HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-02/07/1989-Regular' February 7, 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, February 7, 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: Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and
Winokur.
Staff Members Present: Burkett, Krajicek, Roy
Citizen Participation
A. Proclamation naming the month of February as American History Month was
forwarded to the appropriate persons.
Yolonda C. Nicely, 1625 Crestmore Place, expressed concern about the dental
(medical) waste that was deposited in her yard.
Tom McKenna, 3500 Rolling Green, spoke against the use of City funds for
Chamber of Commerce membership dues.
Jim Creeden, 4020 Goodell Lane #4, noted the salaries and bonuses received
by department heads and commented on Deputy City Manager Noe's recent
meetings with Police Department employees.
Agenda Review: City Manager
City Manager Burkett noted that Item #41, Resolution 89-39 Finding
Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Fort
Collins Industrial and Technical Park Venture First Annexation, and Item
#42, Resolution 89-40 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating
Annexation Proceedings for the Fort Collins Industrial and Technical Park
Venture Second Annexation, have been pulled from the Agenda. He noted that
Item #21, Resolution 89-29 Authorizing the Purchase of the
Mawhinney-Johnson Mobile Home Park From Mr. Richard Gutierrez in the Amount
of $417,000, had been revised. He indicated Item #37, Items Relating to
the Policies for Special Improvement Districts, had been modified and a new
item was included in Other Business, Resolution 89-41 Amending Resolution
89-5 to Correct a Project Name for "Shields Street, Davidson to Casa
' Grande". He noted that Item #37, Items Relating to the Policies for
Special Improvement Districts, will be preceeding Item #35, Hearing and
February 7, 1989
First Reading of Ordinance No. 17, 1989, Authorizing the Aggregate
Refunding of Special Improvement District Bonds, and Item #36, Hearing and
First Reading of Ordinance No. 18, 1989, Amending Ordinance No. 2, 1986
Which Assessed the Cost of Landmark Special Improvement District No. 80.
Councilmember Estrada requested Item #21, Resolution 89-29 Authorizing the
Purchase of the Mawhinney-Johnson Mobile Home Park From Mr. Richard
Gutierrez in the Amount of $417,0OO, 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 be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately.
Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be considered separately
under Agenda Item #30, Pulled Consent Items.
il
7.
Consider approval of the minutes of the regular meetings of January 3
and January 17.
On January 17, Council adopted by a vote of 5-0 Resolution 89-12
authorizing the Mayor to enter into an agreement for the City to
continue to provide Larimer County residents with general library
services and library outreach services to serve the handicapped,
elderly and other isolated persons. In exchange for providing these
services during 1989, the County will pay to the City $110,964. This
Ordinance, which was adopted 5-0 on First Reading on January 17,
appropriates the Outreach funds. General Service funds were projected
and appropriated with the 1989 budget.
This is a request to amend various portions of the Zoning Code
pertaining to political signs. The changes will result in
categorizing "political signs" into two new sign classifications:
"election signs" and "ideological signs." The amendments will also
establish specific regulations for' these two types of signs with
respect to size and duration as well as'make some other minor changes
to aid in the administration of this Ordinance.
These changes are in keeping with the purpose of the Sign Code, for
example, protecting the aesthetic qualities of the City and ensuring
the safety of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, while still
recognizing the First Amendment rights of the persons posting the
signs.
EM
February 7, 1989
1
8. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 13, 1989, Authorizing the
Director of Purchasing and Risk Management to Enter into an Agreement
for the Lease/Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment.
10.
11.
Proposals were received on February 2 from 13 firms to provide
lease/purchase financing for the City's current equipment
requirements. The total amount to be lease/purchased is estimated to
be $900,000. The lowest net effective interest rate of 7.58% was
received from General Electric Fleet Services, Inc. of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota.
The ordinance proposes to amend the code for three purposes: 1) to
bring provisions of the industrial pretreatment program into
compliance with new Environmental Protection Agency requirements; 2)
to correct minor inconsistencies in the pretreatment program; 3) to
amend sections that prohibit the deposit of septage wastes into the
wastewater system to allow use of the septage transfer station.
The owners of the property at 2020 South College known as Silo Plaza
have requested that a portion of South College Avenue right-of-way
located adjacent to their property be vacated as street right-of-way,
however, retaining the same area as a utility easement. The
right-of-way was originally dedicated by the owners of this property
for a future frontage road. This was required by the City at a time
when the City intended to have frontage roads constructed all along
South College Avenue. Since the City no longer plans to construct a
frontage road in this location, no need exists for keeping this
portion of street right-of-way.
All city agencies, the State Highway Department, and utility companies
have been contacted and have no objections to the proposed vacation of
right-of-way and reservation for a utility easement.
The applicant and property owner, the Fort Collins/Loveland Water
District, has submitted a written petition requesting annexation of
approximately .171 acres located west of Overland Trail and north of
Prospect Road.
K1
February 7, 1989
12.
13.
14.
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 to be given of the hearing. The hearing will be
held at the time of first reading of the annexation and zoning
ordinances. Not less than thirty days of prior notice is required by
Colorado law.
At the time of the hearing on the annexation, the property being
considered for annexation will have been, for a period of not less
than three (3) years, completely surrounded by property contained
within the boundaries of the City of Fort Collins. The property being
considered for annexation is approximately 187.75 acres in size and is
located south of Harmony Road and east of Taft Hill Road.
The proposed Resolution determines that it is in the best interest of
the citizens of the City to annex the area and that the annexation
complies with the Municipal Annexation Act. The Resolution also
determines that a hearing should be established regarding the
annexation, and directs that notice to be given of the hearing. The
hearing will be held at the time of second reading of the annexation
and zoning ordinances. A public hearing on the annexation is not
required by Colorado law.
The owner, Overlook Farm Inc.,
annexation of approximately 20.5
of Prospect Road.
has submitted a petition requesting
acres located west of I-25 and north
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 ordinance. Not less
than thirty days of prior notice is required by Colorado law.
The owner, Overlook Farm Inc., has submitted a petition requesting
annexation of approximately 171.9 acres located west of I-25 and north
of Prospect Road.
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 dannexation, and
I
1
Wo
February 7, 1989
1
15.
16.
1
17.
r
directs that notice be given of the hearing. The hearing will be held
at the time of first reading of the annexation ordinance. Not less
than thirty days of prior notice is required by Colorado law.
Lyal Nelson is the applicant and owner of the property to be annexed,
which. is 5.3 acres, located 3/4 mile south of Harmony Road, between
the Burlington -Northern Railroad Tracks and the Southridge Greens
development.
The proposed Resolution makes a finding that the proposed annexation
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.
Not less than thirty days of prior notice is required by Colorado Law.
The New Note Partnership, is the applicant and owner of the property
to be annexed (which is 149.7 acres) located east of Hewlett-Packard
and north of Harmony Road.
The proposed Resolution makes a finding that the proposed annexation
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.
Not less than thirty days of prior notice is required by Colorado Law.
The New Note Partnership is the applicant and owner of the property to
be annexed (which is 97.2 acres) located west of I-25 and north of
Harmony Road.
The proposed Resolution makes a finding that the proposed annexation
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.
Not less than thirty days of prior notice is required by Colorado Law.
SOIiII
February 7, 1989
18. Resolution 89-26 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating
Annexation Proceedings for Koldeway Annexation. '
Arthur T. Koldeway is the applicant and owner of the property proposed
to be annexed (which is 8.1 acres) located at the northwest corner of
I-25 and Harmony Road.
The proposed Resolution makes a finding that the proposed annexation
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.
Not less than thirty days of prior notice is required by Colorado Law.
19. Resolution 89-27 Stating Intent to Annex Certain Property and
Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Ridge Annexation.
At the time of the hearing on the annexation, the property being
considered for annexation will have been, for a period of not less
than three (3) years, completely surrounded by property contained
within the boundaries of the City of Fort Collins. The property being
considered for annexation is approximately 187.66 acres in size and is
located south of Harmony Road and west of Shields Street.
The proposed Resolution determines that it is in the best interest of
the citizens of the City to annex the area and that the annexation
complies with the Municipal Annexation Act. The Resolution also
determines that a hearing should be established regarding the
annexation, and directs that notice to be given of the hearing. The
hearing will be held at the time of second reading of the annexation
and zoning ordinances. A public hearing on the annexation is not
required by Colorado law.
20. Resolution 89-28 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating
Annexation Proceedings for the Skyview Ltd. Annexation.
The applicant and property owner, James P. Ryan, has submitted a
written petition requesting annexation of approximately 42.0 acres
located west of College Avenue and north of the Skyview Subdivision.
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 to be given of the hearing. The hearing will be
held at the time of first reading of the annexation and zoning
ordinances. Not less than' thirty days of prior notice is required by
Colorado law.
1
-91-
February 7, 1989
1
21.
On September 6, 1988, City Council approved the revised Spring Creek
Master Drainage Plan. This revised plan changed the recommended
improvements between College Avenue and the Burlington Northern
Railroad. The revised plan impacts thirty mobile home residences and
two houses as compared to 93 in the 1980 plan and costs $2.0 million
as compared to $4.1 million in the original plan. The floodplain has
been identified and is similar for both studies.
This right-of-way acquisition will purchase the Mawhinney-Johnson
Mobile Home Park. The City will then be able to continue the
relocation of the affected mobile home residences.
22. Items Relating to the Ridesharing (Commuter Pool) Program
A. Resolution 89-30 Authorizing a Contract with the State of Colorado
for the Receipt of Federal Aid to Urban Systems (FAUS) to Operate
a Ridesharing Program (Commuter Pool).
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 16, 1989, Appropriating
Unanticipated Revenue in the Transportation Services Fund.
' This Ordinance appropriates unanticipated revenues to fund an on -going
ridesharing program for calendar year 1989. Federal Aid to Urban
Systems (FAUS) funding has been identified and is available to the
City for this purpose. This source increases the amount of federal
funding available to the City for the ridesharing program. Even
though these are federal funds, the State of Colorado is the
administrator of the rideshare program, thus necessitating a contract
with the state and a resolution authorizing an intergovernmental
agreement.
23.
This Resolution authorizes the Director of Purchasing and Risk
Management to approve a change order to increase the amount of street
repair in the 1988 Local Street Maintenance Program. As part of the
original program budget, a $200,000 contingency was anticipated to
cover additional concrete repair, patching, pavement grinding and
overlay in the street maintenance projects. This change order for
$185,859.56 represents the final quantities and charges to the
contingency.
The Capital Projects Procedures Manual requires that all change orders
in excess of $50,000 be approved by City Council.
ILOlwA
February 7, 1989
24.
Early in 1988, the City, the Rocky Mountain Flycasters Northern
Colorado Chapter of Trout Unlimited, and the Poudre River Trust
entered into a professional services agreement with Tom Pitts and
Associates to work with interested parties in developing a work plan
for the Poudre River Corridor Fishery Project. The plan was completed
and approved by the Poudre River Corridor Committee in November of
1988. All of the participants in the development of the work plan are
now being asked to formally endorse the plan.
25.
Section 43-6-301, C.R.S.. gives the Colorado State Patrol (after
consultation with local governments) sole authority to designate which
public roads shall be used and which shall not be used by motor
vehicles transporting hazardous materials. The Colorado State Patrol
is in the process of designating such routes. The hazardous material
transportation routing proposal currently under consideration by the
Colorado State Patrol designates Interstate Highway 25 as the sole
north/south route in Larimer County and does not include any routes
west of Interstate 25 in Larimer County. '
26. Resolution 89-34 Establishing Polling Places for Municipal Election
Precincts.
Any changes in polling places for municipal elections must be approved
by the City Council. The Resolution sets the polling places for the
73 precincts established for the March 7 regular city election. There
will be 66 polling locations, including the absentee polling place,
because seven combined precincts will be used for this election.
Arrangements have been made for extra voting devices to handle the
volume of voters at these combined precinct locations. Most polling
places are the same as those used in previous city elections and the
General Election. The polling place for Precinct 9 has been moved
from National Furniture to the Housing Authority offices, and the
Precinct 19 polling place must be moved from United Bank to the First
Presbyterian Church.
27. Resolution 89-16 Making Appointments to the Natural Resources Advisory
Board.
Vacancies currently exist on the Natural Resources Advisory Board due
to the resignations of Sheryl Barr and Patrick Reed. Councilmembers
Kirkpatrick and Mabry reviewed the active applications on file and
announced their recommendations for appointment at the January 17
meeting. I
-93-
February 7, 1989
fJ
W
29
In keeping with Council's policy,
February 7 to allow time for public
The prospective appointees are:
Susan Whitmer
Ward Luthi (alt.)
Dave DuBois
the Resolution was postponed to
input.
July 1, 1989
July 1, 1989
July 1, 1991
Resolution 89-17 Making Appointments to the Commission on Disability.
Vacancies currently exist on the Commission on Disability due to the
resignation of Helen Barr, the inability of Marilyn Maxwell to attend
meetings, and the relocation of Noreen Kenny. Advertisements were
placed, and Councilmembers Maxey and Kirkpatrick conducted interviews
on January 17.
In .keeping with Council's policy, the recommended appointments were
announced on January 17, and the Resolution was postponed to February
7 to allow time for public input.
The prospective appointees are:
Gary Nation
Gregory Funk
Lori Gehricke
Routine Deeds and Easements.
Easements for Foothills Basin
improvements.
July 1, 1990
July 1, 1991
July 1, 1992
Outlet Channel storm drainage
In February, 1981, Council approved the master drainage plan for
the Foothills Basin. The first priority of improvements by the
City associated with the master plan were the reach from the
Poudre River to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch.
Increasing levels of urbanization in the Foothills Basin has
created larger than predicted drainage flows, which the Fossil
Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch cannot safely handle in the major
storm events. In order to avoid property damage downstream on the
inlet ditch, North Poudre Irrigation Company has agreed to allow
the City to use their ditch to carry this excess water to an
overflow structure at Horsetooth Road; the storm water will then
be carried in a drainage channel to the Poudre River.
1) Two Easements from Cottonwood Farms (Easement 1)
Consideration: $40,000 and Donation (consideration is based on
gravel cost of $4,000/acre)
-94-
February 7, 1989
2) Easement from New Note Properties (Easement 2) '
Consideration: Donation
b. Waterline easement from Dale L. Fogleman located north of Vine
Drive between Overland Trail and Taft Hill Road. This easement is
being granted by the present landowner to correct the legal
description and clarify provisions of an old waterline easement
agreement granted by the former landowner. Consideration: None.
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #6.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #7.
Item #8.
Item #9.
Item #10.
Item #22. B.
Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Winokur, to
adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas:
Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and
Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
-95-
February 7, 1989
I
Resolution 89-29 Authorizing the'Purchase of the
Mawhinney-Johnson Mobile Home Park From
Mr. Richard Gutierrez in the Amount of $417 000 Adopted
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
This project is part of the 5-year plan of drainage improvements throughout
the City. The $417,000 is appropriated and available as part of the Spring
Creek Master Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On September 6, 1988, City Council approved the revised Spring Creek Master
Drainage Plan. This revised plan changed the recommended improvements
between College Avenue and the Burlington Northern Railroad. The revised
plan impacts thirty mobile home residences and two houses as compared to 93
in the 1980 plan and costs $2.0 million as compared to $4.1 million in the
original plan. The floodplain has been identified and is similar for both
studies.
This right-of-way acquisition will purchase the Mawhinney-Johnson Mobile
Home Park. The City will then be able to continue the relocation of the
' affected mobile home residences."
Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada,
to adopt Resolution 89-29.
Utilities Director Rich Shannon presented information regarding the
relocation efforts of the mobile home residents.
Special Projects Manager Jack Gianola presented additional relocation
information.
Jim Creeden, 4020 Goodell Lane 44, had questions regarding the purchase
price of the project.
The vote on Councilmember Kirkpatrick's motion to adopt Resolution 89-29
was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry,
Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Staff Reports
City Manager Burkett commented on the snow removal efforts by the Street
and other City departments.
M
February 7, 1989
Councilmember Reports I
Councilmember Kirkpatrick commented on the agenda item relating to the
Rideshare Program.
Councilmember Horak reported on the Finance Committee's meeting with the
auditors from Price -Waterhouse and expressed concern regarding the medical
waste disposal incident.
Mayor Stoner noted the Soviet citizens who are visiting Fort Collins in the
Friendship Force program.
Items Related to the Anton Annexation and Zoning
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Hearing to Make Findings and Determinations Concerning the Anton
Annexation.
B. Resolution 89-35 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations
Regarding the Anton Annexation.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 175, 1988, Annexing Approximately 2.00
Acres Known as the Anton Annexation.
D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 176, 1988, Zoning Approximately 2.00
Acres, Known as the Anton Annexation, into the R-P Planned Residential
Zoning District.
This Resolution sets forth findings and determinations that the area is
eligible for annexation pursuant to Colorado state law. Ordinance No. 175,
1988 and Ordinance No. 176, 1988, which were adopted 6-0 on First Reading
on December 20, annex and zone approximately 2.00 acres, Lots 4, 5, 6, and
7 of Heinemann's Spring Creek Subdivision, located south of West Drake Road
and west of Taft Hill Road. The requested zoning is the R-P Planned
Residential Zoning District. Of the four lots, one contains a
single-family home while the other three are undeveloped. This is a
voluntary annexation.
APPLICANTS: Carl and Jean Anton OWNERS: Same
2707 South Taft Hill Road
Fort Collins, CO 80526
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation•
The Planning and Zoning Board, at its regular monthly meeting of December
19, 1988, voted 6-0 to recommend approval of .the annexation and requested '
zoning. At the Board's meeting, several adjacent property owners spoke
against the annexation. A copy of the Board's minutes is attached."
-97-
February 7, 1989
1 _ Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Winokur, to
adopt Resolution 89-35.
Chief Planner Ken Waido gave a brief presentation and responded to
questions from Council.
The vote on Councilmember Maxey's motion to adopt Resolution 89-35 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey,
Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to
adopt Ordinance No. 175, 1988 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to
adopt Ordinance No. 176, 1988, on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays:
None.
I
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Related to the Noel Annexation and Zoning
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff recommends adoption of these Ordinances on First Reading. The
Planning and Zoning Board voted 6-0 to recommend denial of the annexation
and requested zonings.
A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 6, 1989 Annexing
Approximately 287.5 Acres Known as the Noel Annexation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 7, 1989 Zoning Approximately
100.0 Acres of the Noel Annexation into the R-L-P Low Density Planned
Residential District and Approximately 187.5 Acres into the R-F
Foothills Residential District.
On January 3, Council adopted by a vote of 6-0 Resolution 89-3 Finding
Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Noel
Annexation.
' This is a request to annex and zone approximately 287.5525 acres located
west of Overland Trail and north of West Prospect Road (extended).
SoVI
February 7, 1989
Approximately 4.6123 acres of the annexation is owned by the City of Fort
Collins and is the location of a water storage tank. The requested zoning
is in two parts: 1) 187.5420 acres of R-F Foothills Residential for the
western portion of the property; and 2) 100.0105 acres of R-L-P Low Density
Planned Residential for the eastern portion of the property; and is further
conditioned by specific density and design conditions contained in an
Annexation Agreement. The property is presently undeveloped. This is a
voluntary annexation.
APPLICANT: Gefroh-Hattman Inc.
135 West Swallow Rd.
Fort Collins, CO
OWNERS: Wallace Noel
253 Grey Rock Rd.
Laporte, CO
City of Fort Collins
Larimer County Planning Commission Recommendation:
On January 18, 1989, the Larimer County Planning Commission reviewed the
City's Annexation Impact Report for the Noel Annexation. State of Colorado
Annexation laws require the City to submit an Annexation Impact Report to
the County. The Planning Commission expresses concern with the intensity
of development allowed under the Noel Annexation Agreement and recommends
the annexation agreement be amended to limit development in a manner
consistent with the Larimer County Comprehensive Plan and the UGA
Agreement. Further background information and comments on the annexation
are contained in the attached January 25, 1989 letter from Mr. Henry R.
Baker, Larimer County Director of Planning."
Councilmember Kirkpatrick withdrew from discussion and vote on this item
due to a perceived conflict of interest.
Councilmember Estrada read a letter he received from Mr. Robert Ray,
representing Mr. Wallace Noel, indicating a potential conflict of interest
with the annexation. Councilmember Estrada stated he did not believe that
he had a conflict of interest, but was going to submit the letter to the
Ethics Subcommittee for consideration.
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, that
Council direct the Ethics Subcommittee to examine the conflict of interest
issue regarding Councilmembers Estrada and Kirkpatrick and determine
whether there is a conflict of interest or just the appearance of one and
to report back to Council with its findings.
Robert Ray, Attorney representing Wallace Noel, requested the Ethics
Subcommittee meet that evening during a Council recess rather than further
delay the annexation process.
City Attorney Roy pointed out the pros and cons regarding Ethics
Subcommittee meeting that evening.
M
February 7, 1989
tCouncilmember Estrada commented about the interest CSU might have in the
issue and spoke of his employment position in the hierarchy of the
University administration.
The vote on Councilmember Winokur's motion to direct the Ethics
Subcommittee to examine the conflict of interest issue regarding
Councilmembers Estrada and Kirkpatrick was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays:
Councilmember Mabry. (Councilmember Kirkpatrick withdrawn)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Mabry indicated that he believed Councilmember Estrada would
be best able to determine if he could receive a fair hearing.
Councilmember Estrada indicated the need for Councilmember Kirkpatrick to
return to the Chambers for the remainder of the discussion.
Councilmember Horak agreed with Councilmember Mabry's comments and
indicated he would prefer to postpone the Ethics Subcommittee discussion
until all the facts were available for examination.
Councilmember Winokur expressed the need to resolve the conflict of
interest issues that center around CSU and City Council.
' Councilmember Maxey made a motion to recess to allow the Ethics
Subcommittee to review the request of Councilmember Estrada.
THE MOTION DIED TO DUE LACK OF A SECOND.
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to
postpone consideration of Item N34A, Hearing and First Reading of
Ordinance No. 6, 1989 Annexing Approximately 287.5 Acres Known as the Noel
Annexation and Item 434B, and Item #34B, Hearing and First Reading of
Ordinance No. 7, 1989 Zoning Approximately 100.0 Acres of the Noel
Annexation into the R-L-P Low Density Planned Residential District and
Approximately 187.5 Acres into the R-F Foothills Residential District,
until February 21, 1989.
Robert Ray, attorney representing Wallace Noel, commented on CSU's
opposition to the annexation.
Councilmember Horak stressed the importance of having enough time to review
the question raised by the petitioner for the annexation.
Councilmember Maxey indicated his agreement with Councilmember Horak's
comment.
Mayor Stoner noted that had the original letter been sent to City Council
or the City Attorney's office, the Ethics Subcommittee would have had ample
time to review the matter.
-100-
February 7, 1989
City Attorney Roy clarified the issue regarding of receipt of a complaint
or when a question arises about a particular situation. He noted that City
Council may direct the Ethics Subcommittee to issue an advisory opinion to
Council. He stated that individual members of Council can not request the
Ethics Subcommittee to convene.
The vote on Councilmember Winokur's motion to postpone consideration of
Items #34 A and B until February 21, 1989 was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Mabry, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays:
Councilmember Maxey.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the Policies
for Soecial Improvement Districts
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 89-36 of the Council of the City of Fort Collins Modifying
the Policies for Special Improvement Districts
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 19, 1989, Amending Chapter
22 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Relating to Public
Improvements.
Many of the City's cash flow problems associated with current special
improvement districts are the result of inconsistent procedures and
policies relating to the timing of assessments, failure to capitalize
sufficient interest, interest accrual dates, and interest rates. Also
deficits within special improvement districts have been caused by
delinquent assessment payments and defaults. The recommended changes
address these problems in order to ensure the continuing viability of
special improvement district bond,.financing as a means to finance needed
infrastructure and encourage economic development. With regard to the
options presented for changes to Section 22-111(c), staff recommends the
adoption of Option B in order to be consistent with our present policies
for existing districts.
BACKGROUND
Resolution Changes
The Resolution contains policies that were previously adopted by Council
and are to be used in evaluating the acceptability of voluntary SID's. The
first significant change to the policies is the inclusion of a new
paragraph (4) which enunciates the principle that the acceptability of a
particular voluntary SID should be determined both upon the basis of
general benefits to the City and special benefits to the'property owners.
-101-
February 7, 1989
tThe policy in paragraph (5) would establish new standards for reviewing the
potential financial risk of any proposed SID.
In paragraph (7), there are some changes with regard to the kinds of
assurances that the City might want to obtain if it were to permit all
encumbrances on the property (including the proposed assessment) to exceed
90 percent of the combined value of the land and the proposed district
improvements. No change in the substance of this provision is intended.
With regard to paragraph (10), certain language has been deleted from the
earlier version which had made it optional whether or not privately managed
districts should submit construction contracts to a competitive bidding
process. Competitive bidding is required under the City Charter for all
City improvements.
Finally, paragraph (16) has been changed to permit the City Manager to
establish the amount of the administration fees to be charged to
petitioning property owners. This change is consistent with proposed
revisions to Section 22-35 of the Code referred to below.
Code Changes
1. The proposed changes to Section 22-34 are not intended to be
substantive in nature, except for the fact that they specifically add cross
' walks and medians to the permitted kinds of improvements. Otherwise, the
changes are merely intended to improve and tighten the wording of the
section.
2. Section 22-35(b)(2) would change the calculation of capitalized
interest. This section presently makes reference to the fact that
capitalized interest should be calculated through the period of
construction and up to the point in time when costs are assessed. It is
recommended that the period of capitalized interest should extend to the
date that the first installment payment on the assessment will be due.
3. The proposed changes to Section 22-35(c) would accomplish the
following:
(a) The first revision would permit rather than require
Council to pursue the formation of a special improvement
district upon receiving a petition.
(b) The second change to the section would provide specific
authority for the Council to establish SID policies to
be utilized in reviewing the acceptability of property
owners' petitions.
4. The proposed change to Section 22-35 would authorize the Director
' of Development Services to charge a fee to cover the administrative costs
associated with the district. No amount would be specified in the
-102-
February 7, 1989
ordinance; instead, the amount would be established through administrative
regulations.
5. The proposed changes to Section 22-37(a) would permit
reimbursement agreements to be utilized in SID's only when a particular
property owner had actually paid for the cost of certain improvements which
benefited other parcels of property, either within or outside the
boundaries of the district. The changes would also include a specific
prohibition against seeking reimbursement through the City for costs that
were included in the amount assessed against the participating owner's
property.
6. The proposed change to Section 22-39 merely substitutes the
Purchasing Agent for the City Manager as the proper party to contract for
the construction of improvements under the City Charter and Code.
7. The proposed change to Section 22-83(a) changes the mandatory
language in the provision to permissive. The earlier language had required
that the surplus and deficiency fund be the source of paying certain costs
related to the formation of a new district.
8. The proposed changes to Section 22-85 would accomplish the
following:
(a) The change to subparagraph (4), like the earlier change
to Section 22-35(b)(2), would specify that capitalized
interest should continue beyond the period of
construction up to the date that the first installment
payment on the assessment is due. The purpose of this
change, (in combination with certain other changes
pertaining to the interest accrual date, the
establishment of a reserve fund and/or the interest rate
on assessments) is to bolster the City's ability to meet
its obligations to the bond holders without
necessitating the infusion of general fund revenues.
(b) The proposed change to subparagraph (5) would add
administration fees to the assessable costs of the
district.
(c) The proposed change to subparagraph (6) would delete
reference to the costs of collection. These costs are
not, as a matter of practice, included in the statement
of costs prepared by the Director of Engineering. The
reference to a maximum seven percent collection fee
would also be deleted.
Finally, the new subparagraph (6) adds the concept of a
reserve fund as a cost of the district and, ultimately,
a cost to be included in the size of the bonds.
-103-
February 7, 1989
' 9. The proposed changes to Sections 22-88(1) and 22-88(4) are for the
same purpose, namely, to change the reference to the assessable costs from
"costs of the improvements" to "costs of the district."
10. The proposed changes to Section 22-89 would require that City
Council make specific findings in support of its allocation of assessments
to demonstrate that the City Council has examined and approved, in each
district, the proportionality of the assessments in terms of the special
benefit to each parcel of property.
11. The following changes to Section 22-90 are proposed:
(a) The first change would clarify that the amount of any
assessment should not exceed (without an express waiver
of the property owner) one-half of the property's actual
value not including the proposed district improvements.
The second change woq]d replace the specific rates for
determining the valuation of real property to more
general language which merely references the statutory
formula used by the County for general tax assessment
purposes.
(b) The changes to subparagraph (b) change the references to
a "residential street to a residential access street."
This change is consistent with that which was earlier
approved by Council to the street oversizing sections of
the Code.
12. The proposed changes to Section 22-95(a) would specify a
particular interest accrual date to be used for all districts, so as to
provide for consistency among districts and to ensure that the date used
will generate an adequate amount of interest to pay the first installment
on the bonds. The second change to this section would specify that the
amount of any collection fee to be collected by the Municipal or County
Treasurer should be shown in the assessing ordinance for each district.
Finally, a new maximum rate of interest on assessments will be specified
through Council's selection of Option A, B or C.
13. The proposed change to Section 22-95(b) would require, upon any
sale of a property within the district, disclosure of the assessment lien
and the amounts of any future installment payments. It would also clarify
which property owners are entitled to any proportional distribution of
surplus monies in the reserve fund, either under the provisions of this
section or under the revised version of Section 22-111(c). The proposed
language would provide that unless the assessment is prepaid in full by the
seller at the time of the sale, the seller relinquishes any claim of
entitlement to a refund. Conversely, it would provide that the property
owner making final payment of the outstanding balance of the assessment
' would be the party entitled to any refund.
104-
February 7, 1989
14. The proposed change to Section 22-95(c) would accomplish the ,
following:
(a) It would increase the rate of penalty interest from one
percent to one and one-half percent, so as to increase
the incentive for defaulting property owners to pay
delinquent assessments rather than continue to borrow
from the City, pending foreclosure sale.
(b) It would clarify that in addition to the principal and
regular interest due, the interest specified in this
section is penalty interest and that is the only penalty
that must be paid by a defaulting property owner in
order to restore his right to pay in installments.
15. The proposed change to Section 22-96(b) would eliminate specific
reference to the amount of the County's collection fee. The amount of the
collection fee is not, as a matter of practice, included in the assessment
roll and, for that reason, reference should not be made to the collection
fee in this section.
16. The proposed change to Section 22-111(a) would, as earlier
mentioned, tie the size of the bond issue to the total of costs specified
in Section 22-85, including the cost of the proposed reserve fund. '
17. Finally, the proposed change to Section 22-111(c) would add a
provision that surplus funds remaining after bonds are paid and City costs
are reimbursed in any district created in the future would be
proportionally distributed to the assessed property owners within the
district. If Option B were selected, this would be true only in those
districts which have a reserve fund."
Councilmember Mabry withdrew from discussion and vote on this item due to a
perceived conflict of interest.
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick,
to adopt Resolution 89-36.
Director of Administrative Services Pete Dallow gave a brief presentation,
summarized the recommendations, and responded to questions from Council.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick questioned' the need for the phrase "project
essentiality" and suggested deleting it.
City Manager Burkett stated that removing "project essentiality" would not
weaken the meaning of the Resolution.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Mayor Stoner, to
delete "project essentiality" from Section 5. ,
-105-
February 7, 1989
' Mayor Stoner stated he would support the amendment and noted his concern
with the vague definition of "project essentiality".
City Attorney Roy suggested clarifying the definition of "project
essentiality" by inserting the following in the amendment to read as
follows after "Criteria" in Section 5:
"As defined in Standard and Poors debt ratings criteria. A copy
of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference".
Councilmembers Winokur and Kirkpatrick accepted City Attorney Roy's
suggestion as a friendly amendment to their original motion.
Councilmember Horak commented on the internal review that was done by staff
on the SID policies and the monies that would be in the reserve fund.
Councilmember Winokur commented on his involvement with the SID policies
and the Finance Committee. He noted the intensive effort by staff, the
development community, and Councilmembers that went into reforming the SID
policies.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick noted her satisfaction with the final policies
for the existing SID districts and expressed her gratitude to the Finance
Committee and staff for its assistance and hard work in supporting the
Resolution.
The vote on Councilmember Winokur's motion to adopt Resolution 89-36 as
amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick,
Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None. (Councilmember Mabry withdrawn)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Ordinance No. 19, 1989 (Option C, Section 13 "a") and (Option B in
Section 16 "c") on First Reading.
Councilmember Maxey expressed concern regarding the terminology of
Ordinance 19, 1989, and encouraged the addition of the word "due" after
principal balance and he explained his reasons for wanting the insertion.
Financial Policy Analyst Susanne Edminister gave a brief presentation on
the impact of the calculation requirements and responded to questions from
Council.
Councilmember Maxey withdrew his request to add the word "due" to the
Ordinance.
City Attorney Roy clarified the ambiguity regarding the prepayment of the
remaining principal balance of the assessment. He explained the possible
discrepancy regarding the insertion of "due" after the word balance and
-106-
February 7, 1989
clarified the intent of the installment payment being due and
collectable.
'
He suggested the following language be inserted in
paragraph
13 "c", with
the sentence that begins, "At anytime prior to the
day of sale,
the owner
may pay the amount of all unpaid installments,
together
with accrued
interest thereon, and penalty interest and shall be
restored
to the right
to pay in installments...."
Councilmembers Maxey and Stoner accepted City Attorney Roy's suggestion as
a friendly amendment to their motion.
Councilmember Horak he was concerned because the interest rate did not
provide enough money to pay off the assessments. He noted that Option B
did allow for the assessments to be paid and, because there are additional
monies in the reserve fund, the chance for concern regarding additional
costs is eliminated.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Winokur, to
adopt Option B in Section 13, rather than Option C.
Councilmember Maxey commented on the establishment of a ten percent reserve
fund to cover shortfalls and deficiencies.
Councilmember Horak supported not paying out any additional monies from the
General Fund to cover the deficiencies. He pointed out that the people who
pay off the fees on schedule all of the time will still receive all of the
bond money back and he stated it would increase the marketability of the ,
bonds.
Councilmember Winokur agreed with Councilmember Horak.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick noted she would support the amendment and stated
she believed the ten percent reserve might be too conservative, but,
indicated the issue could be looked at a later date.
Mayor Stoner noted his support for the net effective interest rate and the
amendment.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to amend Ordinance No. 19, 1989,
by inserting Option B (13 "a") was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None.
(Councilmember Mabry withdrawn)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The vote on Councilmember Maxey's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 19, 1989,
as revised and amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada,
Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None.
(Councilmember Mabry withdrawn.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
-107-
February 7, 1989
1
Ordinance No. 17, 1989, Authorizing the
Aggregate Refunding of Special Improvement
District Bonds. Adopted on First Reading
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
Current cash flow models predict a future deficit of $2.1 M in the SIDS
currently assessed. The City holds tax certificates representing $1 M in
unpaid assessments which must be carried for three years prior to obtaining
a deed and attempting to sell the property. There is no money in the
surplus and deficiency fund to offset this deficit. In fact, a $300,000
transfer from the General Fund was authorized in 1988 to prevent the City's
defaulting to bondholders. The current market offers interest rates that
will generate the money needed to repay the City for money advanced. The
refunding will consolidate the debt on the bonds so that the cash flows
from assessments will match the debt service. An aggregate refunding will
offset the projected $2.1 M deficit, will not negatively affect the
property owners and will increase security to the bondholders.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
' The Council Finance Committee, staff and the City's underwriters, Boettcher
& Company and Kirchner Moore and Company, have been discussing an aggregate
refunding of most of the City's special improvement district bonds for some
time. The aggregate refunding is part of the recommended solution to the
negative cash flows anticipated in most of the special improvement
districts currently assessed. Refunding the bonds will meet the following
objectives:
Reimburse the City for cash advanced to meet debt service payments
paid on behalf of the districts.
2. Restructure the City's SID debt payments to more closely match the
assessment income stream.
Restructure the City's SID debt to eliminate or minimize the
City's potential financial liability for SID debt service
payments.
Special improvement district bonds in the amount of $13.2 million are
proposed to be refunded and were issued for the following districts:
SID #75 South Mason Street
SID #76 Horsetooth (College to Railroad)
SID #77 Boardwalk
SID #78-1 Lemay/Harmony, Phase I
SID #78-11 Lemay/Harmony, Phase 11
SID #79 Fairbrooke
Im
February 7, 1989
SID
#80
Landmark
'
SID
#81
Provincetowne/Portner
SID
#82
Cunningham Corners
SID
#83
Horsetooth Road
SID
#84
Heart
SID
#86
South Lemay
SID
#60
Harmony Trunk Sewer
The exact amount of the refunding will be inserted once the final receipts
For January assessment collections are known. This amount will be
available to the Council on Tuesday, February 7, and the Ordinance will be
corrected prior to Second Reading. The bonds will be marketed between
First and Second Reading of the Ordinance and bond interest rates will be
inserted prior to final passage."
Councilmember Mabry withdrew from discussion and vote on this item due to a
perceived conflict of interest.
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to
adopt Ordinance No. 17, 1989 on First Reading.
Finance Director Alan Krcmarik gave a brief presentation on aggregate
refunding, and responded to questions from Council.
Councilmember Maxey noted that all of the Special Improvement Districts '
present the opportunity for refunding.
Councilmember Winokur stated that not all voluntary Special Improvement
Districts are problem districts and noted several of the districts that
were performing well financially.
The vote on Councilmember Winokur's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 17, 1989
was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey,
Stoner and Winokur. Nays: None. (Councilmember Mabry withdrawn)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 18, 1989, Amending Ordinance
No. 2, 1986 Which Assessed the Cost of Landmark Special
Improvement District No. 80, Adopted on First Reading
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This ordinance would extend the period of time in which the sole property
owner in Landmark Special Improvement District No. 80 (the "District")
would pay the remaining principal balance of the assessments levied on
property in the District. The amount of the assessment would not change '
and the City would retain its ability to collect the assessment.
-109-
February 7, 1989
' The Landmark Special Improvement District was created on October 18, 1983
and consisted of street, water, sewer, and storm drainage improvements to
Shields Street for the Landmark Apartment complex. The original assessment
of $315,000 was levied on the property in January of 1986 and the first
installment was billed in May of 1986. More than a year ago the sole
property owner, Landmark Apartments, Inc., requested that the City refund
the bonds outstanding in the District to extend the assessment payments so
that final payment would occur in 1996 rather than 1991, thus reducing the
annual principal installment from $52,500 to $20,000. The only practical
way to refund the bonds is to include them in an aggregate refunding that
would be large enough to make the issue marketable. Since the outstanding
bonds for the District are included in the City's aggregate refunding, the
final step in extending the term of payment is to amend the assessing
ordinance.
The amendment to the assessing ordinance presents no risk to the City's
ability to collect the assessment. The outstanding balance of the
assessment will not change, nor will the rate of interest. No challenge
will be made by the property owner as the amendment is made at its
request."
Councilmember Mabry withdrew from discussion and vote on this item due to a
perceived conflict of interest.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick,
to adopt Ordinance No. 18, 1989 on First Reading.
Finance Director Alan Krcmarik gave a brief presentation and responded to
questions from Council.
Councilmember Horak thanked staff for its hard work on the Agenda items
relating to aggregate refunding of the Special Improvement District Bonds.
Mayor Stoner noted his appreciation to the Council Finance Subcommittee and
the staff personnel who were involved in the process.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's..motion to adopt Ordinance No. 17, 1989
was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey,
Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None. (Councilmember Mabry withdrawn)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 20, 1989, Amending Section 9-2 of the
Code of the City of Fort Collins Relating to
Amendments and Additions to the Uniform Fire Code,
1985 Edition Adopted on First Reading
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
-110-
February 7, 1989
"FINANCIAL IMPACT I
This program, as administered by the Poudre Fire Authority in accordance
with the intergovernmental agreement creating the Authority, includes a fee
system intended to recover the direct costs of program operation.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This ordinance amends the 1985 edition of the Uniform Fire Code (UFC) which
was last adopted and amended by the City in 1986. It includes special
provisions relating to the prevention and detection of leaks from
underground storage tanks containing flammable and combustible liquids and
hazardous materials, including the requirements of improved leak detection
equipment and methods for all new and existing underground storage tanks,
secondary containment in special cases and site assessments at one of 2
levels for all leak incidents. It also allows the Fire Chief to initiate
more rapid and affirmative actions in identifying and mitigating the fire
and safety hazards associated with underground storage tank leaks.
Adoption of this Ordinance will begin the implementation of a comprehensive
local underground storage tank program. Other program components include:
0 Improving the quality and frequency of inspections of system
installations and removals
0 Locating and evaluating existing tanks
0 Providing an educational program '
0 Improving inspector qualifications
The entire program, including this Ordinance, is recommended to Council by
the Poudre Fire Authority Board of Directors and has been endorsed by the
Building Review Board and the Natural Resources Board.
BACKGROUND
Over the past several years, the problems and hazards posed by leaking
underground storage tanks (LUST) have become very apparent. Fort Collins
has experienced several large leak situations and numerous smaller ones in
the recent past. Due to these types of problems occurring across the
country, there has been a great deal of activity at the federal level in
recent years, culminating in new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
regulations implemented in 1988. These regulations are intended to reduce
environmental damage and, to a lesser degree, address fire -safety concerns.
Likewise, there has been similar activity at the state level to address
similar environmental and health problems. Unlike the federal efforts,
however, these state efforts have not resulted in the adoption of
legislation or regulations.
In an effort to deal more effectively with the fire -safety aspects of the '
LUST problem and, indirectly, the environmental and health concerns on a
-111-
February 7, 1989
' local level, PFA has developed a risk reduction program to be adopted
through amendments to the Uniform Fire Code, included in this Ordinance.
This program has been under intensive development since May of 1988,
following over two years of work with state agencies, in an effort to enact
a stronger statewide program. Legislative efforts have failed in the last
two years and, with the concurrence of the PFA Board of Directors, this
program has been developed. Throughout this period, staff has worked with
and received input from many sources including: the Natural Resources
Division and Larimer County Health Department, state and federal agencies,
local petroleum distributors, tank operators and owners, tank system
installers, environmental groups, neighborhood groups and environmental
consultants. Several local gasoline distributors most impacted by this
program were helpful in working out the technical details and practical
applications. PFA originally contacted approximately 300 potentially
interested parties and continues to have contact with approximately 60.
In addition to this staff work, the PFA Board of Directors has actively
reviewed program development. In addition to reviewing all program
components monthly, the Board conducted one formal public hearing on the
proposed program and received public input on it at two regular Board
meetings. At its last regular meeting, the PFA Board approved a resolution
authorizing this program and the code amendment process. Additionally, the
Building Review Board and the Natural Resources Board reviewed and endorsed
' the program, on January 26 and February 1, respectively.
One issue which this program does not directly address is the long-term
cleanup of environmental contamination caused by LUST incidents. It is
PFA's position that this is an issue which is beyond the scope of the
Authority's power and duties. It is PFA's understanding that both the
Natural Resources Division and the Larimer County Health Department are
developing procedures for long-term cleanup and a future state program may
also address this issue more completely. It is PFA's belief that, by
dealing more effectively with the fire -safety issues as outlined in this
program, the environmental and health hazards should be considerably
reduced."
Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to
adopt Ordinance No. 20, 1989 on First Reading.
Poudre Fire Authority Division Chief Warren Jones gave a brief presentation
on fire safety issues regarding underground leaking storage tanks, and
responded to questions from Council.
Ari Michelson, Chair of the Natural'Resources Advisory Board, supported the
Poudre Fire Authority LUST Program.
Councilmember Mabry requested criteria be developed to determine when the
underground storage tanks are in a high risk area and create a potential
' fire hazard.
-112-
February 7, 1989
Councilmember Kirkpatrick suggested that progress reports be provided to
'
the Natural Resources Division.
Mayor Stoner directed staff and the Poudre Fire Authority to address the
issues regarding the record keeping amendment and the notification of
underground leakage prior to the Second Reading of the Ordinance.
Councilmember Horak noted his satisfaction with the opportunity to deal
with the issue.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick noted her support of the issue but expressed
concern regarding the notification process regarding the health and
environment of the community. She indicated the need for State legislation
to deal with the issue of leaking underground storage tanks.
Councilmember Estrada agreed with Councilmember Kirkpatrick's previously
stated comments and noted the importance of this first step in addressing
the issue. He thanked the Poudre Fire Authority for its hard work on the
issue.
Councilmember Winokur stated he believed the matter of fire and explosion
protection should be dealt with on the local level. He noted that Poudre
Fire Authority is the first entity in the state to address this matter and
indicated the State Legislature should be notified to expect to hear from
the City to share common interests and work towards a safe solution.
'
Councilmember Maxey noted the importance of industry and community
cooperation in this venture.
Mayor Stoner congratulated Councilmember Winokur, the Chairman of the
Poudre Fire Authority Board for his involvement in identifying and the
mitigating the fire and safety hazards associated with underground storage
tank leaks.
The vote on Councilmember Maxey's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 20, 1989
was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry,
Maxey, Stoner and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 89-37 Authorizing the Mayor
to Enter into an Intergovernmental
Agreement Between the City and the
Fort Collins -Loveland Airport Authority
Forgiving Payment of a Non -interest Bearing Loan Denied
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
-113-
February 7, 1989
' "FINANCIAL IMPACT
On April 3, 1984, the City Council passed Resolution 84-68, authorizing the
establishment of a $50,000 line -of -credit for the Fort Collins -Loveland
Airport Authority to provide operating expenditure assistance to the
Authority for 1983, 1984 and 1985. The Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland
jointly funded the original line -of -credit in equal portions of $25,000
each. The line -of -credit was to be retired by the Authority on or before
September 30, 1985. In 1985, the Authority was not in a position to repay
the $43,196 that had been used. On March 4, 1986, both cities agreed to
credit $34,870 to the Airport Authority because monies had been expended
for capital improvements. The remaining $8,326 which had been used for
operating expenses was converted into a non -interest bearing loan to be
repaid no later than December 31, 1988.
The Airport Authority is not in a financial position to repay this loan and
would like the payment to be forgiven to clear its books from any potential
liabilities."
Councilmember Maxey withdrew from discussion and vote on this item due to a
perceived conflict of interest.
Councilmember Estrada made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick,
to adopt Resolution 89-37.
Assistant to the Administrative Services Director Julia Novak gave a brief
presentation and responded to questions from Council.
Councilmember Horak stated he would not support extending the Airport
Authority debt or the Resolution.
Councilmember Estrada agreed with Councilmember Horak.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick expressed disappointment in the lack of support
materials on the item and noted she would have appreciated additional
options or participation from the Airport Authority.
Councilmember Mabry noted he would not support the motion to forgive the
payment but, indicated he would support a change in the terms to provide
that the payment be due on demand.
Mayor Stoner indicated that over the next seven years the City would be
applying for federal funding and it would be in the City's best interest
not to have an outstanding debt on the books.
The vote on Councilmember Estrada's motion to adopt Resolution 89-37 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmember Stoner. Nays: Councilmembers Estrada,
Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, and Winokur. (Councilmember Maxey withdrawn)
I
THE MOTION FAILED.
114-
February 7, 1989
Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Winokur, to '
authorize staff to bring back a Resolution to change the terms of the loan
to make the note due on demand rather than a note due at a specific time.
Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Stoner, and
Winokur. Nays: None. (Councilmember Maxey withdrawn)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 89-38 Creating a Charter Review Committee
Postponed Until March 21, 1989
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
During the course of discussions on proposed Charter Amendments to be
placed before the City voters at the 1989 City election, several issues
focusing on the form of government were tentatively identified by Council
for future discussion.
The Resolution would create a seven -member citizen Charter Review Committee
to study and make recommendations on the City Charter with respect to
specific issues relating to the form of government. Any Charter amendments
proposed by the Committee could be placed on the 1991 regular city election '
ballot by the City Council.
The requirements for appointment to the Committee would be status as a
registered voter and residency within the City limits. The Resolution
designates two Councilmembers to act as non -voting Committee liaisons. If
Council creates the Charter Review Committee, applications for membership
on the Committee would be solicited, applicants would be interviewed and
screened, and a Resolution appointing the Committee members would be
introduced for consideration at the April 4 meeting, with appointments
finalized on April 18. The deadline for applications would be March 17 to
allow time for the application and interview process. The Committee would
begin its work in May and make its final report and recommendations to
Council no later than September 1."
Councilmember Estrada made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Winokur, to
adopt Resolution 89-38.
Mayor Stoner noted that Councilmember Kirkpatrick and Winokur were
interested in the liaison positions.
Jim Creeden, 4020 Goodell Lane #4, spoke in support of the creation of the
Charter Review Committee.
Councilmember Horak stated he believed the timing was " in opportune for the '
establishment of a Charter Review Committee and suggested it be postponed
until the March 21, 1989 meeting.
-115-
February 7, 1989
' Councilmember Estrada indicated his support for a Committee to begin
working on the keys issues that concern the community.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick spoke against the Resolution and indicated she
would not support a mayor -council form of government. She noted the
negative points of the Resolution, including costs, and the effect on the
community.
Councilmember Maxey pointed out that the timing for the creation of the
Committee was inappropriate.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mabry, to
postpone consideration of Resolution 89-38 until March 21, 1989. Yeas:
Councilmembers Horak, Mabry, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmembers
Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Winokur. (Councilmember Estrada abstained)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Resolution 89-41 Amending Resolution
89-5 to Correct a Project Name for
' "Shields Street. Davidson to Casa Grande". Adopted
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Choices 95 process developed a list of transportation projects which
would be funded by the proposed 114 cent sales tax. The Resolution
referring the proposed tax to the March 7 election included this list of
transportation projects.
One of the projects on the list was "Shields Street - Raintree to Casa
Grande". Raintree Drive intersects Shields on the north leg of the
Shields -Drake intersection. It runs west and south, crossing Drake.
However, when it turns east to intersect Shields again, the name changes
"Raintree" becomes "Davidson". The project proposed for capital
improvements along Shields begins at this point -- south of the
Intersection -- and continues south to Casa Grande. Hence, the project
should be described as "Shields Street-- Davidson to Casa Grande."
This Resolution amends the earlier Resolution, and correctly identifies the
project as "Shields Street -- Davidson to Casa Grande."
Councilmember Horak made a motion;, seconded by Councilmember Mabry, to
adopt Resolution 89-41. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick,
' Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
-116-
February 7, 1989
City Manager Burkett thanked Council for its leadership and clarity in '
reviewing the Council Policy Agenda.
Mayor Stoner stated that he had been asked by Communication and Public
Affairs Manager Johnie Pearson to mention that the City had implemented an
Election Hotline number (221-6882) to answer election related questions.
Adjournment
Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada,
to adjourn the meeting. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick,
Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Ma
Ii 5 City Clerk �-
-117-