Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-12/05/1989-Regular' December 5, 1989 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 on Tuesday, December 5, 1989, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, and Winokur. Councilmember Maxey arrived at approximately 7:35 p.m. Staff Members Present: Burkett, Krajicek, Roy Citizen Participation Jim Creeden, P.O. Box 1022, commented on the flag ceremony that was put on by the cub scouts and commented on the performance evaluation of City Manager Burkett. ' Agenda Review: City Manager City Manager Burkett requested Item #10, Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 1989, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code Relating to Utility Service Outside City Limits, and Item #25, Resolution 89-214 Concerning Federal Reserved Water Rights in Colorado Wildnerness Areas, be withdrawn from the Agenda. He noted that Item #21, Resolution 89-213 Making Findings of Fact Regarding Multiple Appeals of the Financial Officer's Decision as to the Reallocation of Assessments in the Provincetown-Portner SID No. 81 and the South Lemay SID No. 86, Adopted as Revised, contained a revised resolution. He noted that Item #22, Ordinance No. 144, 1989, Authorizing the Issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds of the City of Fort Collins for the ESAB Automation, Inc., Project, and Item #23, Ordinance No. 145, 1989, Authorizing the Issuance of Industrial Development Revenue bonds of the City of Fort Collins for the Innovative Companies, Inc., Project, contained new ordinances. Mayor Winokur requested that Item #8, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 1989, Assessing the Cost of Improvements in the Oakridge Business Park Special Improvement District No. 91, be removed from the Consent Agenda. Jim Creeden, P.O. Box 1022, withdrew Item #14, Resolution 89-210 Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter Into a Professional Services Agreement with RBD, Inc. in the Amount of $63,537 for Design and Construction Engineering of the Shields Street and Lake Street Relief ' Sewers, and Item #15, Resolution 89-211 Making Certain Changes in the Name -633- December 5, 1989 and Functions of the Council Subcommittee for Legislative Lobbying, from I 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 be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be considered separately under Agenda Item #18, Pulled Consent Items. 5. Items Relating to Rohrbacker Annexation. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 1989 Annexing Approximately 3.6 acres Known as Rohrbacker Annexation. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 1989 Zoning Approximately 3.6 acres Known as Rohrbacker Annexation, into the C, Commercial District, with a planned unit development condition. On October 17, Council unanimously adopted Resolution 89-176 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Rohrbacker Annexation. On October 17, Council also unanimously adopted on First Reading Ordinance No. 137, 1989 and Ordinance No. 138, 1989, annexing and zoning approximately 3.6 acres, located on East Magnolia Court, west of Link Lane and north of East Mulberry. The requested zoning is the C, Commercial District. At the request of the applicant, this item was postponed from November 21 to this date. APPLICANT: Rosalie Rohrbacker OWNER: Same 430 West Myrtle Fort Collins, CO 80524 (Secretary's Note: Approval of Item #5 was reconsidered and Ordinance No. 137, 1989 and Ordinance No. 138, 1989 were postponed indefinitely on Second Reading.) 6. Items Relating to the Orchard Second Annexation and Zoning. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 1989, Annexing Approximately 5.95 Acres, Known as the Orchard Second Annexation. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 147, .1989, Zoning Approximately 5.95 Acres, Known as the Orchard Second Annexation, into the I R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential District. -634- December 5, 1989 ' On November 21, Council unanimously adopted Resolution 89-202 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Orchard Second Annexation. On November 21, Council also unanimously adopted on First Reading Ordinance No. 152, 1989 and Ordinance No. 147, 1989, annexing and zoning approximately 5.95 acres located south of Harmony Road and east of Shields Street. The requested zoning is the R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential, Zoning District. The property is presently undeveloped. The property is currently zoned FA-1, Farming, in the County. This is a voluntary annexation. APPLICANT: Nordic Construction OWNER: Nordic Construction c/o Cityscape Urban Design 309 West Harmony Road 3030 S. College Avenue, #20 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins, CO 80525 7. Items Relating to the Quail Hollow Annexation and Zoning. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 1989, Annexing Approximately 80 Acres, Known as the Quail Hollow Annexation. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 1989, Zoning Approximately 67 Acres of the Quail Hollow Annexation into the R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential District, and Approximately 13 Acres into the R-F, Foothills Residential District. On November 21, Council unanimously adopted Resolution 89-203 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Quail Hollow Annexation. On November 21, Council also unanimously adopted on First Reading Ordinance No. 148, 1989 and Ordinance No. 149, 1989, annexing and zoning approximately 80.0 acres located south of the Quail Hollow Subdivision, south of Drake Road. The requested zoning is in two parts: (1) approximately 67 acres of R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential, on the eastern portion of the property; and (2) approximately 13 acres of R-F, Foothills Residential District on the western portion of the property. The property is presently undeveloped. The property is currently zoned FA-1, Farming, in the County. This is a voluntary annexation. APPLICANT: D. Jensen Enterprises OWNER: D Jensen Enterprises c/o Cityscape Urban Design P.O. Box 1007 3030 S. College Ave. #200 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Fort Collins, CO 80525 -635- December 5, 1989 EM 91 10. In August 1987, Council established the Oakridge Business Park Special Improvement District No. 91. This SID consists of approximately 169 acres of land located in the southeast portion of the City adjacent to and southeast of the intersection of Lemay Avenue and Harmony Road. In accordance with Chapter 22 of the City Code, the City began the closeout of this district with the adoption of Resolution 89-171 which accepted the improvements and ordered a notice to be sent to property owners informing them of the assessment. A public hearing to hear any objections from the property owners was held November 21, 1989. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 21, places an assessment against each property in the district and outlines the procedure for collection. The assessment amount for each property is listed in the assessment roll and includes the cost of construction, engineering, formation and financing of the district. As a part of the 1990 Budget process, Engineering presented a proposal to the City Council to increase the City's Street Cut Permit fee to cover the actual costs of the administration and inspection involved with these permits. Staff recommended that the fee be increased to $65, effective January 1, 1990. This was included as a part of the 1990 Budget which was adopted by the City Council in October. This ordinance makes the necessary change in the City Code to reflect the increased fee adopted with the 1990 Budget. Section 26-651 of the City Code requires that requests for utility service outside the city limits be approved by both the Water Board and the Planning and Zoning Board. The Water Board routinely approves out -of -city service requests when facilities are available and the impact of the proposed use is minimal. The Planning and Zoning Board normally requires applicants for out -of -city service to annex their property if it is eligible. Changes to the out -of -city service ordinance are being proposed to: (1) reduce the time required to obtain approval for routine out -of -city service requests, (2) require annexation whenever an eligible property receives City utility service and, (3) eliminate consideration of routine requests by the Water Board and Planning and Zoning Board. -636- December 5, 1989 11. 12 The City currently has a contract with US West for maintenance of the Northern Telecom PBX and other associated telephone systems. This contract was originally awarded to Northern Telecom in 1988 for two years. In the summer of 1989, US West acquired Northern Telecom and assumed the maintenance contract. To insure continued uninterrupted maintenance service, until a new selection process occurs, it is necessary to extend the existing contract with US West from December 31, 1989 until June 30, 1990. City Code requires Council approval of the extension of contracts exceeding 2 years in length. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 156, 1989, Rezoning 20.33 Acres of the property known as the Forbes Parcel, Being a Portion of This is a request to rezone a portion of the Country Club East Annexation, known as the Forbes Parcel (20.33 acres) to remove zoning condition requiring all development to be processed as a planned unit development. The change would allow single family development to ' occur as a "use -by -right" under the restrictions of R-L-P zoning. Staff believes that the criteria of the R-L-P zone are sufficient protection of the public interest in guiding development. The additional PUD review of all development is not warranted. Development not allowed as a "use -by -right" must still be processed as a PUD and reviewed against the criteria of the Land Development Guidance System. 13. Ltd., Annexation: The applicant, Lee G. Tipton, on behalf of the property owner, Frontage Road Industrial Associates Ltd., has submitted a written petition requesting annexation of approximately 88.6 acres located west of Interstate Highway 25 and south of East Vine Drive. The proposed Resolution makes a finding that the petition substantially complies with the Municipal Annexation Act, determines that a hearing should be established regarding the annexation, and directs that notice be given of the hearing. The hearing will be held at the time of first reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances on January 16, 1990. Not less than thirty days of prior notice is required by Colorado law. -637- December 5, 1989 14. Resolution 89-210 Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter Into a ' Professional Services Agreement with RBD, Inc. in the Amount of $63,537 for Design and Construction Engineering of the Shields Street and Lake Street Relief Sewers. The proposed resolution would authorize the Purchasing Agent to enter into a professional services agreement with RBD, Inc. for the design and construction engineering of the Shields and Lake Street Relief Sewers. The project consists of replacing approximately 2500 feet of 10 inch sanitary sewer in South Shields Street between Lake Street and North Drive. In addition, approximately 700 feet of 10 inch sewer in Lake Street from the Burlington Northern railroad tracks west toward Shields will be replaced. These lines will be replaced by sections of 12" and 15" sewer, with the exact sizings to be determined in the design phase of the project. The existing sewer mains need to be replaced because their capacity is overloaded and some sections are damaged. RFPs for engineering services for the Shields and Lake Street Relief Sewers were sent out in October. Ten responses were received and the selection committee identified three firms to be interviewed. They were RBD, Inc., Taranto, Stanton and Tagge, and The Engineering Company. Interviews were conducted on November 16 and RBD was selected as being best qualified to carry out the project. 15. Resolution 89-211 Making Certain Changes in the Name and Functions of the Council Subcommittee for Legislative Lobbying. In 1985, the Council formed a Legislative Lobbying Subcommittee to review proposed state and federal legislation which might affect the City's interests. The subcommittee is recommending: (1) a change in the name of the subcommittee to better reflect its function; and (2) a change in its procedure to provide for review by the entire Council of any issues or recommendations relating to proposed legislation which are not covered by existing Council policy. 16. Resolution 89-212 Supporting the Nomination of Thaine Michie for a Seat on the APPA Board of Directors. At the November 21 Council meeting, staff received direction to prepare a resolution supporting Thaine Michie, General Manager of Platte River Power Authority, in his candidacy for a seat on the American Public Power Association ("APPA") Board of Directors. After adoption, this Resolution will be forwarded to APPA. 17. Routine Deeds and Easements. Powerline easement from Saeeda Hamid, 1408 S. Shields, needed to underground existing overhead electric system and install 7' x 4' underground primary electric vault. Monetary consideration: $50 for vault installation. I �F� December 5, 1989 b. Powerline easement from Condor Enterprises, a joint venture, 832 E. Lincoln, needed to underground electric primary system. Monetary consideration: $10. c. Powerline easement from William R. Brewster and Phyllis M. Brewster, 2216 Clearview, needed to install new streetlight service. Monetary consideration: $10. Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk. Item #5. A. Q Item #6. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 1989, Annexing Approxi- mately 5.95 Acres, Known as the Orchard Second Annexation. 3 Item #7. A Second Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 1989, Annexing Approxi- mately 80 Acres, Known as the Quail Hollow Annexation. ' B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 1984, Zoning Approxi- mately 67 Acres of the Quail Hollow Annexation into the R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential District, and Approximately 13 Acres into the R-F, Foothills Residential District. Item #8. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk. Item #9. Item #11. Item #12. -639- December 5, 1989 Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards, , to adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 151, 1989, Assessing the Cost of Improvements in the Oakridge Business Park Special Improvement District No. 91, Adopted on Second Reading Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In August 1987, Council established the Oakridge Business Park Special Improvement District No. 91. This SID consists of approximately 169 acres of land located in the southeast portion of the City adjacent to and southeast of the intersection of Lemay Avenue and Harmony Road. In accordance with Chapter 22 of the City Code, the City began the closeout of this district with the adoption of Resolution 89-171 which accepted the improvements and ordered a notice to be sent to property owners informing them of the assessment. A public hearing to hear any objections from the property owners was held November 21, 1989. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 21, places an assessment against each property in the district and outlines the procedure for collection. The assessment amount for each property is listed in the assessment roll and includes the cost of construction, engineering, formation and financing of the district." Councilmember Mabry withdrew from discussion and vote on this item due to a perceived conflict of interest. Councilmember Edwards made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to adopt Ordinance No. 151, 1989, on Second Reading. Mayor Winokur expressed appreciation to staff for their hard work on the item and for answering his questions. He asked why changes were made in the Code requiring assessments be charged at the highest coupon rate versus at the net effective rate. Finance Director Alan Krcmarik explained the reasoning for the changes in the Code were to better protect the City from defaults and delinquent payments and clarified that the use of the highest coupon rate provided additional protection against delinquent payments in the district. He explained that late payments may cause the City to have insufficient funds ' to call bonds due at the correct time and noted when the City gets behind -640- December 5, 1989 ' in the redemption schedule, additional interest accrues on the bonds and has to be paid to the bondholders. He stated the net effective interest rate provides a margin of protection against delinquencies and noted it did not provide as much protection as the highest coupon rate. He stated that in the past, the net effective rate had not always been used and pointed out that in many of the districts that used the net effective rate, there was insufficient monies to cover the bonds payments. He added that past experiences had been considered with regard to the aggregate refunding to cover short -falls and elaborated on the issues surrounding the districts relating to the possibility of not enough money coming in from assessments to pay the bonds. He stated staff had requested Council provide additional funds to cover the interest payments along with using monies from the surplus and deficiency fund when the districts close out and explained when a district closes out in a deficit position, money is transferred to cover the payments. He stated that $300,000 currently remains in the surplus and deficiency fund and stated if there was more money paid into the district to cover the interest and principal on the bonds than was necessary, the projected ending balance will be approximately $115,000. He noted the money is scheduled to be returned to the property owners and stated the revised Code provides a reserve fund that is incorporated into a district by issuing additional bonds. He explained that the money in the surplus and deficiency fund could be used under the Charter provisions to pay the shortages. He added that if there was insufficient money, according to Charter requirements, the City will pay the final 25% of the outstanding bonds and noted the provision in the Charter mirrored the bond ordinance ' for this district which requires the City to levy a property tax to cover the short -fall. He explained staff's involvement with the developers at the time the bonds were issued. He explained using the net effective interest rate with regard to cash flow and noted the developer in this district has a good track record with respect to the district. Mayor Winokur asked about the process revising the special improvement district policies, and how the new policies would apply to existing districts and on assessed districts. City Attorney Roy explained that there were certain provisions in the new Code that might apply to existing districts. Mayor Winokur asked about a legally binding agreement that pre -dates the Code changes which commits the City to use the net effective interest rates. City Attorney Roy stated that the answer regarding the City being committed to using net effective interest rates was not clear and stated it was the subject of disagreement between the property owners and the'City. Mayor Winokur asked if the use of the net effective interest rate in Special Improvement District #91 set a precedent for SID #90. City Attorney Roy stated that it may set a precedent in a practical sense but in a legal sense, it may not necessarily set a precedent. -641- December 5, 1989 Mayor Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt ' Ordinance No. 151, 1989 on Second Reading by amending Section 2 as follows: "All assessments made herein shall be due and payable within thirty (30) days after the final publication of this ordinance without demand provided that all such assessments may at the election of the owners of the property assessed be paid in thirteen (13) equal principal installments, the first installment being due on the first day of February 1990 and on the first day of February of each year thereafter until the full amount thereof has been paid together with interest on the unpaid principal at the rate of 8.90% per annum, said interest to be payable at the time of the principal of payments." Mayor Winokur stated the intent of the motion was to charge the assessments at the equivalent of the highest coupon rate on the bonds. Lucia Liley, attorney representing The Everitt Companies, stated Everitt's legal position with regard to the assessment issues. She stated the bond ordinance for SID #91 did not include a ten percent reserve in the bond amount as contemplated by the present Code provisions and stated it did not contain any requirements that there would be any reserve when the property was assessed. She referred to the specific formation ordinance which did not have a reserve requirement and stated that based on the Code provision and formation documents, the City cannot retroactively apply new Code provisions which were not adopted until 1989. She stressed the specific assessment proposal being recommended by staff was not acceptable to the Everitt Companies based on the legal reasons and stated Everitt Companies 1 believed that the district should be treated like other districts formed under similar conditions (no net effective interest rate and no reserve). She stated Everitt's position was based on a compromise from both parties and stated it was voluntarily agreed upon to leave the interest earnings of approximately $104,000 to create a surplus for the City. She commented on the cash flow and the projected ending balance of $115,000 and stated this was an acceptable agreement. She stated it accomplished the City's intent with the new Code and urged Council to be mindful of the legal concerns and take into consideration the work that went into arriving at a mutually acceptable compromise. Mayor Winokur asked about retroactively applying the new Code in terms of refunding any surplus funds and questioned the binding provisions in the official bond statement. He inquired about the Code stipulations and changes to the effective date of interest of accrual along with the due date of the first payment. Lucia Liley commented on the interest accrual issues and stated Everitt Companies did not agree to the interest accrual dates, rather it was an expectation on the City's behalf. She noted the document that was prepared by the City was never signed by Everitt Companies and stated the interest accrual dates were not put in any of the financing documents. She stated the refunding was part of the negotiated settlement and compromise. Finance Director Alan Krcmarik commented on the use of net effective ' interest rate and various types of interest rates in other districts and -642- December 5, 1989 ' noted the calculations used between the net effective and the average coupon rate. He stated the official documents always referred to the language that is in the Code and the highest rate on the bonds and stated that during a bond issue, an estimated cap (that is much higher than what the bonds are expected to sell for) is placed on the bonds as protection for the City and explained the official statement closely follows the Code regarding the bond rate. Mayor Winokur asked about the City's accuracy regarding cash flow projections and asked about the spiraling effect when payments are late. Finance Director Alan Krcmarik explained the assumptions that were made for the district involved all of the assessments being paid on a timely basis and stated the cash flow projections are updated after each annual installment is due. He explained the ramifications when property owners fail to make timely payments. Mayor Winokur expressed satisfaction concerning how much progress had been made on the district. He stated he proposed the amendment to improve and protect the financial history of the district and stated he believed the net effective interest rate does not work. He stated he had not seen evidence of a legally binding agreement prior to the Code change which assured the net effective interest rate would be charged and outlined other provisions which were more specific, with regard to interest accrual dates and the first payment date. He recalled a discussion of how the new ' policies would apply to existing districts that were not yet assessed to the fullest extent possible and stated he did not believe the City should be responsible for private financial commitments made by individual property owners, when the property owners knew the district was subject to an assessing ordinance. He stated the Code was not changed without everyone's knowledge and noted the problems within the district had been discussed for at least three years. He stated it was appropriate to follow the current provisions of the law. Councilmember Azari stated she would not support the amendment and stated she did not believe the concept of changing the City's original position when the bonds were sold was fair. She stated the compromise provided implementation of the new ordinance in a reasonable manner and encouraged the City to abide by its word. She added that when the district was first formed, the City was operating under a different Code and noted the Code has since changed. She stated the agreement expressed compliance with the new Code and stated she believed that was fair and reasonable. Councilmember Kirkpatrick objected to the amendment and recognized the importance of the current Code requirements. She commented on the districts which were caught between old rules and new rules and spoke of the need for compromise for the protection of the special improvement districts. She stated the result of using some of the special improvement districts as a tool had been a poor experience, while other districts had done quite well. She encouraged the use of special improvement districts ' in the future and noted the rules which protect the City from future poor experiences. She commented on the good history of the property owner and -643- December 5, 1989 stated she expected the built-in reserve requirement for this assessment to adequately protect the community. Councilmember Edwards stated he would not support the motion based on the on -going negotiation since the beginning of the SID, which pre -date the Code revision and stated he believed each SID was an individual agreement. He expressed concern that the City was changing the rules in mid -stream and not negotiating in good faith. He encouraged Council, through staff, to negotiate an agreement with the parties in interest and stated the current agreement was fair and reasonable. The vote on Mayor Winokur's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 151, 1989 on Second Reading by amending Section 2 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmember Winokur. Nays: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, and Kirkpatrick. (Councilmember Mabry withdrawn) Jim Creeden, P.O. Box 1022, asked for time limit clarifications from City Attorney Roy regarding presentations from staff versus comments from the public. Councilmember Azari complemented staff on the quality of documents prepared for Council on SID #91 and expressed discomfort with the current policy on special improvement districts. She encouraged the City to continue to work at protecting its dollars with the new provisions for special improvement districts and stressed continued work on the issue of SID's and the amount of risk that the City must take. Councilmember Horak stated he believed that the current provisions provide latitude for Council to make improvements in the community and added that the improvements did not always make good sense and were not always a gain for the community. He expressed appreciation for Mayor Winokur's points with respect to the amendment and stated he did not believe it was a compromise issue. He commented on the thorough job done by staff presenting the materials and negotiations and spoke in favor and support of the agreement. Councilmember Edwards commented on the difficult negotiations and the appropriate job done by staff and noted the agreement was a good one and should stand the test of time. Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated the features of the assessment procedure did not set a precedent for future special improvement districts and stated the provision should not apply when future districts are created. The vote on Councilmember Edwards' motion to adopt Or No. 151, 1989 on Second Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, and Winokur. Nays: None. (Councilmember Mabry withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. -644- December 5, 1989 I (Secretary's note: Councilmember Maxey arrived at approximately 7:35 p.m.) Resolution 89-210 Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter Into a Professional Services Agreement with RBD, Inc. in the Amount of $63,537 for Design and Construction Engineering of the Shields Street and Lake Street Relief Sewers, Adopted Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "FINANCIAL IMPACT The Professional Services agreement is in the amount of $63,537. Funds for the project are budgeted and available in the Wastewater Capital Projects Fund. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed resolution would authorize the Purchasing Agent to enter into a professional services agreement with RBD, Inc. for the design and construction engineering of the Shields and Lake Street Relief Sewers (see ' attached map). The project consists of replacing approximately 2500 feet of 10 inch sanitary sewer in South Shields Street between Lake Street and North Drive. In addition, approximately 700 feet of 10 inch sewer in Lake Street from the Burlington Northern railroad .tracks west toward Shields will be replaced. These lines will be replaced by sections of 12" and 15" sewer, with the exact sizings to be determined in the design phase of the project. The existing sewer mains need to be replaced because their capacity is overloaded and some sections are damaged. RFPs for engineering services for the Shields and Lake Street Relief Sewers were sent out in October. Ten responses were received and the selection committee identified three firms to be interviewed. They were RBD, Inc., Taranto, Stanton and Tagge, and The Engineering Company. Interviews were conducted on November 16 and RBD was selected as being best qualified to carry out the project. The amount of the professional services agreement is $63,537, including $37,924 for the design and bidding phase and $25,613 for the construction services phase. Construction of the project is estimated at about $400,000. The design and bidding phase is scheduled for January through May, 1990, with construction to be completed by September of 1990." Councilmember Edwards made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mabry, to adopt Resolution 89-210. I Jim Creeden, P.O. Box 1022, asked questions about the bid process. -645- December 5, 1989 The vote on Councilmember Edwards' motion to adopt Resolution 89-210 was as , follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 89-211 Making Certain Changes in the Name and Functions of the Council Subcommittee for Legislative Lobbying, Adopted Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 1985, the Council formed a Legislative Lobbying Subcommittee to review proposed state and federal legislation which might affect the City's interests. The subcommittee is recommending: (1) a change in the name of the subcommittee to better reflect its function; and (2) a change in its procedure to provide for review by the entire Council of any issues or recommendations relating to proposed legislation which are not covered by existing Council policy. BACKGROUND For approximately four years, the Council has used a subcommittee to review proposed state and federal legislation which might affect the City's interests. In the past, this subcommittee has formulated positions on behalf of the Council with regard to such legislation, pursuant to its directive under Resolution 85-130. The present subcommittee recommends making a change in the manner in which it performs its functions and also recommends that the name of the subcommittee be changed. The recommendation as to the name change is that the subcommittee be called the Legislative Review Subcommittee rather than the Legislative Lobbying Subcommittee. It is believed that this change would better reflect the actual function of the subcommittee. The subcommittee and the affected members of City staff also recommend that the subcommittee, after reviewing and discussing relevant proposed legislation, express the views of the City only as to legislation which deals with areas in which the full Council has previously established City policy. With regard to legislation which touches on areas of concern in which no policy has yet been determined by the Council, the subcommittee recommends that its own recommendations be reviewed by the Council before a position is taken on behalf of the City." Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to adopt Resolution 89-211. -646- December 5, 1989 Jim Creeden, P.O. Box 1022, commented on the lobbying efforts at the state level. The vote on Councilmember Kirkpatrick's motion to adopt Resolution 89-211 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Reports Councilmember Maxey apologized for arriving late and explained he needed to take care of family matters due to the death of an uncle. He mentioned the National League of Cities meeting in Atlanta and noted some of the issues centered around recycling, council-manager government, and benefit packages. He stated he would be supplying Council with copies of the information he had received and commented on Council's television audience being intimidated by certain instruments that were carried to the podium by citizens who addressed Council. He asked that the particular instrument no longer be displayed. Councilmember Horak mentioned the National League of Cities meeting and his involvement on the Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources Policy Committee, and requested Council direct staff to prepare a resolution for the December 19 meeting, nominating Councilmember Horak to the National League of Cities Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Steering Committee. He explained the Steering Committee was involved with setting policy for the National League of Cities and noted the two major issues that the National League of Cities will look at in 1990 were air quality and wetland areas. Resolution 89-213 Making Findings of Fact Regarding Multiple Appeals of the Financial Officer's Decision as to the Reallocation of Assessments in the Provincetown-Portner SID No. 81 and the South Lemav SID No. 86, Adopted as Revised Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On November 21, 1989, Council held a hearing on three separate appeals of the Financial Officer's decision regarding the reallocation of assessments for Provincetown-Portner Special Improvement Districf.No. 81 and the South Lemay Special Improvement District No. 86. At the conclusion of the ' hearing, the Council generally upheld the method of reallocation which had been selected by the Financial Officer, upheld the Financial Officer's determination that the assessment for street oversizing costs should be -647- December 5, 1989 levied against the Dueck property, decision in certain respects. This facts and conclusions regarding the would finalize Council's decision in BACKGROUND and modified the Financial Officer's Resolution contains the findings of appeals. If adopted, the Resolution this matter. On September 21, 1989, and October 2, 1989, hearings were held by the Financial Officer regarding the reallocation of assessments for the Provincetown-Portner Special Improvement District No. 81 and the South Lemay Special Improvement District No. 86. No agreement regarding the reallocation of assessments had been reached by the property owners within those Districts. Three appeals of the Financial Officer's decision were filed by Lake Shore Estates, Dueck Companies and Mrs. Alma Murr. At the hearing on November 21, Council found that the written grounds stated in each of the notices of appeal were sufficient to warrant a hearing on the merits of the appeals. After review of the record on appeal and after hearing argument on behalf of all parties in interest, Council upheld the determination of the Financial Officer that the assessments in these Districts should be reallocated on an area basis. Council also upheld the Financial Officer's determination that the assessment for street oversizing costs should be levied against the Dueck property. Finally, Council modified the Financial Officer's decision in two respects: (1) it determined that the amount of acreage in the Districts should be recalculated according to a stipulation offered by all parties in interest; and (2) it determined that the amount of $9,736.19 should be removed from the assessment against the Murr property so as to reflect a credit for that portion of the street oversizing costs which had previously been assessed against the Murr property. The hearing was continued for consideration of a resolution containing findings consistent with Council's decision on November 21. The proposed Resolution contains such findings and, if adopted, would finalize Council's decision regarding the reallocation of assessments for these Districts." Councilmember Mabry withdrew from discussion and vote on this item due to a perceived conflict of interest. Councilmember Azari made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt Resolution 89-213 as revised. City Attorney Roy noted that the passage of the Resolution would finalize Council's decisions from the November 21 meeting regarding the appeal of the financial officer's determination of how the assessments in SID's #81 and #86 should be reallocated and noted the hearing on the proceedings was concluded at the November 21 meeting. Councilmember Horak requested clarification on the, differences in the revised resolution that Council received. December 5, 1989 ' City Attorney Roy clarified the revisions occurred with regard to the acreages and the assessment amounts and stated the total assessment was listed along with a breakdown for each SID and the two property owners. He explained in subparagraph D, the assessment modification of the Murr property only referred to SID #86. Councilmember Kirkpatrick expressed appreciation to staff for the hard work that went into preparing the documents. The vote on Councilmember Azari's motion to adopt Resolution 89-213 as revised was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. (Councilmember Mabry withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 144, 1989, Authorizing the Issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds of the City of Fort Collins for the ESAB Automation, Inc., Project, Adopted on Second Reading as Revised ' Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "FINANCIAL IMPACT On August 1, 1989, the Council adopted the Inducement Resolution for the project in the amount of $6,730,000. In subsequent interactionwith the State of Colorado Department of Local Affairs, the amount of the issue was decreased to $6 million. On November 7, 1989, Council adopted Ordinance No. 144, 1989 on First Reading by a vote of 6-0. The proceeds of the bonds will be used to finance the acquisition and construction of assets to be used for the ESAB Automation Project. The project is to be privately owned and the debt is to be paid from the revenue generated -by the project. On November 21, 1989, the underwriters for the transaction requested that this item be postponed on Second Reading to December 5, 1989. The Bonds will be marketed after second reading. The final interest rate on the bonds will be approved by the City Manager through the Bond Purchase agreement. Authorization for the City Manager to accept the rates in this manner has been incorporated into the ordinance." Councilmember Mabry withdrew from discussion and vote on this item due to a perceived conflict of interest. Councilmember Azari made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick, ' to adopt Ordinance No. 144, 1989 on Second Reading as revised. -649- December 5, 1989 Councilmember Edwards asked about IDRBs not representing the direct debt of ' the City. City Attorney Roy read from the Code pertaining to payment of principal and interest: "Nothing in the bonds or in the ordinance shall be considered as a signing, pledging, or otherwise encumbering any other funds or assets of the City" to clarify that IDRB's do not constitute a debt of the City. Finance Director Alan Krcmarik read from the Code: "The bonds shall never constitute the debt or the indebtedness of the City within the meaning of any provision or limitation of the Constitution or statutes of the state." He explained that the past practice of the bond rating agencies has been clear on IDRB's and they have never been included in the debt statements that are used to calculate City indebtedness when the City's credit has been analyzed. He stated the IDRB's were payable soley from the revenues from the project and added there had been several instances where IDRB's have not made the interest or principal payments. He stated that the issue of not making payments had always been resolved without a direct relationship on the issuer's credit. Finance Director Alan Krcmarik read the interest changes into the record. Dave Dwyer, bond counsel, noted ESAB chose the out-of-state bank as the trustee due to the pricing mechanisms. Jim Creeden, P.O. Box 1022, commented on the IDRB process between the City and the County. Councilmember Kirkpatrick supported the use of IDRBs for the project and expressed appreciation for the work that went into making the process successful. Councilmember Edwards spoke of the solid team effort demonstrated by the applicant, the private sector, Council, and staff. Councilmember Horak noted his support for the earlier team effort involved with the industrial development revenue bonds. The vote on Councilmember Azari's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 144, 1989 on Second Reading as revised was as follows: Yeas Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. (Councilmember Mabry withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. -650- December 5, 1989 Ordinance No. 145, 1989, Authorizing the Issuance of Industrial Development Revenue bonds of the City of Fort Collins for the Innovative Companies, Inc., Project, Adopted on Second Reading as Revised Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "FINANCIAL IMPACT On June 20, 1989, the Council adopted the Inducement Resolution for the project in the amount of $7 million. In subsequent negotiations between Innovative Companies and the State of Colorado Department of Local Affairs, the amount of the issue was decreased to $6.5 million. On November 7, 1989, Council adopted Ordinance No. 145, 1989 on First Reading by a vote of 6-1. The proceeds of the bonds will be used to finance the acquisition and construction of assets to be used for the Innovative Companies Project. The project is to be privately owned and the debt is to be paid from the revenue generated by the project. On November 21, 1989, the underwriters for the transaction requested that this item be postponed on Second Reading to December 5, 1989. The Bonds will be marketed after second reading. The final interest rate on the bonds will be approved by the City Manager through the Bond Purchase ' agreement. Authorization for the City Manager to accept the rates in this memo have been incorporated into the ordinance." Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to adopt Ordinance No. 145, 1989 on Second Reading as revised. Finance Director Alan Krcmarik read the final interest rates into the record. Councilmember Horak asked about the enforceability of the environmental compliance agreement along with setting aside a fund amount to insure compliance and questioned why the City's representatives chose the agreement versus a bond insurance policy. Development Services Director Mike Davis identified the parties who were signatory to the agreement including the neighborhoods, discussed the option of setting aside a fund amount and noted it was agreed among the parties in interest that the current agreement was the appropriate course. He stated the parties in interest and staff were satisfied with the recommended agreement. City Attorney Roy explained that it was staff's decision to accept the recommended agreement. ' Councilmember Edwards asked about the agreement's perpetuity and questioned who legally represented the other parties. -651- December 5, 1989 Development Services Director Mike Davis indicated the agreement's ' perpetuity runs with the land and noted the agreement was reviewed by the attorneys representing Innovative Companies and by the attorney representing the Golden Meadows Homeowner's Association. City Attorney Roy stated the length of time that the agreement is effective depends upon the obligation within the provisions of the agreement and stated with regard to a specific period of time to perform a study or to establish compliance, there would be provisions with time limits. He added with regard to obligations that don't include specific time provisions, there is no termination date under the agreement and the obligations continue to run with the property and are binding upon the parties and to the benefit of the respective successors in interest in the property and assigns. Jim Broderick, representing Golden Meadows Homeowners Association, expressed support for the agreement resolving the environmental concerns and noted that the homeowners were relying on the good faith of Innovative Companies. He mentioned the arbitration clause which forced the neighborhood and company to mutually agree on an enforcement mechanism and mentioned the financial obligation that the neighborhood would incur if the agreement failed. He expressed thanks to staff who acted as advocates on behalf of the homeowners to resolve the environmental issues. Lucy Tomky, representing Golden Meadows Homeowners Association, noted the agreement between Innovative Companies and the neighborhood groups had been signed and stated Golden Meadows did not submit the agreement to an attorney for approval. She stated that Innovative Companies had demonstrated good faith in the agreement and expressed satisfaction on behalf of the homeowners. She asked for the City's continued interest and support in the matter and noted the burden of providing a healthy environment lies in the hands of the citizens. She appealed to Council to establish new policies, plans, procedures, along with an increased sensitivity to citizen input regarding environmental issues. Robert Kopitzke, representing Harmony Half Acres Homeowners Association, stated he was comfortable with the process specified in the agreement and stated he was optimistic that the environmental issues would be resolved. John Knezovich, 1205 Green Street, expressed appreciation to Council for the hard work with industrial development revenue bonds and the good job Council is doing for the City. Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, commended staff and the City Manager for the work put into the environmental issues between Innovative Companies and the surrounding neighborhoods. City Manager Burkett noted the agreement had been signed by the Homeowner's Association and Innovative Companies. Councilmember. Kirkpatrick thanked Robert Kopitzke for coming forward in ' June when the inducement resolution was before Council, when he described -652- December 5, 1989 ' the problems associated with Innovative Companies. She commented on the effective use of the citizen participation forum and noted the results which led to the diligent work that resolved the situation for the company and neighborhood. She acknowledged Ms. Tomky's comments regarding the need for leadership from Council on the issues. Councilmember Edwards commented on the successful outcome of the issues between Innovative Companies and the neighborhoods. Councilmember Horak commented on the inadequacy of the City's process regarding the environmental issues and the industrial development revenue bond policy and urged the IDRB process be redeveloped to include environmental standards. He expressed appreciation with the good faith shown by Innovative Companies and the neighborhoods. He stressed the importance of having agreements which would stand the test of time and stated he would support the IDRBs. He encouraged additional work be done to resolve the IDRB issue to include clear standards for the environment. Councilmember Atari commented on the formation of the agreement and encouraged Council to listen to citizen concerns in order to resolve problems earlier. The vote on Councilmember Maxey's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 145, 1989 on Second Reading as revised was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. ' THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 150, 1989, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to enter into a Contract for Services with a Convention and Visitors' Bureau Service Provider for a term of two (2) years, Adopted on Second Reading Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, which was adopted 4-0 on First Reading on November 21, would authorize the Purchasing Agent to enter into an initial two (2) year contract (including an option of two renewals, two years each in length) with a convention and visitors' bureau service provider in accordance with established guidelines." Councilmember Kirkpatrick and Mayor Winokur withdrew from discussion and vote on this item due to a perceived conflict of interest. I Councilmember Azari made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to adopt Ordinance No. 150, 1989 on Second Reading. -653- December 5, 1989 Councilmember Horak asked about the process involving provisions for the I contract to be renewed automatically. Director of Economic Development Frank Bruno explained the process of reviewing the performance of the Convention and Visitors' Bureau and submitting the report to staff and Council for evaluation and a final decision. Councilmember Horak asked about the agreement's renewal process. City Attorney Roy stated the agreement's duration could exceed two year and stated he believed the agreement renewal did not need to be formally approved by Council. He noted the agreement could be renewed with an informal notice to Council. Jim Creeden, P.O. Box 1022, spoke in support of Convention and Visitors' Bureau contract. City Attorney Roy explained that the contract contained an agreement provision that allows Council to appropriate the funds in order for the renewal to occur and allows Council to review the matter. Councilmember Horak asked what percentage of the tax revenues would be going to the contractor and asked if the City was bound by the current numbers. Director of Economic Development Frank Bruno stated the current ordinance indicated the split in the lodging tax dollars. Councilmember Horak asked if the City was obligated to renew the contract, if after two years the contract could be changed, and expressed concern regarding allocating the lodging tax revenue to the Convention and Visitors' Bureau. He expressed concern about obligating the tax for a long period of time and stated he preferred an agreement which stated a specific percentage amount or included a shorter time period. He stated he did not believe the larger percent of the lodging tax split should be put back into the Convention and Visitors' Bureau and noted when the lodging tax originally passed, it was never presumed that all of the money would promote tourism in Fort Collins. He stated that in New York City none of the tax money goes to promote tourism and noted that in Atlanta, only a small portion of the tax goes back into tourism. City Attorney Roy stated the agreement specifically provided that 75% (in each of the first two years) would go for tourism promotion and noted the full amount is budgeted and appropriated by Council each year. He noted that Council reviews the Convention and Visitors' Bureau contract annually. Councilmember Edwards expressed support for the ability to review and renew the contract. The vote on Councilmember Azari's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 150, 1989 ' on Second Reading was as follows: Yeas: Azari, Edwards, Horak, Mabry, and -654- December 5, 1989 ' Maxey. Nays: None. (Councilmember Kirkpatrick and Mayor Winokur withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. Items Relating to Rohrbacker Annexation Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 1989 Annexing Approximately 3.6 acres Known as Rohrbacker Annexation. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 1989 Zoning Approximately 3.6 acres Known as Rohrbacker Annexation, into the C, Commercial District, with a planned unit development condition. On October 17, Council unanimously adopted Resolution 89-176 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Rohrbacker Annexation. On October 17, Council also unanimously adopted on First Reading Ordinance No. 137, 1989 and Ordinance No. 138, 1989, annexing and zoning approximately 3.6 acres, located on East Magnolia Court, west of Link Lane and north of East Mulberry. The requested zoning is the C, Commercial ' District. At the request of the applicant, this item was postponed from November 21 to this date. APPLICANT: Rosalie Rohrbacker OWNER: Same 430 West Myrtle Fort Collins, CO 80524" City Manager Burkett stated that a letter had been received asking that the annexation be postponed and asked that Council vote to reconsider the annexation and table the issue until January 16 at the request of the property owner. Planning Director Tom Peterson explained the reason for postponing the annexation was due to the applicant's attorney and designer are evaluating the terms and conditions that have been suggested for this PUD as a proposed auto salvage yard. He explained that they have not been able to formulate a position or adequately assess the costs under the PUD conditions and explained the relationship between the annexation and PUD requirements. He noted the requirements of the intergovernmental agreement specify the development agreement must be reviewed by the City and noted in accordance with the intergovernmental agreement, the County is unwilling to process the application. ' Councilmember Mabry clarified that the applicant is trying to decide if he wants to develop the property and noted the intergovernmental agreement 655- December 5, 1989 between the City and the County requires annexation should the property be ' developed. He added that there was no obligation upon the City to annex the property if it was not developed. Councilmember Kirkpatrick asked about auto salvage being the potential use for the property and inquired about a PUD requirement of recycling chloro-fluorocarbons. Planning Director Tom Peterson stated the conditions on the PUD that the City had in mind were issues of business and land compatibility. City Attorney Roy stated he would need to look into the criteria in the Land Development Guidance System before he could accurately answer Councilmember Kirkpatrick's recycling question. Councilmember Kirkpatrick requested staff investigate the capability of requiring recycling CFC's in auto salvage operations. Councilmember Edwards made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mabry, to reconsider Ordinance No. 138, 1989 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, and Winokur. Nays: None. Abstained: Councilmember Maxey. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards, to table indefinitely Ordinance No. 138, 1989 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, and Winokur. Nays: None. Abstained: Councilmember Maxey. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to reconsider Ordinance No. 137, 1989 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, and Winokur. Nays: None. Abstained: Councilmember Maxey. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to table indefinitely Ordinance No. 137, 1989 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, and Winokur. Nays: None. Abstained: Councilmember Maxey. THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to ' adopt Resolution 89-215 approving the nomination of Susan Kirkpatrick to the Executive Board of the Colorado Municipal League. -656- December 5, 1989 Councilmember Horak endorsed Councilmember Kirkpatrick's nomination to CML. Councilmember Kirkpatrick expressed appreciation to Council for its support and letter of nomination. The vote on Councilmember Mabry's motion to adopt Resolution 89-215 approving the nomination of Susan Kirkpatrick to the Executive Board of the Colorado Municipal League was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. AdJournment Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to adjourn into Executive Session for the purposes of discussing legal and personnel matters relating to the annual evaluation of the City Manager and City Attorney. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. (Secretary's note: Councilmember Maxey left the meeting at approximately 10:25 p.m.) At the conclusion of the Executive Session, Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick, to adjourn the meeting to 5:30 p.m. on December 12 with the worksession beginning at 7:30 p.m. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Mayor ATTEST:„ City Clerk