HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-06/02/1992-RegularI
June 2, 1992
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held Tuesday,
June 2, 1992, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins
City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Council members: Azar i,
Edwards, Fromme, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey and Winokur.
Staff Members Present: Burkett, Krajicek, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Reverend Richard Thebo, founder of Open Door Mission, expressed concerns about
panhandling and hard core homeless and requested an ordinance against street
corner beggars.
' Agenda Review
City Manager Burkett requested that .Item #15,
nrriinnnrro Nn r.7 1009 +hn Dnrr
Agreement for the Lease -Purchase Financing of Laser Speed Detection Units, be
withdrawn from the agenda. He further noted the revised versions of Item #26,
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 71, 1992, Authorizing the City Manager
to Enter into a Contract to Purchase the Site for the Fort Collins Senior Citizen
Center and Appropriating Prior Year Reserves for the Acquisition of this Site and
for Site Development Costs.
Mayor Kirkpatrick requested that Item #10, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 58,
1992, Designating 125-127 S. College Avenue as a Historic Landmark Pursuant to
Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, be withdrawn from the Consent
Calendar.
Consent Calendar
This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and energy
on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the
Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this calendar be "pulled" off
the Consent Calendar and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the
Consent Calendar will be considered separately under Agenda Item #23, Pulled
Consent Items.
1 363
EM
June 2, 1992
Consider approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of May 5. '
Ordinance No. 56, 1992, which was unanimously adopted as amended on First
Reading on May 5, appropriates money to pay the interest portion of the
debt service on 79 properties held in tax certificate by the City.
Council has approved this appropriation annually since 1990. Rather than
bringing this appropriation to Council as a separate item next year, the
appropriation from the Special Assessments Debt Service Fund Reserve will
be included in the 1993 budget. A separate appropriation ordinance would
only be necessary if expenditures were projected to exceed the budget
appropriation.
Second Reading of this item was postponed to this date to allow time for
a meeting with the Larimer County Assessor and Larimer County Treasurer.
The Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem met with those County officials on May 26 to
discuss ways in which the City and County could work together to avoid
problems resulting from the division of property encumbered by special
assessments. A solution to the problem was suggested where the City staff
would provide a list of active special assessment properties to the County
Assessor. The Assessor would then notify the City when a property
division occurs. It was agreed that periodic meetings would be held and I
that open communication between the City Council and County Officials
would be valuable.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 57, 1992, Authorizing the Mayor to Execute
a Deed of Conveyance for the Sale of the North 50 feet of Lot 13 in Block
178, City of Fort Collins for the Amount of $1,676.
This 2,500 square foot parcel is located at the rear of the lot at 616 E.
Locust Street. This parcel was purchased in 1958. This substation became
obsolete when the area was converted to a higher voltage. The substation
equipment was removed in the spring of 1991. Subsurface environmental
testing has determined that additional site clean up is not required.
This site is no longer needed by Light and Power, therefore it was offered
to other City departments. Because of the small size of this parcel, no
other City departments desired to purchase the parcel. The site was then
posted with a "For Sale" sign. There were no responses to the sale sign,
a bid was issued for interested buyers in March of this year. Purchasing
received one bid in the amount of $1,676. Ordinance No. 57, 1992, which
was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 19, authorizes the Mayor
to execute a Deed of Conveyance for sale of the land to Douglas P. Simons
and Ellen P. Richey.
364
10.
I
June 2, 1992
The purchaser of the property, John Pitner, is initiating this request for
Local Landmark Designation for 125-127 S. College Avenue (old Walgreens
Drug store). A public hearing was held by the Commission on May 13, 1992,
at which time the Commission voted to recommend designation of this
property. The present owner of the property, G & L Limited, a Colorado
General Partnership, has consented to the designation, but has reserved
the right to withdraw such consent if the pending sale of the property
fails to occur prior to second reading of this Ordinance.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 19,
designates 125-127 S. College Avenue as a local landmark for its
historical, architectural and geographic importance.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 59, 1992, Annexing Approximately
12.6 Acres, Known as the Prospect Land Company Annexation.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 60, 1992, Zoning Approximately 12.6
acres, Known as the Prospect Land Company Annexation, into the R-C,
River Corridor Zoning District.
On May 19, 1992, Council unanimously adopted Resolution 92-78 Setting
Forth Findings and Determinations Regarding the Prospect Land Company
Annexation.
On May 19, Council also unanimously adopted on First Reading Ordinance No.
59, 1992 and Ordinance No. 60, 1992, which annex and zone approximately
12.6 acres located on the north side of East Prospect Road, between the
Orthopedic Center and the Cache La Poudre River. The requested zoning is
the R-C, River Corridor District. The property is presently undeveloped
and is zoned FA, Farming in the County. This is a voluntary annexation.
Adoption of the Consent Calendar will postpone consideration of these
items until August 4.
APPLICANT: Ray Pigg OWNER: Flatiron Companies
c/o Neenan Company P. 0. Box 229
2290 E. Prospect Boulder, CO 80306
Fort Collins, CO 80525
365
12.
June 2, 1992
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 62, 1992, Authorizing the Issuance of '
Industrial Development Revenue Bonds of the City of Fort Collins for the
Value Plastics, Inc. Project.
In January, Sampson Partnership/Value Plastics, Inc. ("Value Plastics")
submitted an application to the City for the inducement of $2,150,000 of
industrial development revenue bonds pursuant to the City's established
policies.
On March 3, 1992, the Council unanimously adopted the Inducement
Resolution for the Value Plastics, Inc. Project in the amount of
$2,150,000. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First
Reading on May 19, authorizes the issuance of the industrial development
revenue bonds to be used to finance the construction of the improvements
for the project. These improvements include acquiring, constructing, and
equipping a manufacturing facility to be located near or on Eastbrook
Drive in the Timberline Business Park.
Value Plastics was founded by the Sampsons in 1968 to design, manufacture,
promote and sell a broad selection of products related to the
interconnection of hose, tubing and manifolds. The Company's present
facility on Eastbrook was financed through IDRB's issued by the City in.
1984.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 64, 1992 Authorizing the Sale of Lots 1
'
through 18 and Tract C of Horsetooth Commons PUD.
Under Chapter 22 of the Code, the City is authorized to sell property at
the annual tax sale conducted by the Larimer County Treasurer if special
assessments levied against the property have not been paid. Lots 1
through 18 and Tract C of Horsetooth Commons PUD were sold at the 1991 tax
sale and tax certificates of purchase were issued to the City as there
were no interested private investors. The owner of the property
subsequently executed a deed in lieu of foreclosure which transferred
title to the City. In order to obtain the best price available for the
property the City issued a bid for interested buyers, as authorized by the
Code. The bid was mailed to all local realtors and was advertised under
property for sale in the Coloradoan. One bid was received in the amount
of $115,000 which is a reasonable offer. Ordinance No. 64, 1992, which
was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 19, approves the sales
transaction determining it to be in the best interests of the City.
14. Items pertaining to the Webster Second Annexation and Zoning_
Resolution 92-92 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations
Regarding the Webster Second Annexation and Zoning.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 65, 1992, Annexing
91.0353 Acres, Known as the Webster Second Annexation.
366
June 2, 1992
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 66, 1992, Zoning 91.0353
Acres, Known as the Webster Second Annexation, into the RLP, Low
Density Planned Residential Zoning District, with a Planned Unit
Development (P.U.D.) condition attached.
This is a request to annex and zone 91.0353 acres located at the northwest
corner of County Road No. 9 and East Horsetooth Road (County Road No. 40).
The requested zoning is the RLP, Low Density Planned Residential District
(with a P.U.D. condition). The property is undeveloped and contains one
single family residence. The primary use of the land is agricultural. The
property is currently zoned FA-1, Farming in the County. This is a
voluntary annexation.
APPLICANT: The Kaplan Company OWNER: Harold Webster
1060 Sailors Reef 1742 Waterford Lane
Fort Collins, CO. 80525 Fort Collins, CO 80525
15. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No 67 1992 Authorizing the
Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Agreement for the Lease -Purchase
Financing of Laser Speed Detection Units.
The City solicited proposals from 10 firms for lease -purchase financing
for the City's vehicle, equipment and cable requirements. The proposal
meeting all City requirements and offering the lowest effective interest
' rate of 6.11% for three years was received from SAFECO CREDIT CO., INC.
("SAFECO"). SAFECO has agreed to lease -purchase finance the amount needed
to acquire the Laser Speed Detection units at this same low interest rate
of 6.11%.
16.
This ordinance will authorize the Purchasing Agent to enter into a lease -
purchase financing agreement with SAFECO at 6.11% percent interest rate
for the lease -purchase of two Laser Speed Detection units. This lease -
purchase financing is consistent with the financial policies of the City
of Fort Collins.
In October, 1991 the City Council gave final approval to a number of
ordinances which created the NCL, NCM, NCB and CL zoning districts. The
ordinances also established certain regulations which pertained to the use
of property located in these new zoning districts. Now that these zones
have been in place for a number of months and staff has had an opportunity
to use the new ordinances, a number of problem areas have been identified
which need to be addressed. Many of the problems are related to the need
to make changes to previously existing sections of the Zoning Code which
make reference to lists of zoning districts wherein certain regulations
should apply. It is appropriate that these lists be amended to include
references to one or more of the four new zoning districts. Additionally,
other "housekeeping" changes are considered necessary to make
367
June 2, 1992
clarifications to the Code in order to facilitate interpretation and I
enforcement.
17. Items Pertaining to Fort Collins Housing Authority "Payments in Lieu of
Taxes."
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 69, 1992, Appropriating
Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund
Resolution 92-93 Repealing Resolution 86-177 Amending the
Cooperation Agreement Between the City of Fort Collins and the City
of Fort Collins Housing Authority Entered Into on December 16, 1971.
The Fort Collins Housing Authority ("the Authority") has made a payment to
the City from its 1991 budget as a "Payment in Lieu of Taxes" ("PILOT") in
the sum of $16,990.19. Subsequent to making that payment, the Authority
requested that the City refund the money to the Authority. The purpose of
making the PILOT payment to the City was to enable the Authority to avoid
the necessity of returning that portion of its grant from the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") as "excess
funds." There is some uncertainty as to whether HUD agrees that these are
not "excess" funds which need to be returned to HUD, and clarification is
being sought on that point by the Authority. The proposed ordinance would
appropriate the PILOT payment back to the Authority, with the
understanding that the Authority and HUD would determine the proper
disposition of the funds.
'
The purpose of the Resolution is to repeal Resolution 86-177 (which
deleted the requirement that the Authority make annual PILOT payments to
the City), thereby reimposing the requirement that the Authority, in the
future, make PILOT payments to the City. Once PILOT payments are again
made under obligation, such future payments would clearly become the
property of the City, and the City would be at liberty to dispose of them
as it deems appropriate in accordance with law, including remitting the
funds to the Authority if the Council determined that such remittal served
a valid public purpose.
Article II, Section 17 of the City's Charter requires the City Council to
provide for an independent audit of the City's books and accounts on an
annual basis. For the past four years, Price Waterhouse (PW) has
performed the City's audit.
Under the terms of the contract with PW, the City has an annual option to
renew the contract until the completion of the 1992 audit. Thus, the 1992
audit would be the final year of the contract with Price Waterhouse.
9M
June 2, 1992
' The Finance Committee recommends that Council approve extending the audit
contract for another year. If this Resolution is adopted, the Finance
Committee has directed staff to begin the process for selection of a new
audit firm, which will automatically occur after the conclusion of the
1992 audit, so that the Finance Committee and Council can follow the
selection process on a timely basis in 1993. If Council elects not to
continue the contract for another year, staff will begin work immediately
on the process of selecting a new firm for 1992.
19.
Program.
This Resolution is needed in order to clarify the specific recipient of
the funding for the acquisition of the LCSI building. The sole purpose of
this Resolution is to transfer any and all rights of the $100,000 CDBG
Grant from the United Day Care, Inc. to the Fort Collins Area United Way.
20. Resolution 92-96 Authorizing the Purchase of Real Property Located at 620
North Wood Street.
This Resolution would authorize the purchase of a 5.37 acre parcel of land
by approving an Agreement of purchase and sale between the City and Mr.
Wesley Henke, sole owner of Concrete Products Co. The subject property,
including a small office building and concrete curing building is south of
and adjacent to the 700 Wood Street Service Center. The 5.37 acres is
ideally located and should complete property acquisitions associated with
the overall Wood Street master planning efforts. The proximity of the
property was significantly enhanced by the acquisition of the Burlington
Northern Right -of -Way and the Hart Property.
21. Items Relating to the Golf Board.
A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 70, 1992, Amending
Section 2-237 of the City Code Relating to the Golf Board.
Resolution 92-97 Making Appointments to the Golf Board.
At the May 19, 1992 Council meeting, Councilmember Edwards, as liaison to
the Golf Board, recommended that the composition of the Board be increased
from seven members to nine members. This ordinance amends the City Code
to increase the composition to nine members.
A Resolution has been prepared which appoints individuals to fill the two
additional positions on the Golf Board. The Resolution provides for the
appointments to become effective ten days following Second Reading of the
Ordinance which creates the two additional positions.
369
June 2, 1992
Councilmembers Edwards and Maxey recently interviewed applicants for the '
Golf Board and are recommending that the following individuals be
appointed with terms to expire as set forth below:
Name Expiration of Term
Hank Hoesli July 1, 1995
Henry Fry July 1, 1996
Two appointments will be made to the Golf Board later in this meeting to
fill vacancies created by the normal expiration of terms.
22. Routine Deeds and Easements.
a. Deed of Easement from Storck Development Corporation for utility
purposes across a portion of Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, Warren Farms
2nd Filing. Monetary consideration: $ 0.
b. Deed of Easement from Storck Development Corporation for drainage
purposes across a portion of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 2, Warren Farms
2nd Filing. Monetary consideration: $ 0.
C. Deed of Easement from Super Group, Inc. for sight distance across a
portion of Lot 61, Sunstone Village 5th Filing. This easement '
restricts fencing and landscaping within the area of the easement to
preserve an unobstructed line of sight for vehicles at the
intersection of Creststone Court and Stoney Creek Drive and at
Sunleaf Court and Stoney Creek Drive. Monetary consideration: $ 0.
d. Deed of Easement from Dan R.-Jensen for sight distance across a
portion of Lot 34, Quail Hollow 5th Filing. This easement restricts
fencing and landscaping within the area of the easement to preserve
an unobstructed line of sight for vehicles at the intersection of
Mercy Drive and Dixon Creek Lane. Monetary consideration: $ 0.
e. Deed of Easement from William L. Neal for drainage purposes across
all of Outlot B, Fairbrooke Subdivision, 3rd Filing. Monetary
consideration: $ 0.
f. Non-exclusive Easement Agreement with Colorado State Board of
Agriculture to install an electric switch/metering cabinet at
Prospect Road west of Centre Avenue. Monetary consideration: $10.
g. Powerline Easement from Jay P. Davis, 2404 West Mulberry, needed to
underground existing overhead electric services. Monetary
consideration: $10.
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek.
370
June 2, 1992
I
Item #8.
Item #9.
Item #10.
Item #12.
Item #13.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek.
Item #14B.
' Item 114C.
Item #15.
Item #16.
Regulations.
Item #17A.
Item #21A.
Councilmember Azari made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards, to adopt
and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas:
Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Fromme, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Winokur.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
371
June 2, 1992
Ordinance No. 58, 1992, Designating I
125-127 S. College Avenue
as a Historic Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14
The following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The purchaser of the property, John Pitner, is initiating this request for Local
Landmark Designation for 125-127 S. College Avenue (old Walgreens Drug store).
A public hearing was held by the Commission on May 13, 1992, at which time the
Commission voted to recommend designation of this property. The present owner
of the property, G & L Limited, a Colorado General Partnership, has consented to
the designation, but has reserved the right to withdraw such consent if the
pending sale of the property fails to occur prior to second reading of this
Ordinance.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 19,
designates 125-127 S. College Avenue as a local landmark for its historical,
architectural and geographic importance."
Councilmember Edwards made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to postpone
the Second Reading of Ordinance No. 58, 1992 until the City hears from the
owner/applicant. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Fromme, Horak, I
Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Staff Reports
City Manager Burkett gave a recap of the Partner's Superstars competition and
congratulated the City's volleyball team.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Horak complimented staff on Item #20, Resolution 92-96 Authorizing
the Purchase of Real Property Located at 620 North Wood Street. He reported on
the NLC Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Steering Committee meeting in
South Carolina where he participated in a tour of plastics recycling at Wellman
Industries, the parent company of the company which will manage the IPC.
Councilmember Fromme commented on the improved maintenance of EPIC.
Mayor Kirkpatrick referenced Item #8,
Expenditure in 1992, and gave a report on the May 26 meeting with the County
Assessor and County Treasurer. '
372
June 2, 1992
' City Manager Burkett introduced Geoff Wagner, Director of Corporate Services for
the City of Adelaide, South Australia, who was visiting in Fort Collins.
Ordinance No. 71, 1992 Authorizing the City Manager
to Enter into a Contract to Purchase the Site for
the Fort Collins Senior Citizen Center and Appropriating
Prior Year Reserves for the Acquisition of this Site and
for Site Development Costs, Adopted Option A on First Reading
The following is the staff's report on this item:
"FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Option A:
Seven acres and development costs: $342,000 from Capital reserves
reducing the projected undesignated General City Capital Projects fund balance
to $120,253 at the end of 1992 and $91,000 from General Fund Contingency
reserves,
reducing the projected undesignated General Fund Contingency fund
balance to
approximately $400,000.
Option B:
Seven acres and development costs: $433,000 reallocated within the
Choices 95
Senior Citizen Center budget, increasing appropriations by $433,000
in 1992 and decreasing appropriations by $433,000 in 1993.
Option C:
Five acres and development costs: $255,000 from Capital Reserves
reducing the projected undesignated General City Capital Projects fund balance
to $207,253
at the and of 1992 and $87,000 from General Fund Contingency
reserves,
reducing the projected undesignated General Fund Contingency fund
'
balance to
approximately $400,000.
Option D:
Five acres and development costs: $342,000 reallocated within the
Choices 95
Senior Citizen Center budget, increasing appropriations by $342,000
in 1992 and decreasing appropriations by $342,000 in 1993.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
By Resolution 92-89 Council established the seven acre Raintree site as the
preferred site for the new senior citizen center. The question before Council
is how to pay for the added costs (land acquisition and associated development
costs) associated with the Raintree site.
1. Council is being asked to choose between either adding money to the
project budget from City reserves or absorbing the additional expense in
the existing project budget.
2. Council is also being asked to decide whether to buy seven acres now or
buy five acres now and accept an option to buy two more acres sometime
within the next two years at an increased cost for the 2 acres of 9% per
year.
There are four possible options for consideration as outlined below:
I
Option A:
373
June 2, 1992
If the choice is to add money to the project from reserves for seven acres, I
Council would adopt Option A as follows:
1. Authorizing the City Manager, to enter into a purchase agreement with
Raintree Associates for seven acres; and
2. Authorizing the appropriation of funds from City reserves for the
purchase of seven acres ($346,000) and for associated development costs
($87,000), totalling $433,000.
Option B:
If the choice is to purchase seven acres and to absorb these costs in the
existing senior center project budget, Council would adopt Option 8 as
follows:
1. Authorizing the City Manager, to enter into a purchase agreement with
Raintree Associates for seven acres; and
2. Authorizing the reallocation of funds within the Choices 95 Senior
Citizen Center project to cover the purchase of seven acres ($346,000)
and for associated development costs ($87,000), totalling $433,000.
Option C•
If the choice is to purchase five acres and to add money to the project from '
reserves, Council would adopt Option C as follows:
1. Authorizing the City Manager, to enter into a purchase agreement with
Raintree Associates for five acres, with an option to purchase two more
acres within two years; and
2. Authorizing the appropriation of funds from City reserves for the
.purchase of five acres ($255,000) and for associated development costs
($87,000), totalling $342,000.
NOTE: Funding for the additional two acres would be determined at the
time of purchase, if applicable.
Option 0:
If the choice is to purchase five acres and to absorb these costs in the
existing senior center project budget, Council would adopt Option D as
follows:
1. Authorizing the City Manager, to enter into a purchase agreement with
Raintree Associates for five acres, with an option to purchase two more
acres within two years; and
374
June 2, 1992
' 2. Authorizing the reallocation of funds within the Choices 95 Senior
Citizen Center project to cover the purchase of five acres ($255,000)
and for associated development costs ($87,000), totalling $342,000.
NOTE: Funding for the additional two acres would be determined at the
time of purchase, if applicable, and would most likely come from a
source other than the Choices 95 Senior Citizen Center project. Design
parameters and budget for the project will have already been established
in order to begin the design phase of the project, and alterations at
that point would be very difficult.
Councilmember Edwards asked that the City discuss with the owner the alternative
to purchase five acres now with either a first right of refusal or an option to
buy two additional acres at a later time. Raintree Associates is not interested
in offering a first right of refusal on the two acres because it anticipates
receiving offers on this property in the near future. Raintree Association would
be willing, however, to offer a two-year option on the additional two acres. The
option would specify a price of $99,000 for the two acres if purchased during the
first twelve months, or a price of $108,000 for the two acres if purchased during
the second year of the option period. Both of these prices are higher than the
$91,000 figure offered in the initial proposal for the two acres if purchased
with the five acres.
The major advantage to purchasing only five acres now is to save money. However,
' if the option is exercised within the next two years, it will cost more for the
additional two acres than originally offered.
The major disadvantage to purchasing only five acres now is the possibility of
confusing those citizens who heard Council, through the adoption of Resolution
92-89, express an interest in buying seven acres.
If Council chooses to move in this direction, Option C or D could be adopted,
depending on Council's funding preference.
In the proposed ordinance, the description of the property to be purchased under
any of these options is shown on Exhibit "A". Presently, Exhibit "A" consists
of a map of the Raintree PUD, with the parcels under consideration highlighted.
A legal description of the property selected will be available before second
reading of this Ordinance. This legal description will then be substituted for
the Raintree map as Exhibit "A."
BACKGROUND•
On May 19, 1992, City Council adopted Resolution 92-89, selecting seven acres in
the Raintree P.U.D. as the preferred site for the new senior citizen center. The
two primary options for funding the land purchase and associated development
costs are to use a combination of Capital Project fund reserves and General Fund
Contingency reserves, or to reduce the scope of the project to pay for land
acquisition and associated site development costs. If Council wishes to spend
375
June 2, 1992
less money now, Raintree Associates is willing to sell five acres now, with a
two-year option to purchase two more acres.
REVIEW OF THE CHOICES 95 COMMITTEE DECISIONS ON SENIOR CENTER FUNDING
During the 1988 Choices 95 process the senior citizen center project was
submitted by staff to the Parks and Open Space Subcommittee . The original
request was for $6,000,000 to purchase land and to build a 45,000 square -foot
facility. After much discussion about all the submitted projects, the
Subcommittee recommended to the Choices 95 Executive Committee that a combined
recreation/senior/horticulture center be built for $6,000,000. There was
discussion about requiring that City -owned land be used for the facility, but
this opinion did not receive majority support from the Choices 95 Executive
Committee. The final recommendation by the Executive Committee to the City
Council was to allocate $4,000,000 to build a senior center that would "ideally
be located centrally and on already -owned City )and." This decision was not
unanimous among the Subcommittee members.
The project budget has expanded to $4,760,500 to take into account construction
inflation from the 1988 number of $4,000,000 to the actual completion of the
project in 1994. This difference is accumulated in the Choices 95 fund as
interest.
A DISCUSSION OF THE OPTIONS
OPTIONS A OR C: These options refer to a funding mechanism that uses the Capital '
Projects Reserve and the General Fund Contingency Reserve to pay for site
development costs and for purchasing either seven acres (Option A) or five acres
(Option C).
If either of these options is selected, the balance in two of the City's reserve
funds would be reduced. The City Finance Director has prepared a memo outlining
various options for funding the purchase and associated development costs of this
site (Attachment 1).
If Option A is chosen, staff recommends that $342,000 be covered from the Capital
Projects reserves and $91,000 be covered from the General Fund Contingency
reserve.
If Option C is chosen, staff recommends that $255,000 be covered from the Capital
Projects reserve and $87,000 be covered from the General Fund Contingency
reserve.
The Senior Advisory Board and project Building Team met on May 13 and discussed
location for this facility. The group unanimously supported the purchase of a
seven -acre site. They also supported the staff's opinion that seven acres would
allow for green space buffer between the facility and other future development
on the site, seven acres would allow for optimum expansion potential in the
future, and this size site could enhance opportunities adjacent to and in concert
376
June 2, 1992
with indoor spaces for outdoor events, such as picnics, cook -outs, facility
rentals, and special events.
If either of these options is selected, staff would reduce the scope of the
project and eliminate the four-)ane lap pool that is currently part of the
programmed space plan for the facility. When spaces were identified for this
facility, a list was developed that categorized each space by relative
importance. Replacement of those spaces found in the current facility were given
the highest priority, such as meeting rooms, classrooms, multi -purpose room and
kitchen, reception/lounge, and pool room.
The spaces that would be add-ons to the current facility, such as the fitness
center, pool, and metal/wood shop, were given less priority. These spaces were
included in the new facility because they are the tangible support for the
portion of the facility mission statement that speaks to sustaining health,
remaining active in community events and issues, and living independently. Of
these components, however, the pool costs the most to build and to maintain and
operate. The lap pool is projected to cost approximately $466,000 to construct.
If Option B is chosen, $433,000 of the cost to construct the pool would be
' reallocated in the Choices 95 Senior Citizen Center budget to pay for the land
and the development costs, and the remaining $33,000 would be placed in the
project contingency.
If Option 0 is chosen, $342,000 of the cost to construct the pool would be
reallocated in the Choices 95 Senior Citizen Center budget to pay for the land
and the development costs, and the remaining $124,000 would be used to make
facility enhancements as determined by the Building and Project Teams.
Advantages of Eliminating the Pool
1. The City would not spend a fairly large portion of the construction budget
on a very specialized facility like a pool.
2. The total cost to operate and maintain this new 40,000 square -foot facility
is estimated at approximately $344,000 per year more than the current 18,000
square -foot facility. Approximately $107,000 per year of this is to operate
and maintain the pool. Almost one-third of these ongoing costs could be
saved each year by eliminating the pool from this facility.
3. It is difficult to project the potential number of swimmers at the new
senior center. It is estimated that the current senior citizen swim
population represents approximately 100,000 participations a year at EPIC
and the Fort Collins Community Pool in water exercise classes and lap
swimming. The cost per swimmer for this use is estimated at $3.45 per use.
' If one -fifth of the users were to swim at the new senior center pool at a
377
June 2, 1992
cost of $107,000 the first year of operation and maintenance,. the cost per '
swimmer is estimated at $5.35 per use. Even though the number of pool users
is estimated to increase over the years, operation and maintenance costs
will also increase. It is questionable whether the number of swimmers in
ten years will also increase sufficiently to offset rising operation and
maintenance costs enough to decrease the cost per swimmer at this pool.
Disadvantages of Eliminating the Pool
Having a pool in this facility was a popular idea with many senior citizens,
especially if the water could be maintained at a consistent temperature.
Fluctuations in water temperatures at other City pools due to progran
demands is a problem for many seniors who need constant warmer water.
The benefits of water exercise on the elderly is well -documented by the
Arthritis Foundation. Arthritis is typified by chronic pain which can be
accompanied by disability, depression, and stress. The warmth and buoyancy
of water can help decrease pain and/or stiffness and help improve or
maintain joint flexibility. Depending on an arthritic person's
capabilities, some may experience increased muscle strength and improved
coordination, endurance, and ability to perform daily tasks as a result of
regular water exercise.
National demographics indicate that in ten years there will be 18,500,000
more people in the U.S. over age 45 than today (those baby -boomers). The '
Fort Collins population increased by 22,666 people from 1980 to 1990.
23.7Y, or 5377, of that increase was in the 45+ age group. These are the
immediate users of the new Senior Center. There was a 49.7% increase in the
25-44 age group, or 11,265 people, which is the baby -boomer age group. This
is the group reflected in the 18,500,000 figure above. These people will
have significant impacts on services as they age. This is a physically
active age group, and they enjoy biking, aerobics, swimming, and other forms
of exercise. It is projected that they will continue to enjoy these
activities, even in modified form, as they age.
4. Water exercise classes offered by the Fort Collins Recreation Division are
popular with seniors and non -seniors. Participation in water exercise
classes for all adults from 1988 (26,078 participations) through 1991
(35,597 participations) reflected a 40% increase during that period. The
average age of participants is about 40 years old. It is projected that
this form of exercise will continue to increase in popularity as the baby
boomers continue to age.
5. Eliminating the pool eliminates an important opportunity for this population
to continue preventive efforts at retaining health and a lifestyle that
contributes to the community.
The local chapters of the American Association of Retired Persons and United
Seniors have both publicly endorsed the concept of a pool in the new Senior
Citizen Center. '
378
June 2, 1992
The major advantages of using Choices 95 project money to pay for land and site
development cost are that the City can stay within the project budget, and not
have to use money held in reserves to fund these additional project expenses.
The major disadvantage of using project money to pay for land and site
development costs is that many citizens responding to a survey last winter about
facility location were not in favor of using project money and reducing the
project scope to purchase land for the facility.
At the joint meeting of the Senior Advisory Board and the senior center project
Building Team held on May 13, the two groups unanimously agreed that Council
should find other sources of funding for land acquisition and development costs
other than the Choices 95 Senior Citizen Center Project budget.
SUMMARY OF THE OPTIONS
Council is being asked to adopt on first reading one of the following four
options of Ordinance No. 71, 1992:
A. Authorizing the purchase of seven acres, with funding to come from City
Capital and General Fund reserves;
B. Authorizing the purchase of seven acres, with funding to come from
reallocation of the Choices 95 Senior Citizen Center Project budget,
' eliminating the four -lane Iap pool from the design;
C. Authorizing the purchase of five acres, with funding to come from City
Capital and General Fund reserves; or
D. Authorizing the purchase of five acres, with funding to come from
reallocation of the Choices 95 Senior Citizen Center Project budget,
eliminating the four -lane Iap pool from the design."
Recreation Manager Jean Helburg explained the optional ordinances.
Pat Long, Chair of the Senior Advisory Board, favored the Raintree site and
requested purchase of the seven acres from monies other than the Senior Citizen
Construction Fund so that the scope of the project will not be reduced.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to adopt
Ordinance No. 71, 1992, Option A.
Councilmember Horak gave concerns about development around the site, including
the lack of sidewalks on Drake and pedestrian and bicycle access.
Helburg replied that all necessary access options will be considered.
Councilmember Horak requested that negotiations for necessary access designations
and easements be done prior to final purchase of the site.
379
June 2, 1992
Councilmember Edwards asked what the remaining balances in the two reserve funds I
would be if these appropriations are made.
Finance Director Alan Krcmarik replied the remaining balance in the General City
Capital would be $120,000 and the projected balance in the General Fund
Contingency is about $400,000.
Councilmember Edwards asked about the relation to historic levels.
Krcmarik replied the General City Capital would be the lowest in several years.
He stated Council policies target 15% in the reserve, and although the balance
would be below that level, revenue trends indicate the funds will be replenished.
Councilmember Edwards asked about competing needs for the reserves.
Krcmarik stated that presently there are no additional projects competing for
this money.
Mayor Kirkpatrick clarified that any capital expenditure could be a candidate for
funding from this money.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 E. Harmony Road, opposed Options A and C and favored
eliminating the lap pool, suggesting seniors use the Pulse Fitness .Center pool.
Councilmember Horak asked about negotiations on off -site issues with the '
landowner.
Burkett replied that conditions can be specified as part of purchase.
Mayor Kirkpatrick suggested that additional information could be provided prior
to Second Reading on July 7.
Councilmember Horak gave his concerns about access to the site in terms of a
trail, upkeep of sidewalks, a partnership for a temporary sidewalk on Drake, and
the design of the Drake improvements. He spoke in favor of purchasing seven
acres instead of only five acres.
Councilmember Azari spoke in favor of the purchase as a good opportunity to add
to an adjacent major park and improve the quality of life for all citizens.
Councilmember Maxey spoke in favor of the location and access of the purchase.
Councilmember Edwards spoke against the motion and the inclusion of a pool in the
Senior Center because of the on -going operating costs of a pool.
Councilmember Winokur spoke in support of the motion and the process of design
of the proposed Center.
Mayor Kirkpatrick spoke against Option A because other capital projects are a
higher priority than the pool. '
380
June 2, 1992
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 71,, 1992, Option
A was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Fromme, Horak, Maxey, and Winokur.
Nays: Councilmembers Edwards and Kirkpatrick.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Edwards made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to
reconsider Item #12, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 62, 1992, Authorizing the
Issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds of the City of Fort Collins for
the Value Plastics, Inc. Project. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Fromme,
Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: Councilmember Horak
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 62, 1992, Authorizing
the Issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds
of the City of Fort Collins for the
The following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In January, Sampson Partnership/Value Plastics, Inc. ("Value Plastics") submitted
' an application to the City for the inducement of $2,150,000 of industrial
development revenue bonds pursuant to the City's established policies.
On March 3, 1992, the Council unanimously adopted the Inducement Resolution for
the Value Plastics, Inc. Project in the amount of $2,150,000. This Ordinance,
which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 19, authorizes the issuance
of the industrial development revenue bonds to be used to finance the
construction of the improvements for the project. These improvements include
acquiring, constructing, and equipping a manufacturing facility to be located
near or on Eastbrook Drive in the Timberline Business Park.
Value Plastics was founded by the Sampsons in 1968 to design, manufacture,
promote and sell .a broad selection of products related to the interconnection of
hose, tubing and manifolds. The Company's present facility on Eastbrook was
financed through IDRB's issued by the City in 1984."
Finance Director Krcmarik stated that reconsideration was necessary because
Ordinance No. 62, 1992 needed to be amended to reflect changes incorporated into
the bond documents.
Tom Higley, bond counsel for Value Plastics IDRB bonds, read the amendments into
the record.
The amendments were accepted as friendly amendments.
1 381
June 2, 1992
The vote on Councilmember Azari's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 62, 1992 as '
amended on Second Reading (See motion to adopt the Consent Calendar on Page 371)
was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Fromme, Horak, Kirkpatrick,
Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Appeal of the April 27, 1992 Decision of
the Planning and Zoning Board Approving,
With "Comments", the Site Plan Advisory Review
for the New Fort Collins High School,
Planning and Zoning Board Decision Modified
The following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On April 27, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 6-0 to advise the Poudre
R-1 School District Board of Education that the location, character, and extent
of the New Fort Collins High School is appropriate and conforms to the elements
of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Fort Collins. This approval was
accompanied by eight "comments" that are summarized in the letter to Poudre R-1
School District dated April 28, 1992, and attached to this memo. Since this
appeal has been brought by Councilmember Winokur, for purposes of furthering
public review, there are no specific allegations or errors pertaining to the ,
Planning and Zoning Board's action.
BACKGROUND:
The appeal has been brought to City Council by a member of City Council. The
following information is provided based on the Staff Report to the Planning and
Zoning Board:
1. Citizen Participation:
A. Neighborhood Information Meeting for Pine Code O.D.P. January 29, 1992
B. Neighborhood Information Meeting for New F.C.H.S. April 1, 1992
C. Briefing with Citizen Planners, Land Use Committee, April 24, 1992
D. Three neighborhoods notified, 743 names on mailing list
2. Right of Advisory Review:
The City's right of review is found in two State Statutes:
A. Section 22-32-124, C.R.S.
B. Section 31-23-209, C.R.S. '
382
June 2, 1992
' In brief, the first statute requires the School District to consult with and
advise the municipality of proposed construction in order that the proposed site
shall conform to the adopted plan of the community insofar as feasible, and that
the municipality may review and make "comments" on the site development plan.
The second statute requires that public buildings not be constructed or
authorized until the )ocation, character, and extent of the proposed improvements
have been submitted for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.
"Comments" of the Planning and Zoning Board:
During the deliberation of the item, members of the Planning and Zoning Board
offered eight "comments" regarding the proposed new High School. These eight
comments, which were adopted by the Board, are summarized in an attached letter
from Ted Shepard to the School District.
Design Summary:
A public high school is a permitted use in both the B-P, Planned Business, and
R-P, Planned Residential zone districts. The campus is 68 acres and includes a
285,000 square foot building, 39 acres of athletic fields, three separate parking
lots, and a 65 foot high tower as the primary identification symbol. There are
three elements that exceed the City's 40 foot height limit. These are the east
end of the main gym, the "fly -loft" of the theater, and the tower. These
' elements are found to not have an impact on surrounding residential areas.
A non -vehicular circulation system is.designed to complement a network planned
for the Pine Cone Overall Development Plan. The vehicular system is designed to
distribute traffic between the two adjacent arterials. Vermont Drive is the
primary access from the north, and Horsetooth Road is the primary access on the
south. A secondary access off Timberline will lead to the main entry and be for
the school buses (and Transfort) and visitor parking.
The high school campus has been planned in conjunction with the Pine Cone O.D.P.
which includes a City Neighborhood Park, an 11 acre commercial shopping center,
and a mix of housing densities. The entire area comprises 238 acres.
J
Procedure•
(1) Explanation of the nature of the appeal and presentation by City staff.
(2) Presentation of argument by the appellant and any party -in -interest in
support of the appellant. (Because no grounds for appeal have been
stated, Councilmember Winokur may want to use this opportunity to
identify any concerns or issues which he believes warrant review and
discussion by the Council. Any party - in- interest who is opposed to the
position taken by the P&Z Board should also be given an opportunity to
speak at this point in the proceedings.)
383
June 2, 1992
(3) Presentation of argument by any party - in- interest who is an opponent of ,
the appeal or, in this instance, who is supportive of the P&Z Board's
decision. Assuming that the School District is supportive of the P&Z
Board's decision, this would be the appropriate time for a presentation
by the School District if it should desire to make a presentation.
(4) Motion, discussion and vote by the City Council."
City Attorney Steve Roy outlined the appeal process.
City Planner Ted Shepard made a brief presentation.
Councilmember Winokur inquired who would pay for the widening of Horsetooth Road
and Timberline Road.
City Manager Burkett clarified that street oversizing funds would be paid by all
the property owners including the school district.
Councilmember Winokur asked about limited turn accesses.
Transportation Planner Eric Bracke replied there will be structural changes to
the accesses as need dictates.
Councilmember Winokur inquired about funds for the later construction.
Burkett replied that either the development requiring those improvements or '
street oversizing funds would pay for the improvements.
Councilmember Winokur asked how land use, tenants and architectural control would
be enforced on the adjacent private property.
Roy replied if the regulations come from covenants placed on the property to the
benefit of the school district, the enforcement would be by the parties
benefitted. He further stated a proposed land use could not be prohibited by the
City simply because it violated private covenants.
Councilmember Winokur inquired about the school having "governance" over the
adjacent City park and commercial center.
Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman replied there is a provision in the protective
covenants pertaining to the right of governance on the Timberline property by the
School District over any person enrolled in the District schools.
Roy further clarified that the School District is hot being given the authority
to regulate the activities of non -students in the park.
Councilmember Winokur asked about the expected street costs for Horsetooth and
Timberline, how this facility might change the timetable, and whether the City
has the right-of-way.
384 1
June 2, 1992
' Burkett replied that in the adopted Master Plan, Timberline will be.six lanes but
the cost and timing have not been estimated. He further stated that right-of-way
for Horsetooth is being dedicated as part of this project.
Scott Mason, 861 Sandy Cove Lane, member of the board of directors of Citizen
Planners, expressed concerns about the Poudre R-1 public input process and about
transportation issues, including parking space design and number and the
provision of alternative modes of transportation.
Gina Janett, 620 Colorado, chair of the transportation committee of Citizen
Planners, spoke in favor of having bikeways in place when the school opens and
preferential parking for carpools. She gave concerns and recommendations about
site access.
Joan Seaman spoke in opposition to the location of the high school because of its
proximity to NCR, which stores toxic chemicals. She gave her concerns about an
emergency evacuation plan and the proposed adjacent commercial development.
Susanne Nix, 1307 Fairway Five Drive, opposed a commercial area adjacent to the
high school, the open campus concept and flexible scheduling.
Bill Slimak, resident south of Harmony Road, spoke in favor of flexible
scheduling.
Keith Dixon, central area executive principal responsible for the high school
project for Poudre R-1, made a presentation.
Councilmember Winokur asked about the process on the Arctic Fox alignment.
Shepard stated that concerns were expressed at the neighborhood meeting that
southbound students would use Arctic Fox, which connects to the southerly student
parking lot, instead of staying on the arterials.
Councilmember Winokur asked if a right turn only exit was considered.
Shepard replied that would require a median which would be a distance back from
the intersection.
Dixon stated the District met with the Transportation Department on that issue.
Councilmember Winokur asked about the covenants.
Dixon stated the goal is to provide a total community where students can learn
to interact with the community on a positive basis. The goal is to provide for
the students' needs on the school site.
John Brzeinski, Fort Collins High School principal, stated that the covenants
would give the school an additional tool.
1 385
June 2, 1992
Councilmember Winokur clarified that the City would not be in a position to I
enforce the covenants.
Brzeinski affirmed the District's understanding that recourse is through the
court system.
Councilmember Winokur asked whether the District had recommended specific
alternative modes of transportation.
Dixon replied that the District transportation committee was still collecting
data and examining recommendations.
Councilmember Winokur inquired if traffic safety for alternative modes was
incorporated in the internal design of the building such as room for bike helmets
in lockers.
Dixon replied the District has worked closely with the City to incorporate these
issues in design.
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to modify
the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board as follows:
"That the City approves the site plan for the new Fort Collins High School
on the condition that the School District encourage student use of
alternative forms of transportation, in order to reduce air pollution and '
improve the City's overall air quality, by:
(1) establishing a parking permit system which would: (1) include a priority
parking space allocation for students based upon seniority, academic
achievement, merit, disability, and (b) give priority to those students
who car pool and those who leave their cars parked for the entire school
day; and
(2) constructing parking facilities for the high school in a phased manner
on an as -needed basis and not constructing all parking spaces
anticipated for future student populations at the high school as a part
of the initial construction project."
Councilmember Winokur stated his intent was to reinforce the Planning and Zoning
Board and respond to concerns expressed.
Councilmember Azari was concerned about the City preempting the participation of
the students in the governance of their campus.
Councilmember Winokur viewed these modifications as a statement of areas of
priority and a basis to build the system upon.
Councilmember Fromme supported this modification as sending a strong message and
supported the process and on -going communication with the District.
S11
June 2, 1992
Councilmember Horak supported the recommendation and expressed his concerns about
transportation and air quality.
Councilmember Edwards spoke against the term "condition" included in the motion.
Councilmember Azari supported the motion and the building of a community learning
center.
Mayor Kirkpatrick supported the proposed modification.
City Attorney Roy clarified that the conditions in the motion would substitute
for Comments 1 and 2 in Ted Shepard's letter of April 28, 1992, but that Comments
3-8 would remain a part of the Planning and Zoning Board decision.
The vote on Councilmember Winokur's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Fromme, Horak, Kirkpatrick, and Winokur. Nays: Council members Edwards and
Maxey.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Related to the City's Fiscal Year
1992-93 Community Development Block Grant Program,
Public Hearing Held and Resolution 92-98 Adopted
as Amended and Ordinance No. 72, 1992 Adopted on First Reading
' The following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A. Public Hearing and Resolution 92-98 Adopting Fiscal Year 1992-93 Community
Development Block Grant Programs and Projects.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 72, 1992, Appropriating
Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between
Projects in the Community Development Block Grant Fund.
The Community Development Block Grant Program provides Federal funds from the
Department of Housing and Urban Development to the City of Fort Collins which can
be allocated to housing and community development related programs and projects,
thereby, reducing the demand on the City's General Fund Budget to address such
needs.
BACKGROUND:
The CDBG Program is an ongoing grant administration program funded by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The City of Fort Collins has
received CDBG Program funds since 1975. In 1975 and FY 1976-77 the City received
HUD CDBG discretionary grants. Since FY 1977-78, the City has been an
' Entitlement Grant recipient of CDBG funds, meaning the City is guaranteed a
387
June 2, 1992
certain level
of funding each year.
The level of funding is dependent on the
'
total amount
of funds allocated
to the program by Congress and on a formula
developed
by HUD, which includes
data on total population, minorities as a
percentage
of population, income
levels, housing stock conditions, etc.
Additional
background information
on the City's Community Development Block Grant
Program is
presented in Appendix
"A" attached to this report.
AVAILABLE FUNDS
The City's Entitlement Grant for FY 1992-93 includes $795,000 from the Federal
FY '92 Budget and a supplemental $7,000 from the Federal FY '90 Budget for a
total of $802,000. The FY '90 funds were received in mid-1991, too late to be
included within the FY 1991-92 CDBG Program year.
The Entitlement Grant will be combined with $50,000 of Program Income and $30,000
of Reprogrammed funds. HUD requires the City to estimate the total amount of
anticipated Program Income which will be received during the program year.
Combining all sources of income provides a total of $882,000 available for
programs and projects during the next CDBG Program year.
The following summarizes the amount and source of available funds:
AMOUNT SOURCE
$795,000 FY '92 Entitlement Grant '
7,000 FY '90 Supplemental.Entitlement Grant
30,000 Reprogrammed Funds
50,000 Program Income
$882,000 Total
Reprogrammed Funds are funds which were not expended during the previous program
year. For FY 1992-93, $30,000 of Reprogrammed Funds will be available from the
FY 1991-92 Contingency fund.
Program Income includes funds returned to the City through the payment of past
housing rehabilitation loans.
Below is a summary of recent CDBG funding levels allocated from HUD to the City
of Fort Collins:
Entitlement
Reprogrammed
Program
Year
Grant
Funds
Income
Total Funds
1985
$799,000
$ 58,000
$ 20,000
$877,000
1986
$566,000
$165,719
$102,567
$834,286
1987
$685,000
$ 99,614
$ 50,000
$807,614
388
'
June 2, 1992
'
1988
$653,000
$100,000
$
50,000
$803,000
1989
$679,000
$ 90,000
$100,000
$869,000
1990
$645,000
$ 50,000
$
30,000
$725,000
1991
$728,000
$160,000
$
30,000
$918,000
1992
$802,000
S 30,000
$
50,000
$882,000
SELECTION
PROCESS
The selection process for the City's FY 1992-93 CDBG Program began on February
13, 1992, when the CDBG Commission held a public hearing to obtain citizen input
on community development and housing needs. The CDBG Program office placed legal
advertisements in local newspapers starting on March 1, to solicit requests for
CDBG funded programs and projects for FY 1992-93. The application deadline was
Friday March 27. At the close of the deadline the City received 24 applications
requesting a total of approximately $1.3 million.
Copies of all applications were forwarded to the City Council through the City
Manager's office on April 2. Copies of all applications were distributed to the
CDBG Commission at their regular monthly meeting on Thursday April 9. On
Wednesday May 6, and Thursday May 7, the Commission met to ask clarification
questions from each applicant. Copies of the minutes from these meetings are
attached to this report.
The Commission then met on Wednesday May 13, for the purpose of preparing a
' recommendation to the City Council as to which programs and projects should be
funded for the FY 1992-93 program year. At this meeting the Commission reviewed
the written applications, the information provided during the question and answer
session, and reviewed the performance of agencies who received FY 1991-92, CDBG
Funds. The Commission then worked on formulation of their list of
recommendations. A copy of the Commission's minutes from this meeting is
attached to this report.
On Tuesday May 26, the Commission met in a work session with the City Council to
discuss. the Commission's list of recommended programs and projects. The work
session also afforded the Council the opportunity to discuss with the Commission
the purpose of the CDBG Program, opportunities for improving future effectiveness
of the CDBG Program, and policy development necessary for making funding
allocations.
CDBG COMMISSION'S LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS
HUD CDBG regulations limit the amount of available funds which can be allocated
to various generic categories. Funds for Planning and Administrative purposes
are limited to 20% of the total of the Entitlement Grant and any anticipated
Program Income. The City's Entitlement Grant for the next program year is
$795,000 and anticipated Program Income is $50,000 (the FY '90 Supplemental
Entitlement Grant amount of $7,000, according to HUD, can not be included in the
funding limitation calculations). This means the 20Y limitation for Planning and
Administrative purposes is applied to a total of $845,000, making the 20% funding
' limit a total of $169,000.
389
June 2, 1992
Funds for Public Services are limited to 15% of the total of the Entitlement '
Grant and anticipated Program Income, making the 15% funding limit a total of
$126,750.
The Commission, thus, not only had to decide which applicants presented programs
and projects which best fit into the City's CDBG Program, but also had to insure
funding allocations were kept within HUD regulations. The Commission utilized
several factors to determine priorities in the process to establish its list of
recommendations, including:
o funds should be used for full rather than partial funding of
applications,
o funds should be used for projects which are not a duplication of efforts
by other agencies,
o funds should be used for "seed" money rather than continuing operations,
o funds should be used for capital facility purchases rather than
operational expenses, and
o funds should be used for housing programs.
Many of the factors listed above have been issues of discussion in previous
years. The biggest change in this year's list of recommendations deals with the '
issue of "full" versus "partial" funding of an application's request. In the
past, it has been the practice of the Commission and the Council to attempt to
cut the available "pie of funds" into many small pieces to insure that almost
every applicant received a "piece of the pie." The CDBG staff and the Commission
has received feed -back from social service providers that in most cases a smaller
allocation of funds was worse than receiving no funds at all. Thus, during the
formulation of the recommendations, the Commission attempted, to the greatest
extent possible, to allocate full funding to an applicant.
Listed below is a summary of each applicant's initial request for funding and the
Commission's list of recommendations:
RECOMMENDED
REQUEST
FUNDING
APPLICANT
PROGRAM/PROJECT
$ 95,871
$ 95,871
City of Fort Collins
CDBG Administration
2,132
2,132
Neighbor -to -Neighbor, Inc.())
CHOICE Senior Housing
Counseling
8,252
8,252
Neighbor -to -Neighbor, Inc.())
Comprehensive Counseling
390
June 2, 1992
ACQUISITION
RECOMMENDED
REQUEST FUNDING APPLICANT PROGRAM/PROJECT
233,000 116,500 Ft. Collins United Way (2)
20,000 20,000 Habitat for Humanity
500,000 500,000 Housing Authority (3)
188,690 - CARE
77,000 - TRAC
LCSI Building
Land for Low -Income
Housing
Distressed Property
Land for Low -Income
Housing
San Cristo Subdivision
REQUEST FUNDING APPLICANT PROGRAM/PROJECT
$ 6,500 6,500 Disabled Resource Services
16,460 16,460 Crossroads Safehouse
21,500 - CCSN
5,000
10,718
36,933
15,000
14,620
12,895
15,000
7,483
7,500
22,256
15,000
8,528
33,008
10,718
23,182
15,000
13,354
8,528
33,008
- CCSN
Senior Employment Services
Project Self -Sufficiency (4)
New Bridges
- Volunteer's Clearing House
- Lutheran Family Services
- United Day Care Center
- United Day Care Center
- Sunshine School, Inc.
Care -A -Van & SAINT (5)
- Front Range Comm. Coll.
Neighbor -to -Neighbor (1)
Neighbor -to -Neighbor (1)
Total amount of funding requested = $1,346,413.
NOTES:
Youth Employment Program
Shelter Manager
Hostel of Hospitality
and Hope Job Bank
Job Empowerment Program
Employment Services
Family Self -Sufficiency
Operating Expenses
Basic Education Skills
Crisis Counseling
Sliding Scale Day Care
Playground Improvements
Sliding Scale Day Care
Peak Hour Service
Adult Literacy Program
CHOICE Senior Housing
Counseling
Comprehensive Housing
Counseling
(1) Over the past several years, Neighbor -to -Neighbor's CHOICE Senior Housing
Counseling and Comprehensive Housing Counseling programs have been placed in
the Planning/Administration Category to free additional funds within the
Public Services Category. This placement was done with the understanding
that these programs were providing "fair housing" counseling, i.e.,
counseling related to such issues as housing discrimination due to race,
income, marital status, etc. During a recent HUD audit of the City's CDBG
391
June 2, 1992
Program, it was discovered that only a relatively small percentage (20%) of
these programs were dealing with fair housing issues. The largest portions
of the programs were dealing with general housing counseling issues such as,
late rent payments, budget preparation, mortgage default, etc. The largest
portion, therefore, of these programs, must be placed within the Public
Services Category putting greater pressure on that category to fund
additional programs.
(2) The CDBG Commission offers this recommendation as a "challenge grant"
whereby the City will match dollar -for -dollar, up to a maximum of $116,500,
United Way fund raising activities to pay for the balance of the mortgage
for the LCSI building. The balance is $233,000. The Commission also
recommends that rents be reduced to cover nothing higher than operating
costs.
(3) The Commission stipulates that this funding should be used to acquire
distressed properties. However, the Commission does not believe the funds
should be used on the Northern Hotel. The Commission believes the
acquisition and rehabilitation of the Northern Hotel is not a viable
residential project. The Commission believes that CDBG funds should be used
to acquire the most economical low income housing available within the
community.
(4) The Commission recommends that $10,000 be allocated to this applicant and
that an additional $13,182 be allocated contingent upon the applicant
receiving Section 8 Vouchers in September. If the Vouchers are not
received, the Commission recommends the $13,132 be placed in CDBG Program
Contingency fund.
(5) The Commission recommends the alternative funding amount contained in the
applicant's proposal.
A summary of the Commission's funding recommendation by category is as follows:
RECOMMENDED
FUNDING Y of TOTAL CATEGORY
$106,255 12.0 PLANNING and ADMINISTRATION (Maximum $169,000 based on
20% of Entitlement Grant and Program Income)
636,500 72.2 ACQUISITION
126,750 14.4 PUBLIC SERVICES (Maximum $126,750 based on 15% of
Entitlement Grant and Program Income)
12,495 1.4 CONTINGENCY
$882,000 100.0 TOTAL
The total amount of requests considered by the CDBG Commission was approximately
$1.3 million. With $1.3 million in total requests and only $882,000 available,
obviously not all applications could be funded. Also, due to HUD funding '
392
June 2, 1992
' limitations, some applications received less funds than requested in order to
keep the generic category within program maximums. No applicant is recommended
to receive more funds than requested.
The CDBG Commission has recommended full funding for eleven (11) applicants. In
the Commission's opinion, the eleven applications recommended for full funding
best fit CDBG national program objectives and City CDBG policies (presented in
Appendix "A"). Proposals which did not receive full funding were deemed of a
lower priority and, in some cases, a lack of funds prohibited their full funding.
The following describes the specific conditions the Commission believes should
be attached to certain funding recommendations and the reasons why certain
projects did not receive their requested full funding amount:
Fort Collins Area United Way - Acquisition of ICSI Building
Requested: $233,000
Recommended: $116,500
As indicated above, the CDBG Commission offers this recommendation as a
challenge grant whereby the City will match dollar -for -dollar, up to a
maximum of $116,500, United Way fund raising activities to pay for the
balance of the mortgage for the LCSI building. The balance of the mortgage
is $233,000. The Commission also recommends that the funds be granted on
the condition that the rents charged to the various social service agencies
housed within the LCSI building be lowered to cover just the direct
operating and maintenance costs of the facility. The Commission believes
that the purchase of the building will have a positive effect on the
provision of human services because agency funds, which once had to cover
debt retirement, can be allocated to programs which provide direct help and
services to clients.
Ft. Collins Housing Authority - Distresses Property Acquisition & Rehab
Requested: $500,000
Recommended: $500,000
As indicated above, the Commission stipulates that this funding should be
used to acquire distressed properties. However, the Commission believes the
funds should not be used on the Northern Hotel. The Commission believes the
acquisition and rehabilitation of the Northern Hotel is not a viable
residential project. The Commission believes that CDBG funds should be used
to acquire the most economical low income housing available within the
community. The Commission has been impressed with the Housing Authority's
performance with past grants and believes there are other units available
within the community which would afford better utilization of the CDBG
funds.
Project Self -Sufficiency - Family Self -Sufficiency
Requested: $ 36,933
Recommended: $ 10,000 (plus $13,182 if Section 8 Vouchers are received)
393
June 2, 1992
The applicant informed the Commission of their failure to receive an '
anticipated allocation of Section 8 Vouchers. Since most of the funding
request related to the Section 8 Vouchers, the Commission recommends that
only $10,000 be allocated to this applicant and that an additional $13,182
be allocated contingent upon the applicant receiving Section 8 Vouchers in
September. If the Vouchers are not received, the Commission recommends the
$13,132 be placed in the CDBG Program Contingency fund.
New Bridges - Operating Expenses
Requested: $ 15,000
Recommended: $ 15,000
The Commission wishes to indicate to the applicant that this grant is to be
considered as "seed" money to help establish this program. The Commission
believes the applicant should secure funding from other sources in future
years.
Care -A -Van & SAINT - Peak Hour Service
Requested: $ 22,256
Recommended: $ 13,354
Because of the limitation of funds which can be allocated to the Public
Services category, the Commission recommends the alternative funding amount
contained in the applicant's proposal.
The following acquisition applicants were not recommended to receive any funding I
by the CDBG Commission.
Community Affordable Residences Enterprises - Acquisition of Land
Requested: $188,690
The Commission believes the request is a duplication of Housing Authority
efforts.
The Resource Assistance Center - Acquisition of San Cristo Subdivision
Requested: $77,000
The Commission believes there are too many unknown and untried aspects, such
as the community land trust, associated with this project to justify
funding.
The following Public Service category applicants did not receive a Commission
recommendation for funding. Generally, the basic limitation of funds which could
be allocated to Public Service category provides the reason why these applicants
were not funded. In addition, the CDBG staff and the Commission has received
feed -back from social service providers that in most cases a smaller allocation
of funds was worse than receiving no funds at all. Thus, during the formulation
of the recommendations, the Commission attempted to the greatest extent possible
to allocate full funding to an applicant. The following applicants were deemed
of a lower priority than the applicants which received funding. '
394
June 2, 1992
' CCSN - Hostel of Hospitality and Hope Job Bank
Requested: S 12,500
CCSN- Job Empowerment Program
Requested: $ 5,000
In reviewing the above two applications, the Commission noted that the
agency had sufficient non -allocated funds within its budget to cover the
expenses for these programs. The Commission does not want to appear to be
penalizing the agency for excellent management, but believes other
applicants are in greater need for CDBG funds. The Commission also believes
the request was for an enhancement of service and that the basic shelter
operations can continue as in the past.
Volunteer's Clearing House - Basic Education Skills
Requested: $ 14,620
This proposal was considered a lower priority when compared with the other
applications.
Lutheran Family Services - Crisis Counseling
Requested: $ 12,895
The Commission believes the agency has other opportunities to acquire
funding for this program.
United Day Care - Sliding Scale Day Care
Requested: $ 15,000
United Day Care - Playground Improvements
Requested: $ 7,483
Sunshine School. Inc. - Sliding Scale Day Care
Requested: $ 7,500
The above day care providers have received numerous CDBG funding
appropriations in the past. The Commission believes the CDBG program has
provided sufficient "seed" money support for these programs. The Commission
believes funds to sustain these programs should come from other sources
within the community. In the case of United Day Care, the purchase of the
LCSI building should provide additional funds for daycare services since
funds would not need to be allocated for debt retirement. Sunshine School
currently provides service in a City -owned facility, paying $1.00 rent per
year.
Front Range Community College - Adult Literacy Program
Requested: $ 15,000
This proposal was considered a lower priority when compared with the other
' applications."
395
June 2, 1992
Councilmember Azari withdrew from discussion and vote on this item due to a I
perceived conflict of interest.
Mayor Kirkpatrick disclosed her resignation from the advisory board of Habitat
for Humanity program.
Chief Planner Ken Waido made a presentation on the item and presented the revised
Resolution.
Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards, to adopt
revised Resolution 92-98.
John Dengler, 318 Starling, representing CARE Affordable Housing, spoke in
support of the 20-unit first phase goal of affordable housing for the working
poor.
Brian Soukup, president of CARE Affordable Housing advisory board, spoke in
support of CDBG seed money as was provided for the Mission project.
Jim Arwood, a working homeless individual, stated he was unable to find housing
for his family.
Sister Mary Alice Murphy, spoke in favor of more than one group working on
housing solutions and requested funding for CARE.
Ernie Giron, executive director of Catholic Community Services, requested '
reconsideration of funding for the Mission and Hope Job Bank.
Lou Stitzel, 521 Laurel, president of TRAC, stated the variety of needs for
housing cannot be met by one agency and supported low income home ownership as
in projects like San Cristo Subdivision.
Christin Ayala, single mother of four children, spoke about the conditions in
subsidized housing and in favor of the TRAC housing project.
Chris Zell, Larimer County Affordable Housing Task Force, recommended
reallocating the CDBG funds for program administration into projects. He further
recommended increasing Project Self -Sufficiency grant. He stated the community's
three priorities are housing (most pressing), decent employment, and education.
Cynthia Hartman, Larimer Community Services Center, supported allocating $116,500
to LCSI to retire mortgage.
Lauri Grondin, former Loveland resident and member of the housing board,
supported housing.
Councilmember Maxey asked about the CARE and TRAC projects.
Lou Stitzel clarified that the CARE project is 20 units of rental and the TRAC
project is 11 units of home ownership. '
396
June 2, 1992
' Sister Murphy stated that CARE targets theworking poor families who must rent.
Mayor Kirkpatrick inquired if CARE had specified a location.
Sister Murphy replied the original location was located near Vine and Shields,
but there is another suitable parcel where 13 units could be built.
Mayor Kirkpatrick asked about the relationship to the Habitat for Humanity
project.
Sister Murphy replied Habitat for Humanity uses sweat equity to build home
ownership.
Councilmember Winokur asked about City fees for the TRAC and CARE projects.
Sister Murphy stated that the City development fees for the CARE project are
$105,000.
Waido replied that the City development fees are $6,000-$7,000 per lot on single
family housing, so for TRAC the fees would be $66,000-$70,000. He stated that
staff recommended CARE increase its application by $20,000.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Fromme, to reduce
the Housing Authority funding to $320,000, funding the CARE program at $130,000
' and TRAC at $50,000.
Councilmember Horak spoke in favor of different approaches to the provision of
housing.
David Herrera, Director of the Housing Authority, opposed the motion as
minimizing the effectiveness of any one organization.
Chris Zell, Larimer County Affordable Housing Task Force, suggested the City
allocate the administration funding or waive the development fees on CARE and
TRAC in lieu of increasing funding.
Bruce Hall, 525 Affirmed Court, supported the amendment.
Brian Soukup, CARE representative, supported the amendment.
Tom Higley, TRAC legal advisor, supported the amendment.
John Kefalas, Housing Authority Board member, opposed the amendment.
Councilmember Horak inquired if a lien can be placed on .a piece of property for
fees.
City Attorney Roy replied time payments or liens would depend on the wording of
' the Code provision.
397
June 2, 1992
Councilmember Horak underscored that administration costs would have to be '
absorbed elsewhere. He hoped that, by spreading the funding around, different
ideas and energy would be tapped.
Councilmember Edwards spoke against the amendment and supported the
recommendation of the CDBG Commission.
Councilmember Fromme supported the amendment because of local involvement in the
CARE project.
Mayor Kirkpatrick commented on the lack of recognition of the priority of
children in the public services allocations and the equitable distribution of
resources.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to amend Resolution 92-98 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Fromme, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Winokur.
Nays: Councilmember Edwards (Councilmember Azari withdrawn)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak stated that state statute limits to cost the development fees
which can be charged.
Councilmember Winokur spoke about fee waivers being considered in the future in
the context of the budget and requested performance feedback on contributions to ,
Larimer County for human services.
The vote on Councilmember Maxey's motion to adopt Resolution 92-98 as amended was
as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Edwards, Fromme, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and
Winokur. Nays: None (Councilmember Azari withdrawn).
II;L�u[�ll[il�illl� 11�Z
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to adopt
Ordinance No. 72, 1992 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Edwards, Fromme,
Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None (Councilmember Azari
withdrawn).
Burkett noted staff concerns about the TRAC proposal's compliance with federal
guidelines.
Councilmember Horak clarified that if there are compliance problems, the money
would be returned to the CDBG pot.
Ordinance No. 61, 1992, Authorizing the Lease
of a "Corporate Lot" at the Fort Collins/
The following is staff's memorandum on this item: '
393
June 2, 1992
' "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Airport Manager, along with representatives of the cities of Fort Collins and
Loveland, has negotiated a lease of Lot 1, Barnstorm Second Addition to the City
of Loveland, Colorado to Virga Corporation.
The Virga Corporation intends to construct a 3600 sq. ft. aircraft hanger to
house its corporate aircraft. At the end of the leased period, the improvements
revert to the ownership of the cities. The term of the lease is for 25 years
with three five-year options to renew. The lot is approximately one acre, 4356
sq. ft. The initial lease rate is S.10 per square foot with increases every five
years. This Ordinance, which was adopted 6-0 on First Reading on May 19,
authorizes the Lease of a "Corporate Lot" at the Fort Collins/Loveland Municipal
Airport."
Councilmember Maxey withdrew from discussion and vote on this item due to a
perceived conflict of interest.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Winokur, to adopt
Ordinance No. 61 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Fromme,
Horak, Kirkpatrick, and Winokur. Nays: None (Councilmember Maxey withdrawn).
THE MOTION CARRIED.
' Ordinance No. 73, 1992, Authorizing the Lease
of Certain Property at the Fort Collins -Loveland
Municipal Airport by Mesa Airways, Inc.,
d/b/a United Express Airlines, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Leasing certain portions of the Airport Terminal Facility to Mesa Airways, Inc.,
d/b/a United Express Airlines ("United Express") will provide lease and landing
fee revenue for the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport. These revenues will
be available for the airport operations to offset expenses and maintain the
airfield.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Adoption of this Ordinance will authorize the Mayor to sign an Airline Use and
Lease Agreement with United Express.
BACKGROUND:
The Ordinance authorizes the Mayor to execute a lease agreement with United
Express Airlines similar to the Airline Use and Lease Agreement executed August
' 17, 1990, with Continental Express.
399
June 2, 1992
Although the details are still being negotiated, staff anticipates that United '
Express will need approximately 260 sq. feet of space in the Terminal Building
for its exclusive use. The lease terms will be based on the same terms in effect
with Continental Express. Presently the lease rate, including Operating and
Maintenance charges, is $11.50 per sq. foot. Based on the 260 sq. foot figure,
the Airport will see an additional $2,990 in lease revenues each year.
Additionally, landing fees will be charged at a rate of $ .58 per 1000 )bs. of
landing weight. Each landing of a Beech 1900 Aircraft will generate
approximately $9.25. Based on the three (3) flights a day United Express will
pay to the Airport approximately $10,000 per year in landing fee revenue.
As specified in the Ordinance the changes to the Airline Agreement will deal
primarily with the term, level of service and other details required to make the
lease specific to United Express rather than Continental Express.
Term•
The term of the Agreement will commence upon the effective date of this
Ordinance and will end November 1, 1995. The November 1st date makes it
possible for the leases with both scheduled carriers (Continental and
United) to terminate on the same date so negotiations for new leases can be
simultaneous.
Level of Service:
United will be required to provide a minimum level of service of three (3) '
round trips per day for three (3) months. Continental was required to
provide not less than four (4) round trip flights per day during their first
year of operations. Continental now provides eight (8) round trips per day.
United has indicated that they do not presently have the number of aircraft
available to provide more than three (3) flights per day. The type of
service (common rated fares) that will have to be provided out of Fort
Collins is unique to United Express and they consider this to be a trial.
If the service is successful they will make service level adjustments that
make reasonable business sense to them. If not, they will be able to cease
service after 90 days. Like Continental, however, their requirement to
continue to pay lease rates will survive until the end of the term of the
lease.
Staff is working with United Express and the airport architect, the VanSant
Group, to determine how to best accommodate United Express in the existing
building. Any improvements that need to be made in the exclusive use area that
will be assigned to United Express will be solely its responsibility. Although
expansion of the terminal facility may be desirable at some date in the future,
United has indicated that it will not want any additional square feet of space
beyond what is needed now. Staff will examine the cost/benefit of expanding the
terminal and how that might be funded during the next several months. The
building was designed to be expanded when the demand was generated.
400
June 2, 1992
' Assuming service does begin in July, the Airport can expect to see approximately
$1495 of unanticipated lease revenue and at a minimum, $2,500 in landing fees in
1992. If the service is deemed a success by United Express and continues beyond
the three (3) months required, a total of $5,000 in landing fees will be
generated in 1992. This is an excellent opportunity for the Airport to generate
additional revenues, and staff strongly recommends that Council adopt this
Ordinance on First Reading. Additionally, staff respectfully requests that
Council consider accommodating United's desire to be a signatory carrier by July
1."
Councilmember Azari made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt
Ordinance No. 73, 1992.
Assistant to the City Manager Julia Novak made a report and requested the
Ordinance be amended to reflect the date of Second Reading as June 23.
Fort Collins/Loveland Airport Manager Fred Anderton made a presentation.
Councilmember Winokur inquired if United Express would be filing to provide
government contract air service.
Dennis Berry, representative of Mesa Airlines (United Express), replied that due
to the present restructuring of fares, he would have to review that item.
Councilmember Azari amended her motion to insert the 23rd of June as the date of
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 73, 1992.
Councilmember Edwards asked whether the type of service and access to aircraft
will be different from Continental Express in terms of safety.
Berry replied there are two sets of federal air regulations, one for aircraft
with 31 seats or more and one for aircraft with 30 seats or less. He stated
review has shown the threat to smaller aircraft is negligible. United Express
has not yet made a decision as to which type of aircraft it will use.
Councilmember Winokur expressed concern about Continental not filing the tariffs
so that government employees could fly out of Fort Collins/Loveland airport
instead of driving -to Denver.
Councilmember Fromme supported United Express locating here.
Councilmember Edwards welcomed United Express.
Councilmember Horak supported the lease with United Express.
The vote on Councilmember Azari's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 73, 1992 as
amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Fromme, Horak,
Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
401
June 2, 1992
Items Pertaining to Special Improvement District Liens. Adopted '
The following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 63, 1992, Amending Certain Sections of the
Code Pertaining to the Enforcement of Special Improvement District Liens.
B. Resolution 92-99 Authorizing the Foreclosure of Certificates of Purchase.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 19,
accomplishes several changes in the manner in which the City deals with the
delinquent payment of assessments in special improvement districts. First,
Section 22-95 of the Code would be amended to: (1) reduce the penalty interest
rate on delinquent assessments to one percent per month for all districts and (2)
broaden the circumstances under which the City's Financial Officer is authorized
to waive penalty interest. Next, Section 22-97 would be amended to specifically
authorize the City to retain certain SID properties that it has acquired through
the foreclosure of its assessment liens and would specify the amount to be
deposited into the special assessment fund by the City. Finally, an additional
subsection would be added to Section 22-97 which would parallel the authority
contained in the state statutes to foreclose certificates of purchase held by the
City as a result of the tax sale of delinquent properties. Unlike the state '
statute, the proposed ordinance would limit the circumstances under which this
alternative foreclosure process could be applied.
There are two changes to the ordinance since first reading. First, the portion
of the ordinance dealing with the waiver•of penalty interest has been changed to
redefine the circumstances under which a waiver can be considered by the
Financial Officer. The earlier version of the ordinance (which Council approved
on first reading), provided that a waiver of penalty interest could be considered
only if, within 90 days of the due date of an installment, the property owner had
paid all portions of the installment, excluding the penalty interest, and had
filed a written protest and request for waiver. In further reviewing these
criteria, staff believes that the 90-day deadline is unnecessary and unduly
restrictive. Notices are sent to property owners based on the most current
records of the Larimer County Assessor. Those records are updated on a quarterly
basis and it may happen that a change in ownership is not posted for 90 days.
Thus, it may take longer than 90 days for the City to notify the actual owner.
Also, there is already a "built-in" deadline for requesting a waiver, namely, the
annual tax sale, because a delinquency cannot be cured by paying the past due
installment after the date of the sale. Thus, it seems more reasonable to permit
waivers to be required at any time prior to the tax sale, so long as the rest of
the installment has been paid.
Accordingly, a new criterion has been substituted which deletes the 90-day
requirement but still requires the property owner to file a written statement of
protest with the Financial Officer and pay all other portions of the installment '
402
June 2, 1992
payment excluding the penalty interest in dispute. Staff believes that this
requirement still meets the objectives of the original criteria, which are: (1)
to avoid any unexpected, "after the fact" requests for waivers and (2) to ensure
that all other portions of the installment payment are paid before a waiver
request is considered.
Secondly, the ordinance has been changed so that the penalty interest rate will
be reduced to one percent per month for all districts, including Districts No.
90 and 91. The earlier version had stated that the penalty rate would coincide
with the rate specified in the assessing ordinance for each district. This would
have resulted in a 12Y annual rate for all districts other than Districts No. 90
and 91, and annual rate of 18Y for the those two Districts.
For several months, Everitt Companies, the principal property owner in Districts
90 and 91, has contested the City's method of calculating penalty interest.
Since first reading of this ordinance, City staff and representatives of the
Everitt Companies have reached an agreement in principle which will settle the
parties' differences regarding the amount and method of calculating penalty
interest. (See the attached letter from Lucia Li1ey, the attorney for Everitt
Companies). In consideration of the release of any claims against the City by
Everitt Companies, staff has agreed to the waiver of a portion of the penalties
that Everitt had accrued in 1991 and 1992 (as reported in the agenda item summary
on first reading) and has also agreed to recommend that Council reduce the future
penalty interest rate for all districts to one percent per month. It is
anticipated that this agreement will be finalized before this ordinances is
considered by the Council on Second Reading.
The Resolution deals with the alternative foreclosure process. It would
implement the authority contained in state statues and in the provisions of
Section 22-97, as amended, by directing the City Attorney to consult with the
City Manager and Finance Officer to identify those certificates of purchase which
should be foreclosed, and commence such court actions as may be necessary to
accomplish the foreclosure of the certificates."
Finance Director Alan Krcmarik made a brief report.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards, to adopt
Ordinance No. 63, 1992 as amended on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari,
Edwards, Fromme, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded
Resolution 92-99. Yeas: Councilmembers
Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
403
by Councilmember Horak, to adopt
Azari, Edwards, Fromme, Horak,
June 2, 1992
Resolution 92-100 Making Appointments to I
Various Boards and Commissions. Adopted
The following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Vacancies currently exist, or shortly will exist, on various boards and
commissions due to resignations from boardmembers and the expiration of terms of
members of boards and commissions.
Advertisements were placed during March
and April, and applications accepted
through April 24. Council received copies
of the applications and Council teams
interviewed applicants during May.
This Resolution makes appointments to the
following boards and commissions:
Building Review Board
Cable TV Board
Commission on Disability
Commission on the Status of Women
CDBG Commission
Cultural Resources Board
Downtown Development Authority
Election Board
Golf Board
Human Relations Commission
'
Landmark Preservation Commission
Library Board
Liquor/Massage Licensing Authority
Natural Resources Advisory Board
Parks and Recreation Board
Personnel Board
Planning and Zoning Board
Retirement Committee
Senior Advisory Board
Storm Drainage Board
Water Board
Zoning Board of Appeals
The Resolution contains the names of
those individuals recommended for
appointment by the Council interview teams.
Interviews for the Housing Authority could
not be completed prior to the printing
of this agenda. Appointments to the Housing
Authority are expected to be made
at the July 7 Council meeting."
Mayor Kirkpatrick noted that the revised Resolution in the packet contains the
name of an incumbent who had been overlooked.
404 1
June 2, 1992
' Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to adopt
revised Resolution 92-100 with the names.
Councilmember Edwards referenced Item #21A, Hearing and First Reading of
Ordinance No. 70, 1992, Amending Section 2-237 of the City Code Relating to the
Golf Board, which increased the Golf Board from 7 to 9 members and Item #21B,
Resolution 92-97 Making Appointments to the Golf Board, which made two
appointments. He clarified that, including the appointments in Resolution 92-
100, a total of 4 appointments would be made to the Golf Board.
Mayor Kirkpatrick spoke of the quality of the boards and commissions applicants.
The vote on Councilmember Winokur's motion to adopt revised Resolution.92-100 was
as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Fromme, Horak, Kirkpatrick,
Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Horak requested a memo on the feasibility of the delay of payment
of fees. He further referenced a memo on closing the recycling loop and proposed
an aggressive policy in that the City would buy materials from customers of the
' Larimer County IPC. He requested a memo and additional legislative options on
recycling.
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to call a
Special Meeting on June 23 at 6:00 p.m. to consider Second Reading of Ordinance
No. 73, 1992. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Fromme, Horak, Kirkpatrick,
Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Maxey commented that the design and features of the Senior Center
can incorporate the services indicated in the CHOICES 95 project, but the
delivery of those services doesn't have to be on -site.
Mayor Kirkpatrick requested a position paper that clarifies the School District
response to traffic concerns on school property and the City's response to
traffic concerns on school property.
405
June 2, 1992
Adjournment '
The meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m.
Marta Y o, km4l "6Z642
1
406