Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-06/03/1965-Regular272 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, Held Thursday, June 3, 1965, at 1:30 o'clock P.M. Present: Councilmen Johnson, McMillan, Bennett and Councilwoman Quinn. Absent: Councilman Carson, excused. City Manager Boos, City Attorney March and City Engineer Fischer. Motion was made by Councilwoman Quinn, seconded by Councilman Bennett, that the reading of the minutes of the last regular meeting held May 27, 1965, be dispensed with. Roll was called resulting as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Johnson, McMillan, Bennett and Councilwoman Quinn. Absent: Councilman Carson, excused. Nayes: None. The President declared the motion adopted. The matter of the appeal of Ralph and Geraldine Anderson on the decision of re- zoning property on South Bryan Avenue, which was tabled to this week, was placed on the agenda for discussion. The following letter was presented and read at length: May 22, 1965 Mr. Gene Allep, Secretary of Planning & Zoning Board Fort Collins, Colorado Dear Mr. Allen: Attached is the fourth set of petitions submitted since November 3, 1965, protesting mul- tiple family Zoning in the area bounded by Mulberry Street, Crestmore Place, Cook Drive and Sheldon Drive. This tract lies near the center of a large RL block on the proposed zoning map. This one family area zoning is exactly what the vast majority of residents in the area have repeat- edly requested. To our knowledge only two people have spoken out in favor of multiple family dwellings in this vicinity. One is a developer who lives far from this neighborhood the other a lot owner on Bryan Avenue who wants to build an apartment on his property. We have repeatedly dmonstrated our concern by submittf ng petitions, attending planning and zoning board meetings (15) to 25 people on three occasions) and hirirg legal counsel. No need for multiple family dwellings exists in this area, nor has there ever been an attemp to show such a need. Our reaso,ns for opposing multiple family zoning in the middle of an existing single family neighborhood have been stated many times. This is the most detestabl type of "spot zoning. We feel conficent that our democratic concept of the greatest good for your consideration towards placing this area in RL zoning, as it currently shows on the proposed zoning map. Sincerely yours, Harold M. Swope, Property Owner 1616 Crestmore Street Please note that the Reeves, Elders, Wiers, Sapps, all living within the present "C" zone area have signedthe petition. If you have any doubts about their feelings please contact t her. The petitions attached contained 103 signatures protesting the rezoning. Various members of the Council made comments on the petition and stated that they had visited the location and looked it over first hand, other comments being that there was considerable traffic on the narrow width of Bryan Avenue and also between Mulberry and Crestmore place. Another comment being that it would be a case of spot zoning, inasmuch as the surrounding area is at the present an "A" zone. After considerable discussion by some of the property owners, motion was made by Councilman Bennett, seconded by Councilwoman Quinn, that the appeal from the previous decision of the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Council be denied. Roll was called resulting as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Johnson, McMillan, Bennett and Councilwoman Quinn. Absent: Councilman Carson, excused. Nayes: None. The President declared the motion adopted. The following ordinance was presented on first reading: ORDINANCE NO. 32, 1965 ACCEPTING AND APPROVING THE PLAT OF WHAT IS KNOWN AS THE WEST PROSPECT FIRST AN TO THE CITY OF THE COLLINS AUTHORITYAND TO BE CONTAINEDIINLARTIICLEED T11, CIN HAPTER. COLORADOJURISDICTION REVISEDHSTATUTES, REOFs PURSUANT TO THE , 139, 1953 273 Motion was made by Councilwoman Quinn, seconded by Councilman Bennett, that Ordinance No. 32, 1965, be considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of June, A. D. 1965, and to be presented for final .passage on the 24th day of June, A. D 1965. Roll.was call resulting as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Johnsan, McMillan Bennett and Councilwoman Quinn. Absent: President declared the motion adopted. Robert F. Boos City Manager Councilman Carson, excused. Nayes: None. The June 2, 1965 Re: Complaints in Street Improvement District 58 The following comments are made in answer tot he complaints received at the Miy 27, 1965, Council meeting, regarding the assessments levied in Street Improvement District 58. T. R. & Margaret S. Blevins - 620 West. Prospect Street Lots 9, 12 & 13, Blevins Subdivision Paving - 187.0 feet @ $1.96 = $365.67 Total $ 365.67 Mr. Blevins stated in his letter and in his comments before the Council, that his property should not be included in the district because he has previously paid for having the street improved. That when the previous paving was done he was assured by the then City Engineer, Mr. Howard Evans, that there would be no further street assessments. This previous street work costthe Blevins $665.o8 (including the cost of filling an .existing barrow pit). Mr. Blevins also pointed out that at least a part of the first ten feet of street abutting his property, which was supposed to be adequate, was torn up and. replaced. Other points raised by Mr. Blevins involved his paying an additional cost for arterial design and .the fact that some abutting property owners in his same situation had been delet ad from the district. The comments of Mr. Blevins are concerned' entirely with the Prospect segment of the improvement district. Prior to the work performed on Prospect, there existed, along the entire length, a 30 foot built up County road .surface, 15 feet either side of the cente line. In addition there were sections along the street where the pavement had been widen- ed an additional 10 feet. Some of the widening had been done through the process of plat- ting a subdivision, other sections had been done by assessment on the abutting property. The latter b eing Mr. Blevins situation. After making tests of the existing pavements it was deei.dedthat the outside ten feet of surfacing in those areas where it existed was suitable, that these areas should be incorporated into the improvement, and that those properties abutting such sections sh.ould have their assessments reduced proportionately. The center 30 feet, however, was found to be below standard, and the decision made ,to replace it with an adequate cross-section. The specific recommendation of the City Engineer, quoted from a report to the City Manager, dated April 14, 1964, read: "I show two costs on West Prospect because we have two di8'eren existing conditions. Aboutone half of the assessable frontage has curb and gutter and a 10 foot wide strip of paving which meets our residential pavement requirements. These frontages will receive credit for the paving to be saved and will not pay the assessment fo) full width. The remainder of the old pavement will be excavatedbecauset here is no base beneath it. Ttiis will include several areas which have been overlaid at City expense, and from outward appearances looks like good pavement. Also, several hundred feet of curb and gutter and walk at the West end of Prospect will be removed, because they would allow only a 40 foot wide pavement, while the remainder of the street is designed.for a 50.foot wide pavement.' In another part of the report the engineer set forth two estimated cost per front foot . $5.00 - full width, and $2.00 - partial width. This recommendation was in- corporated by Council into Ordinance No. 23 (the ordinance establishing the district) by including in the estimated casts, the following: Prospect Street from the East boundary of Lot 22 in Blevins Subdivision and the East boundary of Lot 85 in Arthur C. Sheely Third Subdivision to Shields Street, except the N. side of the W275 feet thereof, which is herewith excepted f 8om the assessments $5.00* Price shown based on improvement of entire street. In some areas on Prospect Street a portion offothe wimprovemel beentssOhave been installed and in these areas the cost per abutting In constructing the street a portion of the 10 feet of paving to be retained, was found to be unsuitable and was replaced. However, the ordinance was followed, and this ad ditional work was absorbed within the Street Department budget. The assessment of Mr. Dlevins was held below the $2.00 estimated figure (note $1.96 above). I am unable to either dispute or confirm any comments that might have been made to Mr. levies by any of my predecessors regarding future assessments. The street was paved to a n arterial design cross-section, but no part of this addi tional expense was assessed against any of the abutting property owners. In the final engi- heer�s report to the City Manager on April 12, 1965, City expense inthe amount of $5,717.00 was clearly designated as "Arterial Design on Prospect". There were, as stated, three property owners in a situation similar to Mr. Blevihsl that were omitted from any assessments. The properties involved were 1920, 1024 and 1032 W. Prospect, which constitute the West 275 feet of the project on the North side of the street. These properties were originally included in the district, but after public hearings on June + and June 11, 1964, the properties were excluded. The property owners based their � 271 contention that their properties should not be included on two points: 1. E ted. That they had been promised verbally by the City Engineer when their street was rebuilt in 1959 that they would not be included in any future improve- ment district. That the property directly across the street was not inthe City and asthey understood was not going to be completed at this time, and therefore the pavi of this section should be postponed until the entire width could be construc- ted. The pavement abutting these properties was constructed, and no assessment was Wade age nst them. It was also along these properties that it was necessary to relocate an exist- ing curb, gutter and sidewalk, in orderto make a consistent aliSnment along the street. This additional expense was not charged to the abutting property owners not was any part of it included in the assessments against the other property owners on the street. Councills action to exclude this property from the district is recorded in the Council minutes for June 11, 1964, The total frontages in the two assessment classes are: 2,806.91 @ $ 4.98 $ 13,721.61 1 8 1.85 @ 1.96 3.464.75 Total 4,64B.76 $ 17,186.36 Kenneth G. Brengle - 1600 S. Whitcomb Lot 85, Arthur C. Shealy Third Subdivision Paving - 100.0 feet @ $1.96 = 195.55 Total $ 19 . Mr. Brengle is also involved in the Prospect segment of the segment of the distric , His comments concerned primarily the reconstruction of what appeared to him to be an accept- able street. Mr. Brengle pointed out that he description of Prospect used in the resolutio accepting the street for maintenance was from Whitcomb to Shields and therefore did not include his property on the East side of Whitcomb. One final point raised by Mr. Brengle wa that after talking to the City Engineer he had understood that it was customary to require at least one petitioner from each block of street included in a street improvement district. In attempting to give a complete answer to the questions of Mr. Blevins, I think we have answered the first question of Mr. Brengle. The Assistant City Attorney in checking was unable to find any legal notice re- quired by the improvement section of the City Ordinance which did not read as follows in describing the limits of paving on Prospect: "Prospect fromthe East boundary of Lot 22 in Blevins Subdivision and the East boundary of Lot 85 in the Arthur C. Shealy Third Subdivi- sion to Shields Street ...' It may very well have been the custom in the past to require at least one peti- tioner from each block of street placed in an,improvement district. This is not, however, as far as I can determine an ordinance requirement. Clinton G. and Mary S. Gaylord - 1528 S. Whitcomb Lot,22, Blevins Subdivision Paving - 105.0 feet @ $1.96 = $205.32 Total $205.32 Mr. and Mrs. Gaylord, again on Prospect, submitted written comments to the City Council very similar to those of Mr. Blevins and Mr. Brengle. Four points were made in his letter and summerized briefly as follows: 1. The section of street replaced was, in Mr. Gaylord1s mind, adequate and should not have been replaced. 2. The reason for replacing the existing was the ever increasing traffic loads being imposed on the street. 3. While Mr. & Mrs. Gaylord appreciate the need for heavier paving on Prospect, they feel that thecost should be spread over the entire City. 4, Mr. Gaylord makes the point that ,the residents of Aggie Village add to the travel situation and in general do not support our City streets and public schools construction and upkeep. In commenting on Mr. Gaylordls letter, I could only repeat what was said above i❑ answering the questions of Mr. Blevins. F. G & M. H. Kintzley - 728 Maple Street Lots 23, 24, 25 & 26, Block 283, Westside Addition Paving - 140.0 feet @ $3.90 = $ 546.00 Water service 16l.95 Sewer service 129.27 Total 837.22 275 In a letter to the Council, Mr. Kintzley questioned the inclusion of charges for water and sewer services in his street improvement assessments. It is Mr. Kintzleyls position that because the town ditch crossesthe front of the lots being assessed, they are made useless as building sites and therefore it was improper to extend water and sewer ser- vices to them. And that his assessment should include the cost of paving only. Because the Arthur or Town Ditch does in fact cross the front of Mr. Kintleyts lots, construction on them would be difficult. Although I am very much in favor of extend- ing services from under new street improvements, I am inclined t o think that perhaps more study should have been given to extending the services in this particular instance. I t would seem proper to me t o reduce Mr. Kintzley's assessment by the amount of the services or $291.22. If in the future the lots were constructed upon, it would be the responsibilit, of the owner to pay the cost incurred in extending the services. /s/ C. Adam Fischer Public Works Director. Approved:/s/ Arthur March, Jr. 9ssistant City Attorney Several of the objectors were present and discussed the forgoing report with the members of the Council and various members of the Council expressed their opinion of the objections which had been filed against the assessments made on their property. Following these discussions, motion was made by Councilman McMillan, seconded by Councilman Bennett, that the properties similarly situated as the properties adjacent tot he Shields intersec- tion of West Prospect be treated the same and the assessments be abated. Roll was called Absent: resulting as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Johnson, McMillan and Bennett./ Councilman Carson, (excused. Nayes: Councilwoman Quinn. The President declared hE) motion adopted. The portion of the above report ,in reference, to water and sewer against F. G. and M. H. Kintzley, 728 Maple Street, was considered. After discussion, motion was made by (Councilman McMillan, seconded by Councilman Bennett, that the recommendation of the Public Director and City Attorney in reference to abating the water and sewer service assessment against lots 23, 24, 25 and 26,, Block 283, West Side Addition, be approved. Roll was cal- led resulting as follows; Ayes: Councilmen Johnson, McMillan, Bennett and Councilwoman q.Jl nn. Absent: Councilman Carson, excused. Nayes: None., The President declaredthe motion adopted. The following ordinance was presented on first reading: ORDINANCE NO. 33, 1965 BEING AN ORDINANCE ASSESSING THE COST OF IMPROVEMENTS IN CJNSOLIDATED IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT N0. 58, AND PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT AND COLLECTION THEREOF. Motion was made by Councilman Bennett., seconded by Councilwoman Quinn, that Ordi- trance No. 33, 1965, be considered f avorably on first reading and ordered published this 3rd day of June, A. D. 1965, and to be presented for final passage on the 24th day of June, A. D. 1965. Roll was called resulting as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Johnson, McMillan, Bennett and Councilwoman Quinn. Absent President declared. the motion adopted. Honorable Mayor and City Council of the City of Fort Collins Fort Collins, Colorado Ge ntlhae h : Councilman Carson, excused. Nayes: None. The ALLEN, STOVER and MITCHELL June 2, 1965, I am enclosing herewith a proposed amendment to Section 2-7 of the Code of Ordi- nances of the City of Fort Collins, 1958. This proposed amendment is in conformity with the state law. The present amendment does not conform to the state law. It is my opinion that the City of Fort Collins has no authority to change the regulations provided in this matter by the legislature. I would appreciate your giving this proposed amendment your consideration. Very truly yours, /a/ William H. Allen '276 The proposed amendment was read at length, but after reading was withdrgwn for correction by Mr. Allen. Motion was made by Councilman McMillan, seconded by Councilwoman Quinn, that the proposed amendment, as corrected, be referred to the City Attorney for report. Roll was called resulting as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Johnson, McMillan, Bennett and Councilwoman Quinn. Absent: Councilman Carson, excused. Nayes: None. The President declared the motion adopted. The following commnuication was presented and read at length: June 3, 1965 TO: City Manager and Members of the City Council FROM: Water•Board SUBJECT: No. 1. Agreement for water taps outside the City Limits. No. 2. Charges for rental of Northern Colorado Water. No. 1: The City Attorney has prepared an agreement applying to applications for water taps outside the City limits. This agreement to supersede all forms presently in use. All requirements in the agreement to meet specifications as per Ordinance No. 16, 1965. At the meeting of the water Board held June 2, 1965, it is recommended that this agreement be adopted as drawn. No. 2: The Board also recommends that the policy of the City be to charge all Lessees of Northern Colorado water an equal and proportiohate share of the City's assess- ments, plus a handling charge, and without interest, and that all existing contracts conf with this policy. /s/ John Bartel Secretary of the Water Board After discussion, the recommendation No. 1, in reference to application for water outside of the City, was discussed. Motion was made by Councilman Bennett, seconded by Councilwoman Quinn, that the agreement for outside water taps be adopted as drawn, meeting the specifications of ordinance No. 18, 1965. Roll was called resulting as follows, Ayes: Councilmen Johnson, McMillan, Bennett and Councilwoman Quinn. Absent: Councilman Carson, excused. Nayes: None. The President declared the motion adopted. The recommendation No. 2, in reference to charges for rental for all Northern Colorado Water, was discussed. Motion was made by Councilman McMillan, seconded by Council- man Bennett, that this recommendation of the Water Board be accepted and approved. Roll was called resulting as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Johnson, McMillan, Bennett and Council- woman Quinn. Absent: Councilman Carson, excused. Nayes: None. The President declared the motion adopted. The City Attorney reported that Mr. Paul Kane had not appeared in reference to the 50 shares of North Poudre water which he offered the City and the offer was accepted by the Council at a previous meeting and that this matter would have to be tabled until a later) date. The report on the bids for electrical conductor was, presented. The Director of Utilities presented the following firms presenting bide on wire and cable: Hendrie & Bolthoff Company, Mine & Smelter, Phelps Dodge Company, General Electric Supply, Graybar and Electric Company,/Livran supply Company. The lowest firm price for all copper wire was $75,8w .00 The lowest NOT firm price, all copper was 65,375.00 The lowest combination of part bid with a firm price was for insulated toper wi re and cable was $30o060.00. The following recommendations were made: RECOMMENDATIONS: The aluminum wire, quoted as alternates, in each case is Anaconda No. 5005. This aluminum is satisfactory as an electric power conductor, but it is more difficult for us to install, it being more soft and of less mechanical strength than the aluminum we now have on hand, and now in the process of installation. . Since the bare aluminum conductor quoted as alternates, to the bare copper re- quested, is submect to more unintentional installation damage, it is recommended that the bare copper bids be rejected on account of high price and long delivery, and the alternate aluminum bids be rejected on account of the physical mechanical characteristics, and award 277 N be made to the low firm price. on insulated copper wire as offered by PHELPS DODGE CORPORA- TION in the amount of $30,060.00. /a/ Stanley R. Case Director of Utilities Motion was made by Councilman Johnson, seconded by Councilwoman Quinn, that the recommendation of the Director of Utilities be accepted and the bid awarded to Phelps Dodge Corporation on insulated copper wise of $30,060.00. Roll was called resulting as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Johnson, McMillan, Bennett and Councilwoman Quinn. Absent: Councilman Carson, excused. Nayes: None. The President declared the motion adopted. The following resolution was presented and read at length: `! RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ACCEPTING A CONTRACT TO BE ENTERED INTO WITH SPRING CREEK FARMS, INCORPORATE➢, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AID CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF .THE CITY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City Collins des res to acquire for park pur- poses a tract of land located in Section 19, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of .the Sixth P.M, which lands are owned by Spring Creek Farms, Incorporated, and WHEREAS, Spring Creek Farms, Incprporated, has of£eredto sell to the City of Fort Collins thirty acres of said lands and to donate an additional 15 acres of said lands on certain terms and conditions and at a total price of $60,000.00, and . WHEREAS, an agreement and supplemental agreement have been prepared setting foith all of said terms, which agreements have been approved by the City Manager and the City Attorney, and WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Council of the City of Fort Collins that it is in the best interests of the City of Fort Collins to accept the offer of Spring Creek Farms, Incprporated, and to purchase said lands. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the terms and conditions of the agreement and supplemental agreement between the City of Fort Collins and Spring Creek Farms, Incorporated, be and the same hereby are approved and accepted, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Clerk be and they hereby are auth- orized and directed to execute said agreement for and on behalf of the Council of the City of Fort Collins. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 3rd day of June, A. D. 1965. ATTEST: Miles F. House Clerk Motion was made by Councilwoman Quinn, seconded by Councilman McMillan, that this resolution be adopted. Roll was called resulting as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Johnson, McMillan, Bennett and Councilwoman Quinn. Absent: Councilman Carson, excused. Nayes: . The President declared the motion adopted. Inasmuch as a question arose as to the fencing adjacent corrals on the land at present. The City Attorney has written a letter confirming that the corrals and fencing in the property of the Spring Creek Farms, Incorporated, and requested Council approval of advising the seller accordingly. Motion was made by Councilman Bennett, seconded by Councilwoman Quinn, that the City Attorney be authorized to advise the Spring Creek Farms, ., by letter as to the ownership of the corrals and fences on the property being purchas- ed. Roll was called resulting as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Johnson, McMillan, Bennett and ncilwoman Quinn. Absent: Councilman Carson, excused. Nayes: None. The President declared the motion adopted. The following resolution was presented and read at length: RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ACCEPTING THE BID OF TURNPIKE CONSTRUCTION COM- PANY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION LINES 2l8 June 3, 1965 WHEREAS, heretofore the City Council advertised for bids for the construction of sanitary sewer collection lines, and WHEREAS, bids were received and opened on May 13, 1965, and WHEREAS, the Turnpike Construction Company of Broomfield, Colorado, bid $440,143. which bid was the low bid received, and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to accept said bid. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that t bid of Turnpike Construction Company of Broomfield, Colorado, as aforesaid be and the same hereby is accepted, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Clerk be and they hereby are auth- orized and directed to enter into a contract with Turnpike Construction Company for the con struction of said sanitary sewer collection lines. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 3rd day of June, A. D. 1965. s/ Harvey G. Johnson Mayor ATTEST /s/ Miles F. House City Clerk Motion was made by Councilman McMillan, seco-nded by Councilman Bennett, that this resolution be adopted. Roll was called resulting as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Johnson, McMillan, Bennett and Councilwoman Quinn. Absent: Councilman Carson, excused. Nayes: The President declared the motion adopted. The following petition was presented and read at length: PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR REZONING STATE OF COLORADO) ) ss. COUNTY OF LARIMER) TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Gentlemen: We, the undersigned, being the owners of 50% of the following described property, situate in the City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, to -wit: Lots 3, 4 and 5 in Block 1, Thunderbird Estates First Subdivision in the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. and Lot 6 in Block 1, Thunderbird Estates First Subdivision in the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. Owner Harry Deines. Containing less than one acres, more or less, do respectfully petition and request that the City Council amend the zoning ordinance of the City of Fort Collins by changing said above described land from "A" Residence zone to "B" Residence zone. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Harry Deines /s/ Elmer M. Schmidtberger AND Thunderbird Estates, Inc. ATTEST: /a/ William H. Allen Secretary STATE OF COLORADO as. COUNTY OF LARIMER /s/ By: Mae A. Tiley President The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 12th day of May By Elmer M. Schmidtberger and Thunderbird Estates, Inc., by Mae A. Tiley, Free. & William H. Allen, Sec'y. for the purposes therein set forth. Commission expires 6-19-68. /s/ Carl H. Cheramy _ Notary Public ',Note: Filing of a petition to rezone requires a deposit of $50.00 with the City Clerk to defray the cost of the amendment. Petitions had been filed containing 65 names protesting any rezoning requested in Thunderbird Estates, specifically, the rezoning as requested in the forgoing petition. 279 Motion was made by Councilman Bennett, seconded by Councilwoman Quinn, that this petition for rezoning and the petitions protesting same be referred to the Planning and Zoning Board for their recommendation. Roll was called resulting as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Johnson McMillan, Bennett and Councilwoman Quinn. Absent: Councilman Carson, excused., Hayes: None. The President declared the motion adopted. An error was discovered in Ordinance No. 28, 1965, as to the maturity date of the principal in the sub -series "Rt'of the City of Fort Collins in the Refunding Bond Series June, 1965. The following ordinance was presented on first reading: ORDINANCE NO. 34, 1965 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING, ORDINANCE NO. 28, 1965, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND SIGNED THE 6TH DAY OF MAY, 1965, ENTITLED: "AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE 'CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, SEWER REFUNDING ANDIMPROVEMENT REVENUE BONDS, SERIES JUNE 1, 1965,1 IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $2,492,000.00; ACCEPTING THE BEST BIDS FOR SUBSERIES I AND SUBSERIES R OF SAID ISSUE; PRESCRIBING THE INTEREST RATES THE BONDS OF EACH SUBSERIES SHALL BEAR AND THE PUR- CHASE PRICE FOR EACH SUBSERIES; RATIFYING ACTION HERETOFORE TAKEN; AND DECLARING AN EMER- GENCY."; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Motion was made by Councilwoman Quinn, seconded by Councilman Bennett, that all rules of the Council which might prevent, unless suspended, the final passage and adoption of said ordinance at this meeting be, and the same are hereby, suspended for the purpose of permitting the final passage and adoption of said ordinance at this meeting. Roll was Called resulting as follows:. Ayes: Councilmen Johnson, McMillan, Bennett and Councilwoman Quinn. Absent: Councilman Carson, excused. Naves: None. The President declared the motion adopted. Motion was made by Councilman McMillan, seconded by Councilwoman Quinn, that said Ordinance be passed and adopted as read, as an emergency measure. Roll was called resulti as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Johnson, McMillan, Bennett and Councilwoman Quinn. Absent: Councilman Carson, excused. Hayes: None. The President declared the motion adopted. Motion was made by Councilman Bennett, seconded by Councilwoman Quinn, that said ordinance be numbered 34, 1965, and after signature by the Mayor and attestation by the Ci Clary, be finally published in full within five days from the date of its passage in the Fort Collins Coloradoan, a daily newspaper printed, published and of general circulation in the City of Fort Collins, and that said ordinance be recorded according to law. Roll was called resulting as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Johnson, McMillan, Bennett and C ouncilwoma Quinn. Absent; Councilman Carson, excused. Hayes: None. The President declared the motion adopted. Mr. Rex Wells and Mr. Duff, representatives of East Larimer District, appeared before the Council in reference to the Vine Drive Subdivision which Mr. John Cowan wishes to develop and has requested water from the East Larimer Water District, Inasmuch as he is outside of the City and immediatly adjacent to their water line. However he wishes sewer cor_nections for his development which would necessitate connection to the City of Fort Collins sewer system. A trunk line which passes adjacent to hie property. If the City Should furnish him water and sewer service, it would be necessaty for him to execute an agreement that he would annex to the City when ever possible. Mr. Cowan is adverse to Signing such an agreement and the Councils opinion was that no water or sewer could be granted by the City without the execution of such an agreement. Motion was made by Council- woman Quinn, seconded by Councilman McMillan, that the City Manager advise Mr. Cowan of the decision of the City Council in reference to accepting any petition for water or sewer con- nections to serve his development. Roll was called resulting as follows: Ayes: Council- men Johnson, McMillan, Bennett and Councilwoman Quinn. Absent: Councilman Carson, excused. Hayes: None. Th e President declared the motion adopted. 280 The matter of having Eugene Mitchell represent the City in the suit of the Ram's Horn, Incorporated, which was presented to the Council two weeks ago, was discussed. The compensation for this legal service requested by Mr. Mitchell was $25.00 per hour or a flat fee of $500.0.0 for the District Court action and $750.00 if the suit is taken to the Supreme Court. After discussion, motion was made by Councilwoman Quinn, seconded by Councilman Bennett, that Mr. Eugene Mitchell be retained to represent the City in the Ram's Horn, Inc. suit and that his compensation be based on $25.00 per hour. Roll was called resulting as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Johnson, Bennett and Councilwoman Quinn. Nayes: Councilman McMillan. Absent: Councilman Carson, excused. The President declared the motion adopted. Six of the Police officers who have completed Police schooling were present and the Mayor presented certificates to them for the work completed. Motion was made by Councilwoman Quinn, seconded by Councilman McMillan, that the Council adjourn. Roll was called resulting as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Johnson, McMillan Carson and Councilwoman Quinn. Absent: Councilman Carson, excused. Nayes: None. The President declared the motion adopted, and the Council adjourned. ATTEST: MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, Held Thursday, June 10, 1965, at 1:30 o'clock P.M. Councilman Bennett assumed the chair and adjourned the meeting for lack of - Aq MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINSi Held June 17, 1965, at 1:30 o'clock P.M. No members of the Council were present. The City Clerk declared the meeting adjourned for lack of quorum.