HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-06/04/1996-RegularJune 4,1996
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
An regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, June 4, 1996 at
6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered
by the following Councilmembers: Councilmembers Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and
Wanner.
Councilmembers Absent: Apt.
Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Krajicek, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Al Baccili, 520 Galaxy Court, expressed concerns regarding camera radar and advocated putting
more officers on the street.
' Steve Dim, Owner of Dimmers Brew Pub, stated roadblocks on North College Avenue were
damaging to his business, reporting he has had to terminate employees due to lack of business. He
strongly urged Council to investigate the possibility of other alternatives.
Jeff Bridges, 725 Mathews, spoke of the landmark designations on the Agenda and expressed
concerns regarding the LPC's requirements and procedures.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Janett reported Police Services is conducting a survey of downtown businesses to
determine what impact the barricades are having on their businesses. She spoke of the possibility
of changing the wording on the signage informing people that businesses on College Avenue were
open. She stated the Health and Safety Committee has placed this issue on its next agenda.
Responding to Mr. Bridges concerns, she stated she would be asking for a follow-up on LPC
concerns under the Other Business portion of the meeting.
Janett responded to Mr. Baccili's concerns regarding camera radar and spoke of its benefits.
W
I._
Agenda Review
June 4, 1996 ,
City Manager John Fischbach requested Item #16, First Reading of Ordinance No. 86, 1996,
Appropriating Prior Year Savings Realized from Increased Productivity and Operating Efficiencies,
be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda.
***CONSENT CALENDAR***
This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and energy on the important
items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Calendar. Anyone may
request an item on this calendar to be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately.
Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar by the Public will be considered separately under
Agenda Item #20, Public Pulled Consent Items.
Items Relating to the Railroad Consolidation Project Phase II.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 63, 1996, Authorizing the City Manager to enter
into an Agreement with the Union Pacific Railroad Company and the Burlington
Northern Railroad Company for the Construction of a Portion of Phase II of the
Railroad Consolidation Project. '
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 64, 1996, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue
in the Capital Projects Fund to be used for the Railroad Consolidation Project.
Resolution 96-62, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 21, 1996,
authorizes the City Manager to enter into a Contract with the Colorado Department of
Transportation, Union Pacific Railroad Company, and the Burlington Northern Railroad
Company for the Construction of a Portion of Phase II of the Railroad Consolidation Project.
Ordinance No. 63, 1996, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 21, 1996
authorizes the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the BNRR and UP is for the
construction of the connecting track. As a part of the agreement the City will convey to
BNRR a 50' wide easement across the Northside Atzlan Community Center and across
Willow Street. The City will be paid $108,000 by BNRR and $64,000 by UP for expenses
on this portion of Phase H. The total cost of this portion is $1,232,000 and the City's share
is $554,000.
Ordinance No. 64, 1996, which was also unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 21,
1996 appropriates the $368,000 to be received from CDOT, BNRR, and UP as mentioned
above. It also appropriates $52,000 to be received from CDOT for Phase I, and $170,000
from the Public Service Company for environmental cleanup costs. incurred in Phase II. A '
total of $590,000 has been appropriated.
309
June 4, 1996
8. Items Relating to the Modification of Several City Code Sections Pertaining to Offenses
Against Public Authority, Public Peace. Nuisances, and the Model Traffic Code,
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 65, 1996, Repealing and Reenacting Section 17-63
of the City Code Pertaining to Interference with Public Officers.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 66, 1996, Amending Section 17-124 of the City
Code Pertaining to Disorderly Conduct.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 67, 1996, Amending Section 20-22 of the City
Code Pertaining to Unreasonable Noise.
D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 68, 1996, Amending Section 17-125 of the City
Code Pertaining to Use of Center Parking Areas.
E. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 69, 1996, Repealing Section 17-81 and 17-82 of
the City Code Pertaining to Curfew for Juveniles.
F. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 70, 1996, Repealing Section 17-143 of the City
' Code Pertaining to Use of Vulgar, Profane or Indecent Language.
G. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 71, 1996, Amending Section 28-17 of the City
Code Relating to Bicycles Riding on Bicycle Lanes as Provided in the "Model Traffic
Code for Colorado Municipalities" 1977 Edition.
These seven ordinances, which were all unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 21,
1996, revise sections of the City Code that have been determined to be unconstitutional or
for which there is some concern about their constitutionality and to address specific areas of
enforcement that are lacking in the current version of the ordinances.
9. Items Relating to Local Landmark Designations Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the
City of Fort Collins.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 72, 1996, Designating the Rosenoff/Smith House,
508 West Olive Street, as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of
the City of Fort Collins.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 73, 1996, Designating the Hiram Pierce House,
510 South Howes Street, as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code
of the City of Fort Collins.
310
June 4, 1996 '
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 74, 1996, Designating the McGannon-
Middleswart House and Garage, 300 East Elizabeth Street, as a Local Landmark
Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 75, 1996, Designating the John M. Riddle House,
530 Smith Street, as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the
City of Fort Collins.
E. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 76, 1996, Designating the Original 1925 Section
of the Saint Joseph's Catholic School, 127 North Howes Street, as a Local Landmark
Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
F. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 77, 1996, Designating the Marion Alice
Parker/Frank P. Stover House, 1320 West Oak Street, as a Local Landmark Pursuant
to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
G. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 78, 1996, Designating the Ernest Waycott House,
1501 West Mountain Avenue, as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the
Code of the City of Fort Collins.
H. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 79, 1996, Designating the William Welscher '
Residence, 1304 South College Avenue, as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter
14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
I. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 80, 1996, Designating the William C. Stover
House, 503 Remington Street, as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the
Code of the City of Fort Collins.
These nine ordinances, which were all unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 21,
1996, designate the above properties as local landmarks.
10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 81, 1996, Designating the Anna B. Miller House, 514 East
Elizabeth Street, as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins.
The owner of the building, Margaret Marshall, is initiating this request for Local Landmark
designation for the Anna B. Miller House, 514 East Elizabeth Street. The building is
significant for its architectural importance, and is an example of the Bungalow style of
architecture.
311
June 4, 1996
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 82, 1996, Designating the Losey-Walker House, 423
Whedbee Street, as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins.
The owner of the building, Mrs. Virginia Beatty, is initiating this request for Local Landmark
designation for the Losey-Walker House, 423 Whedbee Street. The building is significant
for its architectural importance, and is an example of the Denver Box, a sub -category of the
Classic Cottage style of architecture.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 83, 1996, Designating the Dura and Neil Graham House. 811
Peterson Street. Fort Collins. Colorado. as a Historic Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of
the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
The owners of the building, Katherine and James Elias, are initiating this request for Local
Landmark designation for the Dura and Neil Graham House, 811 Peterson Street. The
building is significant for its architectural importance, and is a good example of the
Craftsman Bungalow style of architecture; further, the building is important for its
association with Neil Graham, Eighth Judicial District Judge for many years, and for his wife
Dura, a noted philanthropist.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 84, 1996, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in Various City
Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of Existing Appropriations to Remodel 214 North
Howes for Recreation Personnel.
This Ordinance appropriates funds to remodel 214 North Howes (formerly the offices of
Stewart Environmental) for Recreation Registration, currently located at 281 North College.
By agreeing to make this move, Recreation is helping to solve work space overcrowding
problems at 281 North College. The remodel budget is $249,000. On -going funding for
leasing 214 North Howes, including janitorial and utilities was included in the 1996 Budget.
Funding for the remodel is from a variety of existing sources.
14. Items Relating to the City's Fiscal Year 1996-97 HOME Investment Partnership Program,
A. Resolution 96-66 Adopting the HOME Investment Partnership Program for Fiscal
Year 1996-97.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 85, 1996 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue for
the 1996-97 HOME Program.
The HOME Investment Partnership Program is an ongoing grant program funded by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In May of 1995, the City of Fort
Collins received designation as a Participating Jurisdiction in the Housing and Urban
312
June 4, 1996
Development (HUD) HOME Program. The intent of the HOME Program is to expand the ,
supply of decent, safe, sanitary, affordable housing in the community, to strengthen the
ability of local government to provide housing and to expand the capacity of nonprofit
community -based housing development organizations to provide affordable housing. All of
the HOME funds must benefit low and very low income households which are defined by
the Department of Housing and Urban Development as having a total household income not
to exceed 80% of the area median income. 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.
The City's HOME Investment Partnership Program grant for FY 1996-97 is $539,000 from
the Federal FY96 Budget. There are no General Fund dollars used for the HOME Program.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No 89 1996 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund,
The Fort Collins Housing Authority (the "Authority") made a payment to the City from its
1995 budget for the sum of $18,512.51 as a "Payment in Lieu of Taxes" ("PILOT") for
public services and facilities. The Authority annually requests that the City refund the money
"...to again fund sorely needed affordable housing related activities, to attend the low-income
housing needs of Fort Collins residents."
Resolution 92-93 reinstated the City's requirement that the Authority make annual PILOT '
payments to the City. The purpose of the resolution was to clarify that these funds are the
property of the City and not excess Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") funds. The
City may spend the PILOT revenues as it deems appropriate in accordance with law,
including remitting the funds to the Authority if the Council determines that such remittal
serves a valid public purpose. The Council has remitted the PILOT to the Authority annually
since 1992.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No 86 1996 Appropriating Prior Year Savings Realized from
Increased Productivity and Operating Efficiencies
In 1992, City Council adopted the Service Productivity Incentive Policy, effective for 1992
and years thereafter. The goal of the policy is to provide a framework within which a
manager can develop a long-range strategic plan for service delivery rather than rely on a
short-term, line -item cost approach.
An operating manager that has unspent and uncommitted appropriations as a result of
increased productivity and operational efficiency can carry-over those dollars in a reserve
savings account for the Service Area. These savings are intended to be used by managers to
fund office equipment, furniture and minor capital needs. Managers may request the use of
the savings through the City Manager. The City Manager then presents his recommendation '
to the City Council for approval through an appropriation ordinance.
313
June 4, 1996
' 17. Resolution 96-67 of the Council of the City of Fort Collins Renaming a Street in the
Bridgefield PUD Phase 1 and 2. from "Daemian Drive" to "Haymarket Street"
Genesee Communities I, Inc., ("Genesee"), the developer of the Bridgefield PUD, would like
to change the name of one street in the Bridgefield PUD, Phase 1 and 2. The change would
be as follows:
Daemian Drive changed to Haymarket Street.
The name change is requested because "Daemian Drive" was named by the previous owner,
one week prior to Genesee's acquisition of the land. Genesee does not feel that the name
"Daemian Drive" fits within the character or theme of the Bridgefield community, and that
it would adversely affect its ability to market the property. There are as yet no existing
homes on the affected street. The owner/developer of the PUD is aware of the name change
and is in agreement.
The name change request was routed to all potentially affected City Departments and outside
service providers. No problems or concerns regarding the proposed name change were
reported.
' 18. Resolution 96-68 Making Appointments to Various Boards and Commissions.
Vacancies currently exist, or shortly will exist, on various boards and commissions due to
resignations of board members and the expiration of terms of members of boards and
commissions.
Applications were solicited during March and April. Council received copies of the
applications and Council teams interviewed applicants during April and May.
This Resolution makes 52 appointments to 22 boards and commissions. Names of those
individuals recommended for appointment by each Council interview team have been
inserted in the Resolution.
19. Routine Deeds and Easements.
Power line Easement from Frank A. Vertucci, 424 West Mountain Avenue, needed to
underground existing overhead electric services. Monetary consideration: $10.
Items on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek.
' 7. Items Relating to the Railroad Consolidation Project Phase II.
314
Q
June 4, 1996 t
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 63, 1996, Authorizing the City Manager to enter
into an Agreement with the Union Pacific Railroad Company and the Burlington
Northern Railroad Company for the Construction of a Portion of Phase II of the
Railroad Consolidation Project.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 64, 1996, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue
in the Capital Projects Fund to be used for the Railroad Consolidation Project.
Items Relating to the Modification of Several City Code Sections Pertaining to Offenses
Against Public Authority, Public Peace. Nuisances. and the Model Traffic Code.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 65, 1996, Repealing and Reenacting Section 17-63
of the City Code Pertaining to Interference with Public Officers.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 66, 1996, Amending Section 17-124 of the City
Code Pertaining to Disorderly Conduct.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 67, 1996, Amending Section 20-22 of the City
Code Pertaining to Unreasonable Noise.
D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 68, 1996, Amending Section 17-125 of the City I
Code Pertaining to Use of Center Parking Areas.
E. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 69, 1996, Repealing Section 17-81 and 17-82 of
the City Code Pertaining to Curfew for Juveniles.
F. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 70, 1996, Repealing Section 17-143 of the City
Code Pertaining to Use of Vulgar, Profane or Indecent Language.
G. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 71, 1996, Amending Section 28-17 of the City
Code Relating to Bicycles Riding on Bicycle Lanes as Provided in the "Model Traffic
Code for Colorado Municipalities" 1977 Edition.
Items Relating to Local Landmark Designations Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the
City of Fort Collins.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 72, 1996, Designating the Rosenoff/Smith House,
508 West Olive Street, as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of
the City of Fort Collins.
M1
June 4, 1996
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 73, 1996, Designating the Hiram Pierce House,
510 South Howes Street, as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code
of the City of Fort Collins.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 74, 1996, Designating the McGannon-
Middleswart House and Garage, 300 East Elizabeth Street, as a Local Landmark
Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 75, 1996, Designating the John M. Riddle House,
530 Smith Street, as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the
City of Fort Collins.
E. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 76, 1996, Designating the Original 1925 Section
of the Saint Joseph's Catholic School, 127 North Howes Street, as a Local Landmark
Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
F. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 77, 1996, Designating the Marion Alice
Parker/Frank P. Stover House, 1320 West Oak Street, as a Local Landmark Pursuant
to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
G. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 78, 1996, Designating the Ernest Waycott House,
1501 West Mountain Avenue, as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the
Code of the City of Fort Collins.
H. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 79, 1996, Designating the William Welscher
Residence, 1304 South College Avenue, as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter
14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
I. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 80, 1996, Designating the William C. Stover
House, 503 Remington Street, as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the
Code of the City of Fort Collins.
Items on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek.
10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 81. 1996, Designating ating the Anna B. Miller House, 514 East
Elizabeth Street, as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No 82. 1996, Designating the Losey-Walker House. 423
Whedbee Street, as a Local Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort
'Collins.
316
12. First Reading of Ordinance No 83 1996 Designating June 4, 1996
g acing the Dura and Neil Graham House 811 '
Peterson Street. Fort Collins. Colorado, as a Historic Landmark Pursuant to Chanter 14 of
the Code of the City of Fort Collins
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 84, 1996, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in Various City
Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of Existing Appropriations to Remodel 214 North
Howes for Recreation Personnel,
14. Items Relating to the City's Fiscal Year 1996-97 HOME Investment Partnership Program.
A. Resolution 96-66 Adopting the HOME Investment Partnership Program for Fiscal
Year1996-97.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 85, 1996 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue for
the 1996-97 HOME Program.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 89, 1996, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund,
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 86, 1996. Appropriating Prior Year Savings Realized from '
Increased Productivity and Operating Efficiencies.
23. First Reading of Ordinance No. 87, 1996. Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and
Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Projects in the Community
Development Block Grant Fund,
24. First Reading of Ordinance No. 88, 1996, Designating the Aggie Theatre Building, 204
South College Avenue. as a Historic Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the
City of Fort Collins.
25. First Reading of Ordinance No. 90, 1996. Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and
Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of Existing
Appropriations to Be Used for Street Maintenance and Traffic Operations Needs,
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember McCluskey, to adopt and
approve all items not removed from the Consent Agenda. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Janett,
Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
317
June 4, 1996
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Smith reported on a recent Public Access Committee meeting, and clarified its
purpose is to look at the future technological needs of the City.
Councilmember Janett stated the Growth Management Committee met with County Commissioners
regarding coordination of land -use.
Councilmember McCluskey stated the Legislative Review Committee met and discussed lobbyist
issues. He stated the LRC would not be hiring a lobbyist to represent the City of Fort Collins and
reported that decision would be evaluated on an annual basis.
Councilmember Kneeland stated a meeting was held between the Poudre R-1 Liaison, Latimer
County, and Poudre PR-1 to discuss youth access to tobacco products and the proposed justice
center.
Items Related to the City's Fiscal Year 1996-97
Community Development Block Grant Program. Held and Adopted.
' The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"Executive Sumtnery
A. Public Hearing and Resolution 96-69 Adopting Fiscal Year 1996-97 Community
Development Block Grant Programs and Projects.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 87, 1996, 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 (HUD) 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.
At the June 4, 1996, regular City Council meeting, the Council will conduct a public hearing and
consider the adoption of a Resolution establishing which programs and projects will receive funding
with Community Development Block Grant funds for the FY 1996-97 Program year, which starts
on October 1, 1996
' 318
June 4, 1996 '
Since early January of this year, the CDBG Commission and the City's CDBG Program staff have
conducted public hearings to assess community development and housing needs in Fort Collins and
solicited applications for CDBG funding. Further, the Commission has reviewed the written
applications, personally interviewed applicants, analyzed the applications, and formulated a list of
recommendations to the City Council as to which programs and projects should receive funding.
The Commission utilized several criteria to determine priorities in the process to establish its list
of recommendations, including:
o leveraging;
o acquisition versus operations;
o success rate;
o ability to complete proposal;
o meeting community needs;
o long-term impact;
o full or partial funding;
o competing projects or providers; and
o alternate funding.
The CDBG Program is an ongoing grant administration program funded by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Citv 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 certain level of finding 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 amount of the City's Entitlement Grant for FY 1996-97 is $1,202,000. The Entitlement Grant
will be combined with $40,000 of Program Income. Combining all sources offunds/income provides
the City with a total of $1,242,000 available for programs and projects during the next CDBG
Program year.
319
June 4, 1996
' he following summarizes the amount and sources of available fiends:
AMOUNT SOURCE
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
$1,202,000 FY 96 Entitlement Grant
40,000 Program Income
$1,242,000 Total
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
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
1987
$685,000
$99,614
$50,000
$807,614
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
30,000
50,000
882,000
1993
1,091,000
50,000
90,000
1,231,000
1994
1,187,000
30,000
50,000
1,267,000
1995
1,231,000
0
40,000
1,271,000
1996
1,202,000
0
40,000
1,242,000
IC��I ' ' II/L�LYcl
The selection process for the City's FY 1996-97 CDBG Program began on January 11, 1996, 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
in February and running through March, to solicit requests for CDBG funded programs and
projects for FY 1996-97. The application deadline was Thursday March 28. At the close of the
deadline the City received 19 applications requesting a total of approximately $1.6 million.
Copies of all applications were forwarded through the City Manager's office to the City Council on
April 10 and placed in the Council Office for review. Copies of all applications were distributed
to the CDBG Commission on April 11.
9M
June 4, 1996
On Wednesday May 1, and Thursday May 2, the Commission met to hear presentations and ask '
clarification questions from each applicant. The Commission then met on Wednesday May 8, .for
the purpose of preparing a recommendation to the City Council as to which programs and projects
should be funded for the FY 1996-97 program year. At this meeting the Commission reviewed the
written applications, the applicant's verbal presentation, the information provided during the
question and answer session, and reviewed the performance of agencies who received FY 1995-96
CDBG funds or funding in other previous years. The Commission then worked on formulation of
its list of recommendations. A copy of the Commission's minutes from the meeting is attached.
[ I i /Z / tr a 'X'TOJI /C'lAZC / WOV I • /
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. This means the 20% limitation for
Planning and Administrative purposes is $248,400.
Fundsfor Public Services are limited to 15% of the total of the Entitlement Grant and anticipated
Program Income, making the amount $186,300.
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 I
within HUD regulations.
The Commission utilized several criteria to determine priorities in the process to establish its list
of recommendations. These criteria were discussed with the Council at a study session conducted
in December 1995 and include:
HIGHER PRIORITY CRITERIA
Leveraging
Guideline: The leveraging of private and non federal funds is a very important consideration in
making an allocation of CDBG funds. Applicants will be asked to indicate the amount of leveraging,
including in -kind services, dollars, andlor labor associated with their CDBG proposal.
2. Acquisition versus Operations
Guideline: Acquisition proposals which provide assets to the community will be given greater
weight over proposals which are operational in nature.
321
' 3. Success Rate June 4, 1996
Guideline: Applicants who demonstrate continued success in achieving community needs will
receive extra consideration for funding. On the other hand, applicants who have failed to achieve
their proposal in a timely manner may not receive additional funding.
4. Ability to Complete the Proposal During a Program Year
Guideline: Applicants who provide information indicating a capability to complete their proposal
during the program year will receive consideration for funding over applicants whose abilities can
be questioned.
5. Meeting Community Needs
Guideline: Applicants must provide support of their application through some sort of needs
assessment, preferably through the use of an objective data source, and not rely solely on anecdotal
information. An applicant may also submit a service history of projects from other communities.
Funding allocations will be made to proposals which meet the greatest community needs.
' 6. Long -Term Impact
Guideline: Applicants whose proposal has additional long-term impacts beyond the specifics of the
proposal will receive greater consideration for funding.
LOWER PRIORITY CRITERIA
Full or Partial Funding
Guideline: If funds are not available to support a proposal at the lowest acceptable level, no funds
will be granted to the proposal.
2. Competing Projects or Providers
Guideline: Applicants will need to demonstrate their proposal is not a duplication of efforts or a
duplication of service provision, including administrative, volunteer efforts, and acquired service
ability.
3. Alternate Funding
Guideline: An applicant will need to discuss what other finding sources are available. Full
disclosure #'available and applied for finds is considered essential, required, and mandatory. The
Commission needs to know if the project can continue if CDBG funds cease to exist.
322
June 4, 1996
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
1. Equal Competition
Guideline: All proposals are considered equally, there is no preference given to new proposals
requesting "seed" money, and likewise, there is no preference given to proposals which were
previous recipients of CDBG funds. Continued CDBG funding from one year to the next is not
guaranteed and funding is not a "right" of any applicant.
2. Sequential Grant Limit
Guideline: There is no limit to the number of times an applicant may receive funding from the
CDBG Program, all applicants are considered equally, however, continued CDBGfimding from one
year to the next is not guaranteed.
Listed below is a summary of each applicant's initial request for funding and the Commission's list
of recommendations:
PLANNING and ADMINISTRATION
(20% of Entitlement Grant and Program Income)
RECOMMENDED
REQUEST FUNDING APPLICANT PROGRAM/PROJECT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
$129,244 $109,244 City of Ft. Collins CDBG Administration
ACQUISITION
RECOMMENDED
REQUEST FUNDING APPLICANT PROGRAM/PROJECT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
$ 90,000 $ 30,000 Habitat for Humanity Land for 2 homes
75,000 75,000 CARE Housing Acquisition of Land and Development
Casts for Affordable Housing
250,000 250,000 Housing Authority
90,000 90,000 DDA
323
Acquisition of Land for Existing
Apartment complex
Facade/Sidewalk Improvement
Program
1
June 4, 1996
CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING
RECOMMENDED
REQUEST FUNDING APPLICANT PROGRAM/PROJECT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
$200,000 $ 200,000 Housing Authority Development Costs - 600 Block of
Tenth Street.
RECOMMENDED
REQUEST FUNDING
-------------------------
-------------------------
$14,183 $ 14,183
62,500 62,500
19,183 19,183
15,000 4,408
82,515 (1) 88,432
PUBLIC FACILITIES
APPLICANT PROGRAM/PROJECT
-----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
Elderhaus Barn Raising: Kitchen Renovation
Respite Care Facility Restoration
Education/Life Addition to Existing Building
Training
Crossroads Security System Upgrade
Food Distribution Fire Sprinklers and Lighting Upgrade
365,000(2)
-
Hope Counseling Building Acquisition and Remodeling
PUBLIC SERVICES
(15% of Entitlement Grant and Program Income)
RECOMMENDED
REQUEST
FUNDING
APPLICANT PROGRAM/PROJECT
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
$ 15,500
$ 15,500
Disabled Resources Youth Employment Program
89,914
64,782
Healthy Start, Inc. Medical and Dental Care
20,000
20,000
Project Self -Sufficiency Project Self -Sufficiency
40,000
20,000
CCSN/New Bridges Continuum of Homeless
Services
7,400
-
Radio Reading Service Radio Reading Service
35,668
35,668
Child Care Collaborative Sliding Scale Tuition
Assistance
324
June 4, 1996
41,000 30,350 Neighbor -to -Neighbor Comprehensive Housing
Counseling
112,750 Unprogrammed
Total amount of funding requested = $1,641,956.
NOTES:
(1) The Food Distribution Center revised their application amount during their verbal
presentation to the Commission to $88,842.
(2) The Hope Counseling Centers' proposal was reduce to $265,000 during their verbal
presentation to the Commission.
A summary of the Commission's funding recommendation by category is as follows:
RECOMMENDED
FUNDING % of TOTAL
$ 109,244 8.8
445,000
35.8
200,000
16.1
188,706
15.2
186,300
15.0
112,750 9.1
CATEGORY
PLANNING and ADMINISTRATION (Maximum $248,400
based on 20% of Entitlement Grant and Program Income)
ACQUISITION
DEVELOPMENT COSTS
PUBLIC FACILITIES
PUBLIC SERVICES (Maximum $184,050 based on 15% of
Entitlement Grant and Program Income)
UNPROGRAMMED
$1,242,000 100.0 TOTAL
The total amount of requests considered by the CDBG Commission was approximately $1.6 million.
With $1.6 million in total requests and only $1,2 million available, obviously not all applications
could be funded. Also, due to HUD funding 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.
Projects Recommended for Full Funding
The CDBG Commission has recommended full funding for twelve (12) applicants. In the
Commission's opinion, the twelve applications recommended forfull funding best fit CDBG national
program objectives, the City CDBG policies (presenter/ in Appendix "A "), and the selection criteria.
325
June 4, 1996
he following summarizes the Commission's reasoning for full funding:
Housing Authority - Development Costs 600 Tenth Street
Request/Recommended: $200,000
The Commission believes this proposal presents a rare but desirable program for homeownership.
Units will be affordable, servicing families in the 50%-60% of median income range.
Housing Authority - Acquisition of Existing Apartments
Request/Recommended: $250,000
The Commission was supportive of this application because it addresses the most critical affordable
housing needs (rental units) of the community. The project also provides good leveraging through
owner financing.
CARE - Acquisition of Land and Development Costs for Low -Income Housing
Requested/Recommended: $75,000
The Commission supported this proposal because it integrates affordable units with market rate
units in the same project. It also disperses units into a section of the community which currently has
minimal affordable housing unit opportunities.
Education and Life Training - Addition to Existing Building
Requested/Recommended: $19,183
This application represents good collaboration with private entities and provides a valuable service.
A large number of people are served by the applicant.
Elderhaus Adult Day Care Program - Kitchen Renovation
Requested/Recommended: $14,183
This program provides needed services to a low-income elderly population. The request for a
modest amount of funds to complete the project.
Downtown Development Authority - Facade/Sidewalk Improvements
Request/Recommendation: $90,000
The Commission believes the historic character of the community needs to be preserved. This
program provides for public ownership of facades.
Food Distribution Center, Fire Sprinklers/Remodeling
Request/Recommendation: $88,432
326
June 4, 1996
Not funding this proposal could jeopardize the agency's ability to continue services which is to
provide food to other agencies in the community.
Respite Care, Inc. - Facility Renovation
Request/Recommendation: $62,500
This agency also serves a high community need through collaboration with other entities. Funds
are needed to keep previous CDBG investments intact.
Project Self -Sufficiency - Project Self -Sufficiency
Requested/Recommended: $20,000
The Commission supports this program because it helps elevate families from poverty to self-
sufficiency, that is, it help them get out of the public subsidy system. The program has a good track
record and is increasing their list of contributors making them less dependent on CDBG funds.
Disabled Resources Services - Youth Employment Program
RequestedlRecommended: $15,500
The Commission noted that this relatively small grant request was reaping great benefits. The
project has a long-term impact by employing younger citizens of the community. The project meets ,
a community need and promotes independence by improving the employment abilities of clients.
Child Care Collaborative - Sliding Scale Tuition Assistance
Requested/Recommended: $35,668
The Commission believes this program is critical because it provides services to working parents
and helps keep them in the workforce. While leveraging of additional funds is not high, the
Commission noted the collaborative effort which fills a critical need and provides a quality service
and has a long -tern impact by preventing homelessness.
Projects Recommended, for Partial Funding
Proposals which did not receive fill funding were deemed of a lower priority and, in some cases,
a lack of funds prohibited their full funding. The following describes the specific reasons why the
Commission believes certain projects should not receive their fidl funding amount:
Habitat for Humanity - Land
Requested: $90,000 Recommended: $30,000
While this is a homeownership program, the local success rate is questionable due to difficulty in
finding applicants. 1
327
' Crossroads Safehouse -Security System Upgrade June 4, 1996
Requested: $15,000 Recommended: $4,408
The Commission questioned whether a problem actually exists and believes a better assessment
should be made of actual security system needs.
City of Fort Collins - CDBG Administration
Requested: $129,244 Recommended: $109,244
The Commission's recommendation eliminates $20,000 for consulting fees to do pro forma analysis.
The Commission believes they can do their own pro formas given the expanded information on the
housing request application forms. The City Council direction at last December's Study Session was
to take the full administrative costs from the CDBG grant.
Healthy Start - Medical and Dental Care
Requested: $89,914 Recommended: $64,782
The Commission noted the applicant duplicates services provided by other agencies and has funds
available from other sources, i.e., Poudre Valley Hospital, and has a very large capital reserve close
to $1.0 million. The Commission also recognized the applicant provides a vital service to the youth
of the community and that while funding for medical purposes was relatively easier to obtain
funding for dental assistance was more difficult. The recommendation is for full funding of the
dental program ($39,650) and one-half fimding ($25,132) for the medical, for a total of $64, 782.
CCSN/New Bridges - Continuum of Homeless Services
Requested: $40,000 Recommended: $20,000
The recommendation is forfunding CCSN only. While the application was fora collaborative effort,
something the Commission has been suggesting to these agencies in the past they question the
viability of the New bridges service. The funding amount was somewhat affected by the amount
which can be allocated to the Public Services category.
Neighbor to Neighbor, Inc. - Comprehensive Housing Counseling
Requested: $58,700 Recommended: $30,000
The Commission understands that this service fills a critical community need and the agency has
a good history of service. However, the Commission also noted that some services are provided by
other entities, for example mortgage counseling also being provided by banks. The reduction in
fiinding was partially due to the limited amount of fiords which can be allocated to the Public
Services category.
Projects Recommended to Receive No Funding
328
June 4, 1996
The following applications did not receive a recommendation for funding. The following describes '
the specific reasons why the Commission believes these projects should not receive their requested
funding:
Hope Counseling Center - Building Acquisition and Remodeling
Requested: $265,000
The Commission determined that this proposal did not fit the selection criteria and should be a low
priorityfor CDBGfunding. They also believe the applicant could borrow the entire amount needed
to do the project.
Radio Reading Service of the Rockies, Inc
Requested: $7,400
The Commission's decision not to recommend funding is based on the belief that the proposal does
not address any stated community need. The applicant could also not give any figures as to the
benefit of the service to Fort Collins residents. "
Chief Planner Ken Waido briefly summarized this item.
Dan MacArthur, Chair of the Community Development Block Grant Commission ("CDBG"), stated I
he was available for Council questions.
Public Hearine
Rochelle Stephens, Executive Director of the Fort Collins Housing Authority, thanked staff for all
its support and assistance. She requested funding for New Bridges.
Lou Stitzel, 512 E. Laurel, expressed her support for funding for New Bridges. She spoke of the
services the shelter provides.
Rusty Collins, representing Neighbor to Neighbor, spoke of the accomplishments made by Neighbor
to Neighbor in past two years. He spoke of the relocation efforts provided to residents of Pioneer
Mobile Home Park and noted a satellite office has been opened in Loveland. He stated the
accomplishments could not have been possible without CDBG assistance.
Tom Jackson, Director of HOPE Counseling Center, stated his CDBG fund request was denied and
requested Council reconsider reallocation of contingency funds to assist in their funding needs.
Lisa Rickenbaugh, Executive Director of United Day Care Center, reported on the usage of CDBG
funds, i.e. sliding fee scale tuition to low income families.
329
I
June 4, 1996
Kristen Schneider, Executive Director of Sunshine School, thanked the Commission for its support
in the past and in the future.
Barbara Crowfoot, President of the Board of Directors for BASE Camp, concurred with comments
made by Ms. Rickenbaugh and Ms. Schneider and thanked Council and the CDBG for its continued
support.
Mary Cosgrove, Project Self Sufficiency, expressed thanks to Council, staff and the Commission for
their current CDBG grant.
Wendy Robinson, Executive Director of the Food Distribution Center, thanked everyone involved
for all their hard work and efforts in evaluating the projects.
Kris Ann Meyer-Corcran, representing the Elderhaus Adult Day Care Center, thanked the
commission for its funding recommendation.
Sherry Pelton, representing Respite Care, spoke of what the recommended funding would
accomplish for Respite Care and thanked the Commission for its support.
. Elsa Lee Sarlow, Executive Director of Education and Life Training Center, spoke of the sources
funds received and thanked everyone for their efforts.
Helen Summersol, Supervisor of the Hospitality Center at Catholic Charity Submission, thanked the
Commission, Council and staff for recognizing them for funding this year. She spoke of the amount
of people the Center has helped over the years and stated it would not have been possible without
the help of the CDBG.
Barbara Hensen, representing the Children's Clinic, concurred with comments by previous speakers.
Patricia Frisbee, Disabled Resources Center Youth Employment Program, spoke of the programs and
projects offered by the Disabled Resources Center and thanked the Commission for its funding
recommendation.
Bonnie Ziden, Boardmember of the Downtown Development Authority ("DDA"), expressed the
DDA's appreciation regarding funding. She briefly reported on recent projects funding by the DDA.
Dan MacArthur, Chair of the CDBG Commission, spoke of the reasons for not supporting funding
for the HOPE Center, stating additional funding sources are available to them. He expressed the
Commissions concerns regarding New Bridges' financial accountability.
Councilmember Smith questioned the process in allocating contingency funds mid -year.
330
June 4, 1996
Waido stated contingency line items are used to cover shortfalls and stated he did not anticipate '
initiating a mid -year application process for unprogrammed funds.
Chuck Seal, Treasurer for New Bridges, stated CDBG funds make up 30% of its budget and
explained reasons for moving the facility.
Pete Gonzalez, representing Police Services, spoke of the benefits New Bridges provides in the
downtown area and of the vital services it offers to the community. He spoke of the high rents in
the downtown area and spoke of improvements in the operation since its move. He urged funding
support.
Waido clarified if Council decided to fund New Bridges, funding would need to come from General
Fund monies, and reported the HOPE Center falls under the public facilities category and funds
would need to come from the Continency Fund.
Tom Jackson, HOPE Center, reported the Center operates in both Fort Collins and Loveland and
currently receives no City or County government funding. He spoke of the need to show community
support in order to received other grant funds. He responded to Council questions regarding a
possible partnership with New Bridges, noting the Center primarily works with substance abuse
issues and was not prepared to answer partnership issues at this time.
Waido stated the HOPE Center would be purchasing its building at the end of the month and funds ,
could not be used in October for reimbursement.
Councilmember Wanner supported funding for New Bridges through the General Fund and spoke
of the important services it provides.
Barbara Hensen, representing the Children's Clinic, responded to questions and clarified they receive
no funds from Poudre Valley Hospital.
Councilmember McCluskey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adopt
Resolution 96-69 amending it to read that $10,800 be allocated out of the General Fund for New
Bridges.
City Attorney Steve Roy stated funds can not be committed by Resolution and suggested Council
direct the City Manager bring back an appropriation ordinance appropriating general funds moneys
to New Bridges.
Councilmember McCluskey withdrew his previous motion.
331
June 4, 1996
' Councilmember McCluskey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adopt
Resolution 96-69.
Councilmember Kneeland spoke in support of the motion and thanked the CDBG Commission for
all its efforts.
Councilmember Janett opposed the motion and spoke of her support in providing funding for New
Bridges. She stated she would support reduced funding for the Healthy Start Program by $15,000,
allocating those funds to New Bridges.
Councilmember McCluskey spoke of the difficulty in helping all the entities that apply for funding.
Mayor Azari spoke of the important services the HOPE Center provides to the community and
expressed her desire to be able to assist them in future funding requests.
The vote on Councilmember McCluskey's motion was as follows: Yeas: Council members Azari,
Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: Councilmember Janett
THE MOTION CARRIED.
' Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to adopt Ordinance
No. 87, 1996 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith
and Wanner. Nays: None.
u
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember McCluskey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, directing the City
Manager to explore funding options for New Bridges. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Janett,
Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 88, 1996,
Designating the Aggie Theatre Building,
204 South College Avenue, as a Historic Landmark Pursuant
to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. Application Withdrawn.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
332
June 4, 1996
"Executive Summary
The owners of the property, David and Philip Himot, are initiating this request for Local Landmark
designation for the Aggie Theatre Building, 204 South College Avenue. At a public hearing held on
April 23, 1996, the Landmark Preservation Commission unanimously recommended denial of the
designation of this property as a local landmark for its architectural or historical importance, based
upon the fact that, although the building was constructed in 1916, the building has been extensively
altered from its original appearance, and the renovations are less than fifty years old.
Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Landmark Preservation Commission, the owners are
requesting that the City Council designate the building as a local landmark.
While the Landmark Preservation Commission recognizes the tremendous emotional support for the
Aggie Theatre in our community, one of the criteria often employed by federal, state and local
preservation commissions in determining the integrity of a building asks whether a contemporary
from the building's period of significance would recognize the building today. In the case of the
Aggie Theatre Building, the Landmark Preservation Commission and the staff believe that the
answer is, unfortunately, no. The Commission has determined that the period of significance for this
structure is from 1916 until 1951. This is a period of time more than fifty years ago, during which
the facade was three stories high, and the building sported the typical storefront facade of the
furniture stores which the building housed until a fire in 1951 and the structure's subsequent
renovation into a theater.
Architectural and Historical Importance - The Aggie Theater provided motion picture '
entertainment to the city of Fort Collins for more than forty years, from 1953 until 1995.
Built in 1916 for Mrs. Clara E. Hoel, the Aggie Theatre Building has been the site of numerous
businesses, including the Aggie Theater and several furniture stores. The first business to occupy
the structure was the Warner-Inglefheld Furniture Company. The store became the Harris -Warner
Furniture Company around 1927, and remained so until circa 1940, when it became Pendergrass
Furniture. By 1948, the Neutze Furniture Company had moved into the space, and remained until
a devastating fire in 1951.
The fire occurred on December 22, 1951, and was so intense that it smoldered for a week before
salvage work could begin, What little remained of the interior of the building was saved, and the
burned shell stood untouched until October 1952. The building had been purchased the previous
May by W. Frank Aydelotte and R. H. Dowdy, owners of another motion picture theater in Fort
Collins called "The Trail. " Finally, in August permission was received from Washington, D.C. for
the allotment of steel for constructing the Aggie Theater, and a permit to demolish the interior was
issued on September 19, 1952.
The new owners began to fireproof the site by knocking the exterior walls down to 20 feet in height
(in effect removing the third floor), filling the basement with sand, and covering the sand with .
reinforcing steel and a four inch concrete slab, poured to form a continuous floor throughout the
333
June 4, 1996
' building. Pilasters reinforced with 1-inch steel rods rise from the basement floor to the roof,
supporting the steel roof girders so that none of the weight of the roof rests on the walls. The
pilasters are bolted through the exterior walls at four foot intervals. The renovation created a new
building within the original shell which exceeded all safety and fire hazard requirements of city,
state and national building codes in effect at the time.
Perry Knight, Shop Inspector at Lincoln Junior High School, was the designer of the new Aggie.
The renovation, all done in green and gold, cost approximately $75,000 and featured "reverse
slope "seating for 600 people, with extra leg room between seats, a screen capable of showing three-
dimensional motion pictures, a "cry room" beside the back row, a manager's office and balcony on
the second floor, and "something new for Fort Collins theatregoers, " a soft drink fountain. The
$8,000 marquee proclaimed current fare, while two "black light display boards" advertised coming
attractions. The original door at the south end of the building, which still bore the inscription
"Lincoln Hotel, " would eventually lead to a storage room. The space formerly occupied by the
stairway which led to the 2nd floor hotel was reduced to one story in height, and the south side of
the theater was stuccoed to match the rest of the exterior. The Aggie opened on April 14, 1953, with
a 5:30 p.m. showing of Ivanhoe, starring Elizabeth Taylor and Robert Taylor. Admission was
fourteen cents for children and sixtyfive cents for adults.
In 1965, the building was sold to Wesco Theatres, who sold to Commonwealth Highland Theatres
' in 1970, That year a major interior remodeling project began. The lobby was enlarged by the
removal of two hundred seats, the ceiling was lowered and new acoustic tile was put on the walls.
A new snack bar was installed, and the lobby underwent a complete facelift, giving it a turn -of -the -
century look, with red embossed wallpaper, chandeliers, new red carpeting, and paired lamps
patterned after old fashioned gas lamps on each side of the auditorium entrance.
The theater was closed from 1987 to 1990, and was sold during that time to a holding company, and
eventually to Reel Theatres Incorporated, who operated the theater showing "second run" films.
The interior was again remodeled, in 1993, to add new "rocking" chairs. However, the competition
from the University Mall theater, which switched from first run to second run films in late 1995,
proved to be too much. The Aggie Theater closed permanently in December of 1995, with the
showing of the film "Money Train. " The building is currently owned by David and Philip Himot,
and is leased to BPM Productions.
Architectural Description: The building has a flat parapet facade constructed of variously colored
brick. A ticket booth occupies the center of the angled umbrage, with glazed aluminum frame doors
installed on either side. A substantial marquee projects from the building over the recessed entry
and ticket booth. Flanking the recessed entry are glazed movie poster display cases. The upper
portion of the facade is a relatively unadorned expanse of brick. A recessed rectangular panel in
the brickwork is located above the marquee. The cornice is formed by a series of stepped rows of
brick topped by a course of vertically -laid stretchers. Near either end of the facade at the second
story level are solitary casement windows with single pane sashes. Overall, the building is a
relatively austere example of theater architecture. Affixed to the south side of the building is a
334
June 4, 1996
narrow two story brick vestibule; a wooden stairway once accessed the upper story but is no longer '
extant. There is a sealed rectangular doorway on this upper story, and an arched doorway at
ground level. A small shed is also attached to the south side, near the back of the building. There
are two doorways on the east (rear) end of the building, facing the alley. The north wall has been
stuccoed over.
Recommendation:
Because the building has been extensively altered from its original appearance and the altered
facade does not date to the period of significance in that it is not yet 50 years old, staff strongly
supports the recommendation of the Landmark Preservation Commission to deny local landmark
designation of the Aggie Theatre Building, 204 South College Avenue. "
David Himot, owner of the building, withdrew his application for landmark designation.
City Attorney Steve Roy explained the process for withdrawing a petition for landmark designation.
Ordinance No. 90,1996,
Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated
Revenue in Various City Funds and Authorizing the Transfer '
of Existing Appropriations to Be Used for Street Maintenance
and Traffic Operations Needs Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"FinancialImpact
These appropriations will fund various needs in Transportation Services for 1996. Most of the
resources identified to finance 1996 unmet needs are one-time funds while the majority of the
identified deficiencies are ongoing. Thus, the ongoing needs still exist. Staff will continue to work
on these issues during the 1997 budget process.
Executive Summary
This Ordinance appropriates prior year reserves in the Capital Projects Fund - 114 Cent Street
Maintenance and Transportation Fund, existing appropriations in the General Fund, and
unanticipated revenue in the Transportation Fund. The money will be used for traffic operations,
pavement management, street sweeping, snow removal, and bicycle education.
335
June 4, 1996
IBACKGROUND:
During the 1996 budget process Transportation Services determined there were significant funding
shortages in street maintenance programs. There was also a notable demand for bikelane sweeping,
traffic calming, and a bicycle education and enforcement coordinator. Other requests for City
services made it impossible to meet all the Transportation needs in 1996. In June of 1995, staff
began working on the reinstatement of the Transportation Maintenance Fee as a way of generating
new revenue to offset the shortages. On April 16, 1996, Council considered the reinstatement
ordinance but it was not adopted. However, Council directed the City Manager to continue
investigating possible solutions to the 1996 shortage as well as methods for funding ongoing needs
as part of the 1997 budget process.
The following is a breakdown of the ongoing and one-time expenses for which the proposed
appropriation would be used:
Uses of Funds
Ongoing
Neighborhood Traffic Calming $100,000
Bicycle Education Coordinator 30,000 (partial year)
' One -Time
New Signs
$ 37,500
Pavement Marking
30,000
Replacement Signs
50,000
General Signal Repair
10,000
Signal Maintenance
20,000
Signal Computer Parts
25,000
Overlays, crack sealing, and patching 525,000
Street Sweeping 81,500
Snow Removal 12,400
Total $130,000 $791,400 $921,400
Sources of Funds
Capital Projects Fund -114 Cent Street Maintenance Prior Year Reserves $525,000
(One -tune)
Approximately $525,000 is available for appropriation from the 114 cent dedicated for street
maintenance. This is carryover money that was generated when actual revenues exceeded annual
' appropriations. These finds would normally be appropriated as part of the annual budget process.
Expending these carryover funds in 1996 means they are not available for subsequent years.
336
June 4, 1996
Transportation Fund Prior Year Reserves $ 89 000
(One-time)
$89,000 is escrowed in the Transportation Fund Undesignated Reserve for Streets. The money was
escrowed for a portion of the future reconstruction of Vine Drive adjacent to the Streets Facility.
This set aside follows customary City policy that requires street improvements as development
occurs. If this one-time money is used to fund unmet needs in 1996, the funding of Vine Street
reconstruction must come from another source that will be identified in the 1997 budget process.
General Fund Existing Appropriations $I95,000
(One-time $65,000; Ongoing $130,000)
Ongoing funding is provided by the Community Investment and Opportunity Fund that was created
in the 1995 budget process. One-time money was part of the $400,000 originally budgeted to the
Transportation Services to replace the estimated federal funding deficit for the Transfort program.
The actual deficit is $335,000. The $65,000 balance will be returned to the service area for street
maintenance needs.
Transportation Fund - Unanticipated Revenue $112,400
(One-time)
Surplus and outdated equipment is routinely sold by the City to provide working capital for
equipment replacement. The $112,400 generated by the sale of Streets equipment in 1996 will be
used to fund some capital equipment but primarily operational shortages. Using the money for
operations creates a shortfall in the Streets equipment replacement reserve that will need to be
replaced for future equipment lease or purchase. "
City Manager John Fischbach gave a brief presentation on this item and described on -going and one-
time expenses.
Transportation Service Area Director Ron Phillips reported on funding sources and responded to
Council questions.
Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adopt Ordinance
No. 90, 1996 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith
and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Janett requested a two page memo regarding LPC issues.
337
June 4, 1996
Councilmember Smith requested information regarding traffic control in the downtown area. He
suggested roadblocks be placed randomly not at the same location consistently.
Councilmember Kneeland reported the Health and Safety Committee would be reviewing the
roadblock issue, and spoke of the pros and cons regarding placement of roadblocks.
[LlaL/lli:%IuI11�M1
Councilmember Janett made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adjourn to 8:15 p.m.
on June 11. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCloskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
338