that recreation fees had
previously been discussed and set for budget purposes, however, it was
indicated that the final decision for these fees would be October 19.
The purpose of this letter is to further clarify the position of the
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board relative to fees.and explain further
the.minutes of our September 28 meeting. At that meeting, the Board
concluded that it was neither Councils, the City Manager's or the
Board's responsibility to actually indicate and set fees by program.
' The expertise, knowledge and capabilities of doing this is with the
Parks and Recreation Department staff. They have had many more years of
experience and background.to know which fees should be increased to help
defray the overall cost of recreation. The Board also concluded that
for the current year, the excess of expenditures not covered by revenue,
should not exceed 15 percent over the previous year which would be
approximately $35,000 of added net cost to the City. This allowed an
additional budget net cost increase to cover existing low income programs,
handicapped programs and senior citizen programs. The Board's philosophy
is that if the'net change of expenditures over revenue is anywhere from
zero to a justificable percentage, then it becomes of little concern as
to the individual program fees and costs, other than a constant evaluation
for continuation. That is to say, if the fees increase by $40,OOO in a
year and the'costs increase by $40,000, the overall budget has not
changed. If the fee structure does not cover the additional costs,
there should be justification. If Council desires more revenue generated
to cover cost, they should indicate total revenue desired and direct the
Parks and Recreation Department and its personnel to generate those fees
in total, avoiding the concern of which program should have a charge of
what fee.
1 354
I have some personal concern over the budget as it exists now in that
the proposal #2 fee structure by program was not generated by the Parks
and Recreation Department and its personnel, nor did they have much input
relative thereto. Proposal #1 as submitted was that of the Department
and its personnel. Proposal #2 was a revision by the City Manager, Bob
Brunton, and/or his staff and I question their ability to allocate fees
by program based on any factual matter. It concerns me that this may be
an arbitrary fee allocation to increase revenue.. I do not question the
fact that revenue should be increased, although I do question just'the
random increasing of fees without justification and without substantiation.
If it is the Council's belief that the fees should be $201,000 as opposed
to $146,000 or somewhere there between, they should direct the Parks and
Recreation Department and its personnel to make the appropriate allocation
among programs based on their expertise and knowledge.
The Advisory Board's information and input for Council was to have shown
that the costs of recreation programs increased over the past years with
the inflationary scale. However, the fees have not increased at a
proportional rate. On -the -other hand, the cost per capita, based on
population, has reduced over the past years. The Board does feel that
fees should be increased and do not hesitate in that respect. However,
they feel strongly about increasing the fees and simulataneously decreasing
the expenses for programs. The adjustments made to the recreation
budget on October 11, plus the fee schedule proposal lit as previously
agreed to by Council, makes the net results for the year a total revenue
increase in excess of total expense increase. This may be a good move '
financially, but may seriously hurt the overall positive effect of some
recreation programs as it relates to the citizens of the City of Fort
Collins. If you so request, we will have members of the Advisory Board
attend Council meeting on October 19, 1976, however, I will not be able
to attend as I have another Board meeting that night. This is one of
the reasons I desire to give my input to Council members at this time.
Very truly yours,
Rober Hunt, Pfesident
ParXs and Recreation Advisory Board
RJH:kh
cc: Robert L. Brunton, City.Manager
H.R. Phillips, Parks S Recreation Director
355
Mr. Duane Miller, a member of the Board, was present and spoke
to several aspects of the recreation program.
Councilman Bowling asked Mr. Miller to explain the Parks and
Recreation Board's intent as set out in the second paragraph.
Mr. Miller stated that the Board itself did not feel qualified
to set the individual fees, and that the Parks and Recreation
Staff deal with it daily and they deal with those persons who
participate and they (P&R Staff) are the ones to be responsible
for setting fees. The Board agreed with the Parks and Recreation
Staff proposal.
Councilwoman Gray spoke to the increase of 15% revenues which
the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board had discussed at their
last meeting.
Councilwoman Reeves spoke to the difference in proposed revenue
as set out in Proposal I and Proposal II and that at some time
there will need to be revenue to pay for the programs.
Tom Frazier from the Parks and Recreation Department, spoke to
the 15`/ increase in revenues explaining that the net difference
between the expenses and revenue should not exceed 15%.
In Proposal I there is a difference of about 17% and does not
really fit into the guidelines as set out by the Advisory Board.
In Proposal II there is a 2.29'/ net increase from last year.
Councilman Russell stated he would favor a meeting with the Parks
and Recreation Advisory Board in connection with the programs.
He feels that the adult program should carry its "fair share,"
and we must also decide how much "parks and recreation" can we
afford as a city.
Councilman Suinn stated he felt that there are two separate issues
being discussed: 1) what is the best means for establishing a
figure "to shoot at," or what figure should expenditures be over
revenues, as in this case expenditures should not be more than
15% over revenues; 2) the establishment of exact fees in order
to generate revenues. Because of the indication that there was
concern that the opportunity to establish the fees in a more
systematic fashion was lacking. He suggested that Council defer
action on this., The Parks and Recreation Board, the Parks and
Recreation Staff and the City Administration get together and find
a mutual understanding, as to what is a desirable way of increasing
the fee schedule. The Council has given direction to all areas
where fees are collected and that there must be an increase to bring
revenues more in line to expenditures.
Councilman Suinn made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bowling
to defer action, refer this back to the Administration to work
along with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and either
356
repeat the same proposal or some other proposal. Yeas: Council -
members Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson.
Nays: None.
Consider Increase in Park Land Fees
The City Manager's memorandum regarding this item is as follows:
"On August 31, 1976, the City Council reviewed a memorandum with
regard to Park Land Fees. In reviewing this fee, the City
Administration only utilized the Consumer Price Index. We have
since received several additional price indices. Roger E. Krempel,
our Water & Sewer Utilities Director, has provided supporting
material from the Handy Whitman and Engineering News Record Index
which indicates that both the water and sewer index have increased
by approximately 15% from January, 1972, to January, 1976.
Bill Holmes has several reports which indicate the cost of
residential land has been increasing at about 6 to 10% each year.
This means that in the 4-year period, January, 1972, to January,
1976, land prices increased between 24 and 40%. I received
similar information from the Planning Department. The recommended
increase in the Park Land Fee from $195 to $275 per residential
unit would be an increase of 41%. I will have additional material
available at the Council meeting for your information.
Recommendation: The Administration recommends that the City Council
instruct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance
raising the Park Land Fee from $195 to $275 per residential unit.
At the same time the Attorney and staff will devise the machinery
to implement collection of a Park Land Fee when a single-family
home is converted into a duplex. We will notify the developers
and contractors before this proposed ordinance is considered on
first reading."
Councilman Bloom questioned having a 41% increase all at once.
Councilman Bowling stated that with all of the fee increases the
lower income bracket cannot afford to buy homes and something
needs to be done, not sure just what.
Councilwoman Gray supports the raise because of the need to provide
some of the ammenities the City is asked to provide to the residents.
Councilwoman Reeves supports the increase, should review it yearly.
Councilman Russell had no comment
Councilman Suinn stated he agreed with the principal of growth
paying for itself and it is too bad that the cost is eventually
passed on to the consumer; possibly the increase could be gradual
instead of all at once.
357
Mayor Wilkinson stated the increase of such a substantial amount
is not justified at this point. The increase should be a little
at a time.
City Manager Robert Brunton stated he felt that the questions
to be answered first were: 1) Do we want growth to pay its
own way? 2) Do we want growth to come close to paying its own
way? or, 3) Do we want to subsidize its way?
The second issue is what steps should be taken each year to keep
up. These same problems were involved in the Plant Investment
Fees for Water and Sewer and the increases were made yearly at
the request of the contractors.
Councilman Bloom made a motion to increase the Park Land Fee
to $235.00, an approximate 20% increase, with instructions that
the Administration come back with a report a year from now
concerning any further increase. Councilman Suinn seconded the
motion. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Peeves,
Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
Mayor Wilkinson requested that there be some guidelines established
to determine what the increased fees should be.
Hearing on Formation of Proposed Downtown Improvement
District No. 1 (Special Improvement District)
Mr. Orm K. Sherwood, the Chairman of the Downtown Redevelopment
Task Force, introduced Herb Shaw from EDAW. Mr. Shaw reviewed
the project to date as they have designed the proposed improvements.
Mr. Sherwood presented the following report and spoke at length
to it.
The task force for implementation for the downtown redevelopment project makes the
following recommendations:
1. The organization of a Special Improvement District for construction of
beautification of the downtown area per plans and schedule attached.
2. The organization of a General Improvement District to complete
beautification and to develop parking for downtown.
3. That a project manager or construction manager concept be followed in
completing the project to allow some flexibility in an attempt to match
total project costs with total funding capabilities.
358
The task force is comfortable, both in terms of concept and cost projection, with the
proposed plan. It is a further recommendation of the task force that the following
priority schedule be adopted as a part of the plan to allow further redevelopment
on a funds available basis:
1. Completion of East Oak Street $ 32,000.00
2. Extention of the Plaza 36,000.00
3. Completion of East Olive 15,000.00
4. Canopies on Olive Street 34,000.00
S. 15" wall surrounding center planters 16,500.00
6. Street lighting 214,000.00
As of this date, all cost analysis has not been completed. It is, however, the
concensus of the task force that many of the above alternates can be included in the
final redevelopment project.
The program.as presented is within the cost limits as set by the coalition group
and includes all related costs of financing, architectural services, project
management, etc.
Finally, downtown redevelopment has been considered for over 25 years. That seems to
be an inordinate period of gestation. Perhaps it is time to transfer conversation and
speculation into something more concrete.
SOFTWARE COSTS BREAKDOWN
Special
Improvement ;
District City Funds
$700,000: $300,000
LESS:
Bond Costs $ 8,500
Interest 22,000
Administration 16,000
Architect and/or Engr. 54,7SO3)
359
General Improvement District
$1,100,000
$800,000 (73%)
$ 5,475
59,130
17,520
$300,000 (27%)
2,025
21,870
6,480
40,000 (Incl.$5,000 Soils Testing)
,coil Analysis
ting F, Advertising
aisals
hiisc. E Contingencies
1,000
1,000
12,750
$584,000
300,000( $300,000
266,000
Net for beautification $1,150,000 Net for Parking
1) $653,960 (rounded)
2) $266,040 (rounded)
3) Includes 15% of fee for construction supervision.
Does not include 5% for bidding and negotiation.
EDAW/JJR - FORT COLLINS DOWNTOWN PROJE
nrsTrN ADJUSTMENT #2
Special Improvement District Construction
1,000
7,500
15,415 3,585
$650,0001)
o Demolition
$ 93,340•-
0 Site utilities
56,667
o Curbs
37,982
o Concrete Pavement
80,557
o Stone Pavers
152,752
o Planting
110,283
o Furniture
49,968
o Concrete Wall 15"
N/A
0 12" Concrete Wall/Bench
28,136
0 32" Concrete Wall/Steps
38,588
o Fill for Vaults/Waterproof
396
o Fountain
40,563
o Irrigation
24,000
o Traffic Signal'lRelocation
52,800
360
,0002)
o Midblock
o . Midblock Tree Grates
Plus 10%
General Improvement District Construction
o Canopies
Plus 10%
TOTAL SPECIAL & GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS
16,200
11,880:
$ 794,114
79,411
$ 873,525
$ 338,800
38,880
372,680
$1,246,205
Less: General Contractor Allowance 115,000
-TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $1,131,.205
Councilman Suinn inquired into the canopy construction and the
fountain construction.
Councilwoman Gray inquired into the "walls" to be placed around the
planting area in the center of the street.
Other questions related to the maintenance, snow removal, restroom
facilities, Proposed parking lots, street lighting and funding.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman Russell
to approve the funds as requested from the entitlement funds and
Capital Improvement funds for approximately $353,000 subject to
meeting the legal requirements in connection with the entitlement
funds. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling„ Gray, Reeves, Russell,
Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
J
City Attorney March reviewed the hap_peningsto date regarding the
formation of a Downtown Improvement District No. 1 (SDecial
Improvement District) which are:
1. Documents showing a plan for the Downtown Improvements.
A) Brochure.
B) Designation of specific work to be done on the project as
set out in report submitted by Mr. Sherwood.
C) Map of downtown area.
D) Miscellaneous other items as Presented.
361
2) Items specific to the Special Improvement District are:
A) All items except the parking facilities, canopies and
the lighting.
B) Items included are demolition work,site utilities, curbs,
concrete pavement, stone pavers, Dlanting, furniture,
concrete walls, benches, steps, fill for vaults, water-
proofing, fountains, irrigation, traffic signal relocation,
mid block improvements, and mid block tree grids.'
C) Estimate for Drobable costs as set out $794,114.00 with
a 10'/ contingency making a total cost of $873,525.
3) One additional remonstrance has been filed by Richard Snyder
who owns property at 210 West Mulberry.
The City Manager's memo regarding this follows:
On August 17, the City Council passed resolutions
initiating the formation of a special improvement district
to accomplish a part of the improvements proposed for the
downtown area of the City. At that time it was intended
that the special district would be the vehicle which would
provide the beautification improvements which had been
designed by JJ&R and EDAW for the proposed project. Ti,if-ially,
it was contemplated that the boundaries of the special
improvement districts would encompass the same area as the
general improvement district which was also proposed (approxi-
mately three blocks each side of College Avenue and three
blocks on each side of Oak Street). It was also intended
that the overall area'of the district would be divided into
zones and the amount of the assessment would be determined
by a factor applied to each zone with the area immediately
adjoining College Avenue to have the largest factor and,
therefore, the largest assessment and diminishing factors as
the zones radiated out from College Avenue. .
The resolution passed on August 17 provided for a
hearing on September 21 on the question of forming the
district. Prior to the 21st of September, substantial
objections to the formation of the proposed district as
contemplated were presented to the City Council. These
objections, insofar as they related to the portion of the
project designated for the special improvement district,
centered around the cost of the proposed improvements, the
362
/^ 7
amount to be assessed against the property to pay for the
improvements, and the method of making assessments as it
related to specific properties in the district.
Reacting to the objections made by property owners in
the district, the City Council appointed Orm Sherwood as a
moderator (or mediator) to attempt to resolve the objections
to the proposed project and come up with a project which
would be acceptable to the people involved in the downtown
area. Following this, an additional group was formed consisting
of representatives from the original downtown commission and
representatives of the parties objecting to the project.
On September 21, 1976, the City Council opened the
hearing on the question of forming the proposed special
district. At that time, written remonstrances and objections
to the proposed district were received and Mr. Sherwood
presented a report from the coalition group recommending
changes in the plans and 'procedures for the district.
Primarily, this report recommended the following:
1. The proposed bypass not be implemented at this
time and all other possible means of relieving the traffic
on College Avenue be explored before any bypass is implemented.
2. The amount to be spent for the 'overall project,
including parking and beautification, be reduced to $2,150,000.00.
3. That the funding for the project be aligned as
follows: Special improvement district--$700,000.00; general
improvement district--$1,100,000.00; general city funds--
$350,000.00.
4. That the special improvement district be used
to fund, install and acquire beautification improvements but
that the purpose of the general improvement district be
enlarged to include some beautification work as well as the
parking. The intent of the recommendation was that the
$1,100,000.00 to be raised in the general improvement district
be divided $800,000.00 for parking and $300,000.00 for
beautification.
5. That the boundaries of the district be reduced
by deleting the areas previously proposed as No. 4 and No. 5
zones.
6. That the maximum cost include the items which
are normally additional cost items in special districts,
such as interest during construction, engineering, legal and ,
publication costs and the like.
01i',
The City Council accepted the report presented by Mr.
Sherwood. On the advice of the City Attorney, the hearing
for the special improvement district was then continued to
October 19 and the proceedings for the formation of the
general improvement district were terminated and re-
initiated with a new hearing date on the new general improve-
ment district for October 19. At that time, the Council
also appointed a new group to work with the City personnel
and the architects for the project in order to reduce the
cost of the proposed project and bring back more specific
recommendations on the project. This group has since been
formed and has been meeting.
The Administration anticipates that Mr. Sherwood will
present the report of the implementing group at the time the
hearing on the formation of the district is continued on the
19th of October. We anticipate that the report to be made
will recommend essentially the same plans as originally
proposed with .some modifications which may include planting
of more trees along College Avenue, deletion of some of the
trees originally intended on Linden Street, deletion of some
of the tree bank on the proposed Oak Street plaza, deletion
of some of the trees on East Oak Street, possible change in
material for sidewalk pavers, and other minor adjustments.
The concept of the original plan will be retained and the
revised plans essentially are minor adjustments to the
original plan and accommodations necessary because of the
deletion of the proposed bypass. We also anticipate that
the report will recommend that all of the improvements be
accomplished within the special improvement district except
the installation of the proposed canopies. These canopies
will be proposed to be installed in the general improvement
district.
Since the maximum amount to be assessed in the special
improvement district is to include all soft costs, such as
construction interest, engineering and the like.,. the amount
raised from the district which can be applied towards the
cost of the construction of improvements is projected at
approximately $584,000.00. This is based on anticipated
costs as follows:
Bond costs 1$8,500.00
.Interest during construction 22,000.00
Administration costs 16,000.00
Architect and/or engineering 54,750.00
Soil analysis 1,000.00
Printing and advertising 1,000.00
Miscellaneous and contingencies 12,750.00
364
We anticipate that the reports to be made will estimate the
cost of beautification improvements excluding canopies to
exceed this figure. The excess amount is expected to be
made up from the allocation being requested from the city at
large of up to $350,000.00. To the extent that the amount
allocated from general city funds is not expended within the
special improvement district, it would be intended that it
be spent in the general improvement district portion of the
project.
In view of the complexity of this matter and the fact
that bond attorneys will be preparing the actual ordinance
for formation of the district, it is intended that the
hearing will be completed on the 19th of October but that
the Council will adjourn the meeting of the 19th to the 26th
for the purpose of passing the ordinance which will complete
the proceedings forming the district. At that time it is
also intended that the Council will pass a resolution setting
forth the intent of the Council in the formation of the two
districts and covering a variety of subjects. A.draft of
this resolution is icluded in this agenda packet but is not
intended to be acted on until the meeting of the 26th.
Recommendation: The Administration recommends the following
actions:
1. Continue and complete the hearing on the
_ proposal to form the special improvement district considering
all remonstrances and objections that have previously been
filed and any that may be received on the 19th.
2. Determine to form the special improvement -_
district consisting of the revised boundaries, with the
property to be placed in three zones as recommended for the
purpose of determining the amount of the assessments to be
made..
3. Determine to allocate up to $350,000.00 from
general city funds towards the cost of the improvements to
be constructed within the framework of the special improvement
district and the general improvement district. (The Administra-
tion has further made recommendations to the Council as to
the source of such funds from the seven year capital improve-
ment program and the entitlement funds the city will be
receiving.)
4. Continue the hearing to October 26 (the date
to which this meeting is to be adjourned) for the purpose of
passing an ordinance forming the district.
365
Mr. March, City Attorney, answered questions and reviewed the
Administration recommendations at length.
A motion was made by Councilman Bowling, seconded by Councilwoman
Reeves to adopt the recommendationsas set out in Mr. Brunton's
memo. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Reeves, Suinn and
Wilkinson. Nays: None. Councilmembers Gray and Russell out of
room when vote was taken.
Hearing on Formation of Proposed Downtown General
Improvement District No. 1
Following is the City Manager's memo on this matter.
This is a companion matter to the question of forming
the special improvement district and concerns the proposed
downtown project. Materials that were included in the
memorandum on the special improvement district will not be
included in this memo but reference is made to that memorandum
for such materials.
' On September 21, 1976, in response to the report made
by Mr. Sherwood, the City Council terminated the previous
proceedings for the formation of a general improvement
district and initiated proceedings for formation of a revised
district. The principal revision was the addition of appro-
priate language so that beautification improvements could be
acquired and constructed in this proposed district. As
indicated, in connection with the special improvement district
Administration anticipates that the improvements which will
be constructed in this district will be the canopies proposed
in connection with the beautification project and the parking
lots. The recommendation is that approximately $800,000.00
be spent on parking lot acquisition and $300,000.00 be spent
on the beautification project. Soft costs allocable to the
$300,000.00 for the beautification are anticipated as follows:
Bond cost$2,025.00; interest during construction and until
collection of first tax--$21,870.00; administration expenses--
$6,480.00; miscellaneous and contingencies--$3,585.00. This
leaves approximately $266,000.00 from this allocation to pay
toward the cost of the canopies. It is anticipated that.the
366
canopies will involve more cost and to this extent the
proposal will request expenditure of general City funds from
the $350,000.00 allocation which has been requested.
Under the law providing for these districts, the City
Council acts as the governing board of the district but the
district is a separate governmental entity. As such a
separate governmental entity it will levy its own tax against
property within the district and will make decisions in.the
future as to the improvements to be acquired or installed,
the letting of contracts for such improvements, the means of
paying for the same, and similar matters. Therefore, this
district is not like the special improvement district and it
is not necessary at this time to adopt definite plans for
the improvements to be acquired.
In order to be able to assess a tax collectible in
1977, it will be necessary to certify a levy on behalf of
the district to the county by November 1. Therefore, Administra-
tion is recommending that the Council meet as the governing
body of the district immediately after the Council meeting
and establish a mill levy for 1977 in,.the-amount of
mills'and authorize this mill levy to be certified to the
county. At that time Administration will have available the
necessary documents to initiate an election so that bonded
indebtedness can be authorized for the district. This '
should be done at this time so that this election can be
held as soon as possible. Until the election is held and
bonded indebtedness.if authorized, the improvements to be
acquired through the general improvement district cannot be
let for bid.
Recommendation: The Administration recommends as follows on
this matter:
1. Council should open and conduct the hearing on
the question of forming the district and consider all remon-
strances or other objections which may be presented at the
hearing.
2. After the hearing, it is recommended that the
Council determine to form the district but continue further
proceedings until the adjourned meeting to be held on the
26th, at which time the ordinance establishing the district
and other proceedings connected with the formation of the
district will be available for adoption. Council should
determine that funds from the $350,000.00 allocated in
connection with the special improvement district proceedings
will be available to fund excess costs which it is anticipated
367
will be incurred in the general improvement district in
acquiring the improvements proposed for that district. The
amount of general City fund to be available for the general
improvement district will be only such funds as are left
from the $350,000.00 allocation after first using these
funds as recommended in connection with the special improve-
ment district.
City Attorney March reviewed the memo and its recommendations
at length; he also stated the following for the record:
1. A remonstrance has been received from Earl J. Snyder
who owns property at 210 West Mulberry.
2. The General Improvement District should include the
following:
a. Acquisition of parking facilities.
b. Canopies.
C. Lighting improvements.
3. Reviewed the Council actions which should be continued
to the meeting to be scheduled on October 26, 1976.
' Councilman Suinn made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bowling
to adopt the recommendations as set out in Mr. Brunton's memo
to the Council. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves,
Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
Continued Discussion of Remaining Portions
of Seven Year Capital Improvements Program
Council returned to their discussion of Recommendation III as
outlined in Mr. Brunton's memo of October 12, 1976.
Recommendation III - That the remaining $619 944 be allocated as follows:
Project Previous Amount Amount'Added New Total
Street Improvements $1,600,000 $ 200,000 $1,800,000
Library (parking lot) .1,877,500. 70,000 1,947,500
Fire Station 3 Replacement 155,000 70,000 225,000
Fire Station 2 Replacement 200,000 50,000 250,000
Fire Training Center --- 100,000 100,000
Downtown Redevelopment 250,000 129,944 379,944
Total $4,082,500 $ 619,944 .$4,702,444
368
City Manager Brunton again explained to Council that the
Administration is requesting tacit approval of this recommendation.
Councilwoman Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Gray
that the parking facilities for the library be acquired and
developed at a cost of $70,000. Yeas: Councilmembers Gray,
Reeves, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: Councilman Bloom. Councilman
Bowling out of room.
Other Business
1. City Manager Brunton stated he had one item of other business.
A mutual agreement has been reached on the purchase of
property at 321 Maple Street currently owned by Mrs: Tillie
Ouintana. The purchase price has been set at $14,000 subject
to Council's approval.
Councilman Russell made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman
Reeves to accept the contract for purchase of the Quintana
property for $14,000 and authorize the City Manager and City
Clerk to sign the agreement on behalf of the City. Yeas:
Councilmembers Bloom, Reeves, Fussell, Suinn and Wilkinson.
Nays: None. Councilmembers Bowling and Gray out of the
room.
2. Discussion of the proposed ballot issues to be scheduled '
for the work session on November 16, 1976.
Adjournment
- Councilwoman Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bowling
to adjourn this meeting to October 26, 1976 at 1:30 P.M. Yeas:
Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and
Wilkinson. Nays: None.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
369
//A