HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-10/24/1974-SpecialOctober 24, 1974
COUNCIL OF 111E CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-MLunager Form of Government
Special Meeting - 7:30 P.M.
A Special Meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on
Thursday, October 24, 1974 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chamber in the
City of Fort Collins City Hall. Assistant Mayor Gray called the meeting
to order. Present: Council members Bowling, Gray, Preble, Russell and
Wilkinson. Absent: Mayor Fead and Councilwoman Reeves.
Staff members present: Brunton, Bingman, DiTullio, Rodenbeck, Cain and
Lewis.
Also: City Attorney March, Jr.
Proclamation for National Guard Week
City Clerk, Verna Lewis, read the proclamation at length in which the week
of November 1 through November 7, 1974 was proclaimed as "Colorado Army
National Guard Week".
Public Hearing on 1975 Budget
Assistant Mayor Gray stated since there were several organizations listed on
an agcanda; therefore, with Council concurrance, a presentation not to exceed
10 minutes, was requested with specific questions, then a general discussion.
I. The first to speak was the Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Merle
Goddard, President of the Chamber, spoke to the sub -committee review.
Mr. Goddard stated the Board of Directors, sitting in special session,
approved the statement to be made. The following remarks were made:
1. Concern expressed that copies of the budget were not made available.
2. Concern over Human Resources proposal and possible duplication of
efforts being done by tine State and County.
3. Concern over the Ambulance Service and Emergency Service in the Fire
Department.
4. Concern over investments in City Funds; recommended changes to City
Charter to improve the investment of City Funds.
5. Concern for future over extension of Recreation Programs.
6. Concern for cost of billing.
i,h•. Goddard stated there had been remarks. made relative to the financin(.4 that
is provided to the Chamber and lie would like to publicly ansi:er. He then
revieiacd the history of the Chamber and how it became involved in the
services it provides for the City, also the present services of benefit to
the City.
City Manager Brunton responded to the above six points and stated the admin-
stration would be reporting to the Council on the questions raised in the
near future.
1
I
173.
' II. Fort Collins Symphony -- Mr. A. G. Preller spoke to the successes and
needs of the Fort Collins Symphony. Councihman Russell expressed his
appreciation on behalf of Senior Citizens who had received tickets to
the symphony, secondly, he was in favor of the funding, (52,000) but
he'rrould request a financial statement. Mr. Preller provided a copy
of the budget and stated a financial statement mould be forthcoming.
Councilwomen Preble and Gray also expressed their thanks to the Symphony.
Assistant Mayor Gray introduced Dr. Will Swartz, Director of the Symphony.
III. Larimer County Humane Society - Attorney John Walker.
x
L�. Attorney Walker spoke to the amount paid back to the City of Fort
Cif] Collins, the net cost to the City of Fort Collins is $14,000, Loveland
is paying $7,500 flat fee and Larimer County $1.0,000 flat fee. Mr.
Walker spoke to the operating costs and his feeling that the Larimer
County Humane Society would need a flat fee of $20,000 from the City
of Fort Collins.
Police Chief Smith spoke to the negotiations with C.S.U. whereby C.S.U.
would pick up the dogs on campus and ti.ould submit them to the humane
Society under the City's name.
City Attorney March stated the City should neghiate with CSU to pay a
' portion of the cost.
City'P,tanager Brunton inquired if fir. Walker n;as requesting a change in the
current contract May 1 to April 30, or for negotiation in 1975. It was the
consensus that the joint staff would meet and a report made back to the
Council.
N, Poudre R-1 School District on behalf of Community Education - Mr. Ernest
Romero. Mr. Romero stated he was representing the Community Education
Advisory Council, and spoke to the Laurel Street School designation as
a Community Education Center. The conuitment of Poudre R-I was out-
lined and the request from the Advisory Council was requesting funding
of $10,000 for a Supervisor.
Assistant Mayor Gray stated members of the Council had met with the Advisory
Council and perhaps she could sum up the questions that i.ere posed.
a. What if the City could fund only a portion of the $10,000, or not
at all - Mr. Romero stated Poudre R-1 would continue to operate.
b. Why the Advisory Council had not requested funding from the City/
' County Won Resources Board. Mr. Romero respcn'ed that designation
had been given the School after the hearings. P.)udre R-1 had placed
a stipulation that a K-12 (Kindergarden through i_th f cie) progralu
must be established at the facility in order for the Scnool district
to assume the cost of maintenance.
174
V. Woodt•rard-Governor - Mr. Del Black.
W. Black stated he represented the membership of Woodward -Governor Company, '
he is elected by the membership to represent them in tax matters.
The items of concern were as follov.,s:
1. The necessity of the 530,000 budgeted for the Sexton's house.
2. Human Resources - also funded under the United Fund.
3. Revenue Sharing, should it be used for capital improvements.
4. Police Department - specifically drug enforcement.
Mrs. Fran Thompson spoke to the funding other than for capital improvements
from Revenue Sharing.
Dr. Charles Shepardson, Secretary of the Senior Citizens Commission, spoke
in favor of funding the request from the Community Education Advisory Council,
Laurel School, pointing out the need for centralization of services.
4
There being no further con-nents, this concluded the budget hearing.
Addition made to 1975 Budget
I• Contract versus "force account" janitorial service.
Assistant City Manager, Duke DiTul.lio, stated the question was v.hether the '
City should enter into its own janitorial services. Mr. DiTullio read
the following memorandum at length:
In your memo of 10-21-74, you requested a detailed, precise, and analytical
report relative to our request for funds to perform our own janitorial serv-
ices. Compliance in full with, this request is difficult at best, and it is
almost. impossible to be completely objective or analytical. However, it is
hoped that the following report will provide you with the requested informa-
tion.
Our suggested entry into the janitorial arena as an operator is precipitated
by an intense desire to guarantee that we are getting the best product for
the dollars spent. The fact that our current program is lacking in this area
was vividly brought to our attention by the City Council during the 1974 bud-
get hearings. Despite the fact that we have a strong and comprehensive con-
tract (see attached), we have been unable to get satisfactory performance from
the low bidder.
Our personal experience involving low -bid contractors covers the contract years
of 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, and 1974. Specifically, our Purchasing Agent, who
had responsibility for monitoring the service during three of those years, in-
dicates that the service was less acceptable than the current service now pro-
vided. Since 1973, the Buildings and Grounds Division of General Administrative '
Services has been responsible for the maintenance and cleaning of all City build-
ings.
Our Administrative Assistant in charge also reports inferior and highly unsatis-
factory service. This leads us to believe that further acceDtance of low bids
for this program is not in the best interests of the City.
175
a
1
1
1
The fact that highly recommended janitorial contractors won't even respond to
our bid invitation with any bid, much less submit a low bid, is further indica-
tion that this is a difficult problem. The more successful businesses in this
field prefer to negotiate rather than bid.
Related to the above factor, we believe that the low bidder is in a very un-
favorable position in a highly competitive labor market. Thus, most often he
finds himself unable to compete with other contractors on a per cent sq.ft.
basis. Consequently, he attempts to make up the difference by paying less in
salaries and cutting corners. This leads to labor turnover problems and
adversely affects the product he supplies to his client (in this case the
City). This is a major problem of our present contractor.
Hence, it was determined early in 1974 that two alternatives were available
to improve the service:
I. Reject low bidders and ask Council to approve a higher bid.
2. Provide our own service.
Our decision to elect the latter was based on the following considerations:
A) Better control
B) Better responsiveness to using departments and to the Public
C) More awareness and appreciation of City problems
D) Better service to all users
E) Stable work force
F) Career opportunities and sense of accomplishment by employees.
Obviously, the more responsible janitorial contractor has the same advantages,
and should one be employed by the City, there would be no need for us to pro-
vide the service.
Noticeably, COST or reduced cost was not cited as an advantage. This is because
quality and responsible cleaning service is not cheap or economical. Nor, is
cheap service acceptable. Our analysis of the present service is that it
is cheap but not effective and therefore it is not economical because our build-
ings tend to deteriorate. We feel our proposal provides an acceptable level of
service and provides us with the ability to fully develop a comprehensive main-
tenance program. .
At Council direction, we have solicited new bids for janitorial service for 1975.
Eight invitations to bid were sent out and four responded to our request (see
attached sheet). The bids ranged from a high of 6.9C to a low of 3.15c per sq.ft.
per month. Our present contract, which could be extended for another year, is
$24,784 per year, or 3.83C per sq.ft.
176
o
Recapitulation of Bids
(Less Swimming Pool)
Firm
Sq.Ft. Charge
Per Month, Extended
'
Per Year
GSH Cleaning
.069
$ 5,932.48
$ 71,189.78
MGM
.051
4,145.18
52,678.98
Poudre Valley
.040
3,480.00
41,760.00
Lyle Kennedy
.0315
2,695.00,
32,340.00
These bids were calculated on the basis of 85,978 sq.ft., which excludes the
swimming pool (7,600 sq.ft.) and projected remodeling (3,000 sq.ft.) of the
Senior Citizen Center.
Based on past and present history and experience, our professional recommenda-
tion would exclude the two loan bidders and our report to Council would so indi-
cate. The final decision, of course, would be made by the Council.
Therefore, analysis of the bids and our proposal reveal the following monetary
differences:
Annual Cost
Firm
Bid Cost
City Cost
Difference
G&H Cleaning
$ 71,189
$
55,158
+ 16,031
MGM
52,679
55,158
- 2,479
Poudre Valley
41,760
55,158
'
- 13,338
Lyle'Kennedy
32,340
55,158
- 22,818
Present Contract
34,591
55,158
- 20,567
Extended (P.V.)
It is important to
note that the City program
includes
service to
the new
swimming pool and
the bids
submitted do
not.
This amounts
to an additional
7,600 sq.ft. If .we
were to include this
extension
to
the proposed
bids, the
results would be:
Firm
Bid
Swimming
Pool
Total
City
Difference
GEH Cleaning
$ 71,139
$ 6,288
$
77,477
$ 55,158
+ 22,319
wsrt
52,679
4,644
57,323
55,158
+ 2,165
Poudre Valley
41,760
3,648
45,4U8
55,158
- 9,750
Lyle Kennedy
32,340
2,868
35,208
55,158
- 19,950
Present Contract
34,591
3,492
38,803
55,158
- 17,075
Extended
Further study reveals several very important points:
1. Poudre Valley Janitorial, who submitted the 2nd low bid, has the present
contract at $.0383 per sq.ft. and obviously recognizes that this is low because
his present bid is,at $.040 per sq.Ft. We believe both figures are unrealistic I
and the service so reflects.
177
2,. Lyle Kennedy's bid is at $.0315 per sq. ft., considerably lower than
what we consider a realistic figure. We sincerely believe that satisfactory
service cannot be obained at this price.
3. Reference inquiry of G&H and M&M indicated that their clients are
very satisfied with their services.
4. The highly recommended firm of Porter Industries does not participate
in the Bid Process.
Finally, the intent of our proposal is to obain satisfactory service for the
City of Fort Collins. We believe this could be provided by G&H Cleaning,
M&M Janitorial, or the Division of Buildings and Grounds. The consideration
and guidance of the Council is requested.
Representatives of Poudre Valley Janitorial and Pd f, M Janitorial responded
to Council inquiries.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Preble, to accent
the in-house janitorial services for 1975. Ycas: Council members Bowling,
Gray and Preble. Nays: Councilmen Russell and Wilkinson.
II. Use of Revenue Sharing at Golf Course.
City'Manager Brunton stated this question was broughtup and remains in the
budget. The. golf courses are paying their way as far as operating expenses,
but not for capital outlay.
Councilman Bowling spoke to his recommendation to the Golf Board that fees
be increased and that increases be earmarked for capital vrhrovements.
Councilwoman Preble spoke in opposition to raising fees. Councilman Wilkinson
spoke in opposition to the black -topping at Collindale.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councih•,-orkan Preble, to use
Revenue Sharing funds at the golf courses as proposed. Yeas: Council
members Boiling, Gray, Preble and Russell. Nays: Councilman Wilkinson.
III. Increase in Police Department for an additional crossing Guard.
Director of Community Development, Roy A. Bingman, identified the area in
question, and stated that in response to this request from the O'Dea School
PTA and PAB, Traffic I:ngi.neer, .Joe Rice; had taken counts in the area and
observed the crossing. St. Rice spoke to the traffic counts and the recom-
mendations of the traffic committee to use a crossing guard at Stanford.
Mrs. Claudia Scarboro and Mr. Wayne Scott of the O'Dea School, spoke to their
request.
Director of Community Development, Roy Bingman, stated there is a point
regarding the warning lights that is significant, the limitations are
currently met; if one light is moved, it might cause an enforcement problem.
17g
8
Chief Smith stated that enforcement on a one -Half mile would be difficult
to receive voluntary compliance and could not be enforced.
City Manager Brunton stated that the recommendation was for an additional
$1,500.00 in the 1975 budget for a crossing guard.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Prcble, to
establish Stover and Drake as a school safety crossing. Peas: Council
members Bowling, Gray, Preble, Russell and 1Vilkinson. Nays: None.
IV. Need for new house at Grandview Cemetery.
City Manager Brunton stated the administration recommended this be kept in
the budget.
Councilman Russell made a motion, seconded by Councilman Fowling, to retain
the $30,000 in the budget. Yeas: Council members Bowling, Gray,Preble,
Russell and ?Wilkinson. Nays: None.
Resolution adopted, adopting the Budget
as amended for the Fiscal year ending
December 31, 1975
City Attorney ?-larch requested clarification of the changes in the budget,
first an increase of $1,500.00 in the Police Department budget. City
Manager Brunton stated the 51,500.00 was needed in the 1975 budget, once it
is arrived at,there will be an over run in the '74 budget. The signals —
�,_% are to be ordered iji this years budget with an over rim.
City Clerk, Verna Lewis, read the resolution at length.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman 111ilkinson, to
adopt the resolution as read and authorize the administration to make such
changes as may be mechanically necessary because of the $1,500.00 increase.
Yeas: Council members Bowling, Gray, Preble, Russell and Wilkinson.
Nays: None.
RESOLUTION 74-90
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, 1975, AND FIXING THE MILL
LEVY FOR SAID YEAR PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE V OF THE CITY CHARTER.
WHEREAS, the City *tanager has heretofore prior to the first Monday in
October, 1974, 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
1
1
17.9 .
�8a
WHEREAS, the Council thereafter within 10 days after the filing of said
budget estimates set October 10, 1974, as the date for a public hearing thereon
ii
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.
N
L(�
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
W
provisions of Section 2, Article V of the
City
Charter for the fiscal year
ending
December 31, 1975, be and the same is hereby adopted as a basis for the annual
appropriations ordinance for the fiscal year ending December 31, 1975, as follows:
DISBURSEMENTS BY APPROPRIATIONS
' GENERAL FUND: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City Council $ 36 960.00
City Manager . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46,158.00
GENERRL FUND (Continued):
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$ 40,518.00
Personnel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
51,658.00
Purchasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .
47,612.00
Systems & Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
59,866.00
Buildings & Grounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
157,238.00
Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16,070.00
Warehouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
122,309.00
Boards & Commissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20,070.00
Human Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . .
180,173.00
Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
103,470.00
City Clerk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
78,872.00
Land Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20 740.00
Finance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
181,293.00
Utility Billing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
375,027.00
Insurance & Retirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
824,300.00
City Attorney . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ... . . .
47,800.00
Municipal Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
50 523.00
'
Police
Fire
15,188 .00
1,8004,431.00
Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8,000.00
CO:U[UNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44 451.00
Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
186,634.00
Planning & Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
146,991.00
1�0
building Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .
Traffic & Street Lights . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .
Streets & Allevs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PARKS & RECREATION:
Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Outdoor Swimming Fool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Senior Citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Indoor Swimming Pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Youth Centers . . . . . . . .
Grandview Cemetery . . . . . .
Roselawn Cemetery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Library . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . .
Museum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Contingencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LESS INTER FUND TRANSFERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
143,094.00
297,108.00
409,487.00
30,158.00
489,967.00
259,696.00
75,281.00
36,856.00
85,523.00
72,035.00
34,560.00
131,847.00
26,872.00
345,910.00
9,460.00
7,425.00
150,000.00
300,000.00
$ 7,661,631.00
497.336.00
Total General Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 7,164,295.00
CAPITAL LMOMIENT FUNDS:
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 72,200.00
Park Land . . . . . . . . 510,603.00
7 Year Capital Improvement 6,026,407.00
6,609,410.CO
LESS INTER FUND TRANSFERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247,200.00
Total Capital Improvement Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 6,362,210.00
Trust Fund . . $ 1,211,930.00
LESS INTER FUN; TRNu FERS 930,600.00
Total Trust Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 281,330.00
Total Equipment Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 877,137.00
Golf Course Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 242,943.00
LESS INTER FUND TRANSFERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,234.00
Total Golf Course Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 216,709.00
EATER FUND:
Source of Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 126,000.00
Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245,766.00
Transmission & Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237,504.00
Administration. & Billing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202,373.00
Transfer to Restricted Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 920,075.00
Slater Capital Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,950,530.00
Water Bond Payment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2542410.00
$ 3,936,653.00
1
1
1
181
' LESS INTRA FUND TRANSFERS . . . . . . . . . . . . ; • 754,405.00
LESS INTER FUND TRANSFERS 165,670.00
Total Water Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,016,583.00
SEWER FUND:
Trunk & Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 155,250.00
Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275,985.00
Administration & Billing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117,586.00
Transfer to Restricted Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 801,716.00
Sewer Capital Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,007,560.00
N Sewer Bond Payment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . 329,100.00
x $ 2,687,197.00
LESS INTRA FUND TRANSFERS . . . . . .... . . . . . . 701,195.00
C—) LESS INTER FUND TRANSFERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,521.00
W
Total Sewer Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . $ 1,885,481.00
LIGHT & POWER FUND:
Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,567,093.00
Transmission & Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433,548.00
Administration & Billing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537,503.00
Transfer to Restricted Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . 668,560.00
Light & Power Capital Improvement Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,998,OS6.00
$ 7,204,790.00
LESS INTRA FUND TRANSFERS 260,764.00
LESS INTER FUND TRANSFERS . . . . . . . . . . . . 407,796.00
Total Light & Power Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . $ 6,536,230.00
Grand Total.Expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $26,339,975.00
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, 1975, shall be 10.00 Mills, which levy
represents the amount of taxes for City purposed necessary to provide for payment
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.
182
i 73
Passed and adopted at a special- meeting of the Council of the City of '
Fort Collins held this 24th day of October, A.D., 1974.
s•
A4sistant Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Changes in the 1975 Recreation Fees approved
City Manager Brunton stated the administration and Parks and Recreation Board
had gone through the items, item by item.
Councilman Russell made a motion, seconded b_y Coucilwoman Preble, to approve '
the recommendation and the changes. Yeas: Council members Bowling, Gray,
Preble, Russell and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
FORT COLLINS PARRS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
ACTIVITIES SUMMARY
ACTIVITY
1974
PRESENT FEE
1975-COST TO
RUN ACTIVITY
1975
RECOMMENDED FEET
1975
PROJECTED R['1Ei;1i
1. Archery
$3.00
$ 10.82
$ 4.00
$ 160.00
2. Basketball
Women's
i 65.00
120.00
125.00
2,000.00
Ponytail
$2.00(}Ialf seas
n) 9.30
5.00
2,000.00
lien's
65.00
120.00
125.00
11,250.00
J.A.A.
4.00
10.46
5.00
4,000.00
Intramurals
3.00
5.45
5.00
2,160.00
3. Baton
3.00
7.50
4.00
180.00
4. -Crafts -Adult
6.00
5.63
6.00
1,440.00 .
5. Football
lien's
90.00.
120.91
125.00
2,000.0n
J.A.A.
5.00
10.72
6.00
4,200.1
Grandstand Q.B.
-0-
80.00
-0-
-0-
6. Fun -Time
$8.00/10.00
9.40
$8.00/$10.00
2,600.
7- rvm
183
Holiday
Saturday
Hoopshoot, Elks
9. Ice Skating
10. Judo
Adult
Jr.
Women's Self Defense
11. Playgrounds
12. Pre -teen Fashion & Charm
13. Slimnastics
]lit Soccer
Ponytail
J.A.A.
Softball
W Women's
Women's Tourney
Ponytail
Men's
Men's Tourney
Men's Invitational
16.- Dance
Children's
j Adult
Folk, Children's
Pottery
Adult
Children's
18. Tennis
Adult
Jr.
19. Children's After -School
20. Handicrafts
21. Volleyball
Women's
Mixed
lien's
22. Gymnastics
Jr.
Open
23. Tumbling
24. Youth Center
25. Senior Citizens
-26. Boat Rental
27. Skiing
2Ball Park Concession
-0-
-0-
-0-
5.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
90.00
-0-
4.00
90.00
20.00
50.00
2.00
6.00
3.00
$22.00/$20.00
$ 5.00/$10.00
6.00
3.00
-0-
Varies
45.00
$3.00/$5.00
45.00
$3.00
5.00
2.00
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
900.00
700.00
-0-
6.72
5.00
3.00
5.00
35.00
5.60
6.00
8.23
8.23
121.65
49.88
12.54
124.17
23.47
59.95
2.61
6.01
10.00
$22.00/$20.00
10.00
6.00
1,053.00
1,080.00
1,000.00
46.50
5.36
55.93
$7.33
$14.40
$ 5.12
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
-0-
-0-
-0-
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
3:00
4.00
6.00
5.00
5.00
125.00
50.00
5.00
125.00
24.00
60.00
3.00
6.00
4.00
$25.00/$20.00
10.00
6.00
4.00
-o-
varies
50.00
$4.00/$6.00
60.00
$4.00
$5.00
$4.00
Same
Same
Same
Same
Same
0
-0-
-0-
-0-
500.00
300.00
1,088.00
125.00
1,500.00
80.00
576.00
2,000.00
1,800.00
2,500.00
800.00
2,375.00
12,500.00
.1,200.00
960.00
570.00
1,008.00
384.00
11,200.00
2,400.00
1,440.00
2,400.00
-0-
250.00
2,400.00
530.00
1,800.00
$1,280.00
200.00
400.00
1,500.00
5,000.00
3,000.00
13,000.00
1,000.00
$110,056.00
Review of Land Use Bill 1041
City Manager Bruton stated Council had to take some action to meet the
deadlines on implementing House Bill 1041, and make application for monies
available under the bill.
Director of Community Development, Roy A. Bingman, stated he would briefly go
through some of the things t}at are in the bill, the staff has met with the
County Planner and State officials in an attempt to interpret the requirements.
Mr. Bin. man read the folloudng from the Executive Director of the Colorado
Municipal League:
(1) Each county and municipality must report to the Colorado land
Use Commission by November 13 its progress in implementing
}louse Bill 1041. Failure of local governments Co report sig-
nificant efforts could lead to undesirable consequences in
the future. Nany step:: toward implementing House Bill 1041
can be taken without actually designating matters of state
concern. In fact, municipalities may wish to go slowly in
designating until a better.understanding of the act is achieved.
However, it municipality having an effective land use program
might well conclude that because of its controls, the broad
exemptions in !louse Bill 1041, or some ambiguous or undesirable
standards written into the criteria of House Bill 1041, that
no designations or only limited designations should be ;:cder-
taken. In such circumstances, the municipality might he well
advised in its report to describe in some detail its local
glanning and control efforts which are designed to .achieve
good land use.
Mr. Bingman stated the staff would recom end that the administration report
to the state that the City does have a planning program going on.
(2) A principal benefit of house Bill 1041 is the technical assis-
tance available to local governments. Municipal officials are
(3) State funds'are available to assist local governmentsMost of
the funds ($25,000 per county) are directed to the counties.
However, municipalities are eligible to apply for the discre-
tionary funds ($500,000), and upon request, the county must assist
municipalities.
(4) Some municipalities may find the model regulations to be adopted
by designated stato agencieti (such as the flood pJ.ain regulations
to be drafted by Lite Colorado Hater Conservation Board) quite
helpful whether used in conjunction with House Bi11 1041 or
other local cuntrols. These model regulations are to be prepared
by September 30, 1974.
1
7
1
185
' 1 5) Designation of matters as of state concern may be helpful in
some cases where local jurisdiction is othenaise i.n doubt or
where local officials seek legal or political support from the
state. Designation of matters of state interest mny be particu-
larly effective in certain limited situations in which the
municipality seeks to acquire jurisdiction over a development
(such as a stele highwuy location) by another unit of government
or where the criteria for regulation set forth in house Lill
1041 are particularly suited to local. needs.
(6) Designation of certain matters of state interest by a munici-
pality could result in impairing the effectiveness of land use
x controls because of unfortunate language or criteria in the law.
tl;
J Examples might be public utility and mineral development
W activities and areas.
W
(7) Any adverse impact of designation, such as administrative
requirements and vulnerability to .lawsuit from developers and
others, should be evaluated to ascertain whether designation
would i.mpai.r effective control.
(8) Municipaliries should closely monitor and work with their
counties in the identification and designation process to
ensure that county actions are compatible with municipal needs
and desires.
(9) Some municipalities may decide that, because funding is
primarily directed to counties and because areas already
zoned are largely exempted from coverage, House Bill 1041
will have limited application or utility for their community.
(10) Local governments have a serious obligation to their communities
and to the state to assure planned, orderly and wise use_ of land
within their jurisdictions. This obligation should be met in a
conscientious fashion, whether through use of (louse Bill. 1041
or through the extensive powers otherwise granted to municipali-
ties in planning, zoning, subdivision and other laws, including
the additional authority granted this year by passage of !louse
Bill 1034. The important thing is the end result. Both local
and state officials should be satisfied if the end result through
(louse Bill 1041 or other local procedures is effective.
City Attorney bLirch stated he had written a letter to the City Manager, if
Council did not have a copy, it should be provided (letter dated Jude 26,
1974). Two areas should be discussed, (1) ghat are the counties going to do
in designating areas under their control; the City should be concerned with
that and monitor that and take a part in that, (2) Council should also
consider the procedures the City uses as affects the City, at the very least,
he strongly urged that the City Council and City Government has to
take certain steps under the bill, because if it does not, someone else
will do the designation for us, or the courts will do it. The City Attorney
stated lie felt tilat it is absolutely essential that almost ii-mnediately tite
City establish a game plan for making the reports.
- 186
24-8
(77,
on making the designations, the City Attorney recommended that virtually
nothing be designated as an area of state wide concern under the bill for the
following reasons. (1) The bill as drafted, in his opinion, is a model for
poor legislation from a draftmanship standpoint, as applies to municipalities,
and (2) when the municipalities designate an area of state wide concern,
by definition, the municipalities are saying some thing which has a legal
meaning under the Constitution of the State of Colorado, and that has to do
with Article K of the Home Rule provisions, and in effect, you are saying
that this is not a local concern, but is a state wide concern.
Further, if the City does not react to the bill, then there is a provision
in the bill.that mould seem to say that the County has a right to determine
for the City, n,rhat areas in the City are of state wide concern, and make
the determinations for us. There is a further provision which concerned the
Attorney; that if the City does nothing, then the Land Use Commission can
come in through the courts and have the courts designate those areas and
turn them over to the Land Use Commission to administer.
The Attorney's recommendation is that Council go through each of the cate-
gories in the bill and report to the administration or an appointed commis-
sion that investigation and hearings be held and recommendations be made
back to the Council by a specified date. Council should report that we are
acting under the bill, we are in the process of designating, and this is
how we are going about it. Council should direct the administration to
make recommendations by the next meeting as to the appropriate bodies to
hold designation hearings in each area, and by next Council meeting, Council '
delegate those duties, set up hearings where Council wants to set up hearings
in the areas Council wants to hold hearings and establish the time frame
within which the hearings are to be conducted.
Councilman Russell made a motion, seconded by Councilman Wilkinson, that
the Administration prepare the recommendations for presentation at the
November 7, 1974 meeting. Yeas: Council members Bowling, Gray, Preble,
Russell and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
Acting Director of Planning, Ted Rodenbeck, spoke to the November 1, 1974
deadlines for application for funds, if the City wishes to receive funds
through the County.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Preble, to auth-
orize the Administration to apply for funds. Yeas: Council members
Bowling, Gray, Preble, Russell and Wilkinson. gays: None.
Purchase of Fertilizer, tabled
City Attorney Z stated there was on the call the consideration of the
sole source request for fertilizer.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Preble, to
table this item to the November 7, 1974. Yeas: Council members Bowling, IIIGray, Preble, Russell and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
187
' Other Business
Councilman Wilkinson spoke to the unemployment in the construction industry,
therefore, he felt that 1,hen the Low Income Housing is built, consideration
be given to local sub -contractors.
Councilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bowling, that the
Housing Authority be requested to make every effort to have a local general
contractor selected for the rent subsidy lousing program and regardless of
where the general contractor is from, he will be requested to give every
local sub -contractor who desires, a fair opportunity to bid. Yeas:
x Council members Bowling, Gray, Preble, Russell and Wilkinson. Nays:
tl: None.
U
W
Adjournment
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman Russell, that the
Council adjourn. Yeas: Council members Bowling, Gray, Preble, Russell
and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
sistant
' A'I =I
1
M