HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-03/19/1985-RegularMarch 19, 1985
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, March 19, 1985, 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: Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and
Stoner.
Staff Members Present: Arnold, Huisjen, Krajicek, Shannon, L. Hopkins
Agenda Review: City Manager
City Manager Arnold noted there was a new version of Ordinance No. 39, 1985
(Item #35, Items Relating to Industrial Development Revenue Bond Policies
and Economic Development), and that there was a request to table Item #36,
Appeal of the Pier PUD, 5th, until April 16.
Barbara Allison, 1212 Lynnwood Drive, asked that Item #5, Second Reading of
Ordinance No. 21, 1985, Zoning Property Known as the CSU Bull Farm into the
B-P, Planned Business, and R-P, Planned Residential, Zoning Districts, be
withdrawn from the Consent Calendar.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, requested Item #8, Second Reading
of Ordinance No. 25, 1985, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue of $216,000
in the Capital Projects Fund for the Purchase of Capital Equipment for
Transfort, and Item #22, Resolution Delegating the City's Authority to
Issue Revenue Bonds to Provide Residential Housing Facilities to Larimer
County During 1985, be removed from the Consent Agenda.
Terry Foppe, 622 Whedbee, asked that Item #18, Hearing and First Reading of
Ordinance No. 35, 1985, Relating to Affidavits of Intent for Write -In
Candidates for Council Office, be removed from the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Knezovich requested Item #17, Hearing and First Reading of
Ordinance No. 34, 1985, Appropriating Prior Year Undesignated Reserves in
the Parkland Fund for Golden Meadows Park and Safety Surfacing and Land-
scaping at the Rolland Moore Handicap Playground, be withdrawn from the
Consent Agenda.
Councilmember Ohlson asked that Item #21, Resolution Regarding Operating
Restrictions Imposed Upon Horsetooth Reservoir, bie removed from the
Consent Calendar.
-127-
March 19, 1985
Councilmember Stoner requested Item #20, Resolution Approving Rental Rates
for Surplus Water for the 1985 Season, be withdrawn from the Consent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 #39, Pulled Consent Items, except items pulled by anyone
in the audience or items that 'any member of the audience is present to
discuss that were pulled by staff or Council. These items will be dis-
cussed immediately following the Consent Calendar.
4. Minutes of the adjourned meetings of February 5 & 12, the regular
meeting of February 19 and the organizational meeting of March 12.
5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 21, 1985, Zoning Property Known as the
CSU Bull Farm into the B-P, Planned Business, and R-P, Planned Resi-
dential, Lo m ng Districts.
This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February
19. The petitioner, Colorado State University and its agent, Larsen
Associates Professional Corporation, is requesting a rezoning on
behalf of the property owner, the State Board of Agriculture, of
approximately 43.73 acres located north of West Elizabeth Street, west
of City Park Avenue and east of Skyline Drive, an area commonly
referred to as the Bull Farm. Actually, the rezoning action is an
initial zoning since the property is not presently zoned within the
city limits. The City has no zoning, ie., land use control, over
property owned by the State of Colorado and used for governmental
purposes within the city limits.
The specific zoning request for the 43.73 acres is to place approxi-
mately 8.69 acres into the B-P, Planned Business, zoning district and
approximately 35.04 acres in the R-P, Planned Residential, zoning
district. The tract to be placed in the B-P zone is located at the
southeastern corner of the property, northwest of the Elizabeth/City
Park intersection. The remainder of the property will be placed in
the R-P zone.
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 23, 1985, Appropriating Prior Year
Reserves in the Golf Fund for Capital Equipment Purchases.
The purpose of this ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First
Reading on February 19, is to appropriate $45,000 of undesignated
-128-
I-
March 19, 1985
prior year reserves in the Golf Fund for the outright purchase of
capital equipment, rather than lease/purchase the equipment as was
originally intended. When the 1985 Golf Fund budget was adopted by
Council, it was our intent to lease/purchase the necessary new and
replacement capital equipment. However, since that time, we have been
reviewing our financial condition, and recommend purchase of the 1985
equipment rather than lease/purchase.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 24, 1985, Reappropriating 1984 Street
Oversizing Funds for the Completion of Traffic Signal Projects.
This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February
19. Traffic signal projects which are associated with new development
are funded by the Street Oversizing Fund. When a new traffic signal
is identified as necessary due to new development, the proposal is
presented to the City Manager for approval and, once approved, the
project is set up as a separate program in the Street Oversizing
Fund.
The following two traffic signal projects were established in 1984 and
not completed by year-end.
Horsetooth Road/Shields Street
Total Budget $37,000
Encumbered 17,772
TO BE RE -APPROPRIATED $iT2_21T
Swallow Road/McClelland
Total Budget $32,000
Encumbered 16,323
TO BE RE -APPROPRIATED 15,677
This ordinance will re -appropriate the unencumbered funds from 1984
for expenditure in 1985 in order to complete these traffic signal
projects.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 25, 1985, Appropriating Unanticipated
Revenue of S216,000 in the Capital Projects Fund for the Purchase of
Capital Equipment for_Transfort.
On September 4, 1984, City Council approved Resolution 84-126, auth-
orizing the execution and filing of a Section 9A grant under the Urban
Mass Tranportation Act of 1964. This grant provides the City of Fort
-129-
March 19, 1985
Collins with capital assistance in the amount of $216,000 for the '
purchase of two 30-foot lift -equipped transit coaches and computer/
office automation hardware and related software. The City's required
match of $54,000 is available in the Capital Projects Fund from
savings generated on the Transfort Facility project, and has been
reprogrammed for this purpose. The City has received formal notifi-
cation of this grant award. This ordinance was adopted on First
Reading on February 19 by a 6-1 vote and appropriates the $216,000 of
unanticipated grant revenues in the capital project fund.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 26, 1985, Appropriating Unanticipated
Revenue in the UMTA Technical Studies Fund for Transit Studies.
On September 4, 1984, City Council approved Resolution 84-127, au-
thorizing the filing and execution of a Section 9 grant under the
Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964. This grant provided the City
of Fort Collins with operating assistance for the calendar year 1984,
as well as planning projects assistance in the amount of $18,400 for
the development of a five-year transit development program and a park
and ride study. The City's required match of $4,600 will be furnished
in the form of in -kind services. The City has received formal notifi-
cation of the grant award. This ordinance was unanimously adopted on
First Reading on February 19 and appropriates the $18,400 of unan-
ticipated grant revenues in the UMTA technical studies fund.
10. Tabling of the Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 189, 1984,
Adopting a School Site Acquisition Fee.
The School Site Acquisition Fee was discussed by Council at the
December 4th meeting. At that meeting, the school fee was tabled to
the March 19, 1985 meeting with the request that a number of legal
issues be addressed.
On February 22, 1985 City legal staff requested a legal opinion from
both Poudre R-1 and Thompson R24 dealing with the authority of the
City to collect a fee for the districts, the tax vs. fee question, and
a number of equity issues. No response has been received to date.
Staff therefore recommmends this item be tabled again, to the April
16, 1985 meeting. The item has been tentatively scheduled for the
April 9, 1985 worksession.
11. Tabling of the Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 12, 1985,
Adopting a Public Safety Capital Expansion Fee.
The Public Safety Capital Expansion Fee was considered by Council at
the January 15th meeting and tabled to the March 19th meeting. Staff
has been working to address a number of legal and policy related
issues that were raised.
-130-
L
12
13.
March 19, 1985
Staff recommends that this item be tabled to the April 16, 1985
meeting to provide additional time to respond to the issues. This
item has been tentatively scheduled for the April 9th worksession.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 29, 1985, Annexing Approxi-
mately 8.567 Acres, Known as Fossil Creek Third Annexation.
The applicant, Paul Heffron, is requesting annexation of approximately
8.567 acres on behalf of Kensington Properties, the owner. The site
is located east of U.S. Highway 287 and is intersected by Fossil Creek
Parkway.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 30, 1985, Zoning Approxi-
mately 8.567 Acres, Known as Fossil Creek Third Annexation into the
B-P, Planned Business, Zoning District.
The request is for B-P, Planned Business, zoning with a PUD condi-
tion. Fossil Creek First Annexation (the property to the north) was
zoned B-L, Limited Business. The applicant had originally requested
H-B, Highway Business, zoning for Fossil Creek Third Annexation, but
was persuaded by staff to request the B-P designation.
14. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 31, 1985, Annexing approxi-
mate y acres Known as the Hull Place_nnexation.
The applicants, Marlene and Vince Shryack, are requesting annexation
of approximately 8.15 acres located south of Hull Street and approxi-
mately 1,000 feet east of Taft Hill Road. The annexation is a 100%
voluntary annexation in that the applicants are the sole owners of the
property. The annexation achieves 1/6 contiguity via Springbrook Two
Annexation to the north and the Village Square Annexation to the east.
Eventually an extension of Swallow Road to Taft Hill Road will pass
through the southern part of this parcel. Right-of-way will be ob-
tained when a development plan'is submitted.
11. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 32, 1985, Zonin Approxi-
mately 8.15 acres, Known as the Hull Place nnexation into t e R-P,
Planned Residential Zoning District.
The applicants, Vince and Marlene Shryack, are requesting zoning on
approximately 8.15 acres, known as Hull Place Annexation into the R-P,
Planned Residential, zoning district.
16. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 33, 1985, Vacating a
Drainage Easement at air roo e
The City has been requested to vacate 17 feet of an unnecessary 25
foot drainage easement on Cedarwood Drive. The other 8 feet will be
retained as a utility easement. All affected utilities have been
contacted and have indicated no problems with the request.
-131-
March 19, 1985
17. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 34, 1985, Appropriating
Prior Year Undesignated Reserves in the Parkland Fund for Golden
Meadows Park and Safety Surfacing and Landscaping at the Rolland Moore
Handicap Playground.
This Ordinance appropriates prior year undesignated reserves in the
Parkland Fund as follows:
1. an additional $60,000 for the construction of Golden Meadows Park;
and
2, an additional $20,000 for the construction of a handicapped
playground at Rolland Moore Park.
There are sufficient reserves in the Parkland Fund to cover these
appropriations.
18. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 35, 1985, Relating to Affi-
davits of Intent for Write -In Candidates for Council Office.
At the March 5 election, 150 write-in votes were cast for candidates
for Council office. Since the City has no provisions for registration
of write-in candidates, all write-in votes had to be counted. An
ordinance limiting the write-in votes to candidates who have filed
affidavits of intent at least 5 days before the election will estab-
lish procedures for write-ins and require that write-in votes for only
registered write-in candidates be counted.
The Colorado Municipal Election Code allows a municipality to adopt
such an ordinance.
19. Items Relating to Solar Energy and Energy Conservation Bank Prog
grant awarded y t e olorado ffice of Energy onservation
the Fort Collins Liaht and Power Utility.
A. Resolution Authorizing the Execution of a Grant Agreement Between
the City and the State of Colorado.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 36, 1985, Appropriating
Unanticipated Revenue in the Light & Power Fund.
In May 1984 the Fort Collins Light and Power Utility received a
$29,000 grant from the Colorado Office of Energy Conservation (DEC).
The grant originates from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development's Solar Energy and Energy Conservation Bank Program.
-132-
March 19, 1985
The grant will be used to provide funding for energy conservation
measures made by Fort Collins residents who are at or below 80 percent
of median income level. SEEC provides a grant of 50 percent of the
recipient's expenditure on energy conservation measures - guarantee of
which must be made in order to receive the grant. This program
dovetails well with the Zero Interest Loan (ZILCH) program in that a
SEEC grant recipient might possibly finance his 50 percent of the
conservation expenditure with a ZILCH loan.
20. Resolution Approving Rental Rates for Surplus Water for the 1985
eason.
Each year after the irrigation companies have established the annual
assessment rates for their water, the Water Board makes a recommenda-
tion to the Council on the rental rates to be charged for the City's
surplus water. The rental rates for 1985 were discussed at the Febru-
ary 15, 1985 meeting of the Water Board. The proposed rental rates
are based on several factors including assessment rates, past rental
rates and anticipated supply and demand conditions.
The Water Board and staff recommend that the following rental rates be
adopted:
' Irrigation Company Proposed 1985 Rental Charge*
NCWCD Water (CBT) $ 12.00/ac-ft
North Poudre Irrigation Company $ 100.00/share
Water Supply & Storage Company $1500.00/share
Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal Co. $ 70.00/share
New Mercer Ditch Company $ 225.00/share
Larimer County Canal #2 $ 150.00/share
Arthur Irrigation Company $ 15.00/share
* For late season rentals, rates may be adjusted to reflect the
proportional remaining yield of the water stock being rented (if
applicable).
21. Resolution Regarding Operating Restrictions Imposed Upon Horsetooth
eservoir.
In November 1984, Mayor Horak received a letter from the Northern
Colorado Conservancy District requesting the City's support to reverse
a decision made by the United States Bureau of Reclamation imposing
storage restrictions on Horsetooth Reservoir.
1 -133-
March 19, 1985
The Water Board has reviewed the available information regarding this
issue and subsequently adopted a resolution recommending that efforts
be made to remove the imposed restrictions and recover the "lost
storage capacity".
22. Resolution Deleqatinq the City's Authority to Issue Revenue Bonds to
Provide Residential Housing hacilities to Larimer County During
Larimer County is again preparing to issue tax exempt bonds to finance
low and moderate income residential housing. In order to achieve an A
rating on the issue, and comply with the rules under which single
family mortgage revenue bonds are issued, the issue amount must be at
least $10,000,000. The City individually would not qualify for this
amount, nor would the County. The County has already received a
delegation of authority from Loveland. Larimer County will combine
their authority with that of Weld County, with a resulting 1985 Single
Family Mortgage Revenue Bond issue in the amount of $14,100,000 of
which $8,100,000 will be Larimer County's share, the balance of
$6,000,000 being Weld County's share. The City of Fort Collins will
be entitled to approximately 21% of Larimer County's share, or approx-
imately $1,700,000.
Council passed similar resolutions in 1981, 1982, and 1983 (for 1984)
to allow the County to issue revenue bonds for housing on the City's
behalf.
23. Resolution Amending the Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer
County Pertaining to wnership and peration of the Sanitary Landfill.
The County has proposed to construct a shooting range located at the
abandoned western portion of the Larimer County landfill. The existing
agreement with Larimer County pertaining to ownership and operation of
the landfill needs to be amended to allow this use.
The range will consist of twenty firing lanes: a 100 yard rifle
safety range with 10 firing points; and a 50 yard handgun safety range
with 10 firing points. Safety features include a series of baffles
(5 for the hand gun range and 4 for the rifle range) through which the
marksman must shoot. In addition, an eighteen foot high berm will be
constructed around the entire range.
The range will be open during the landfill hours of operation and
operated by a concessionaire to be hired by Larimer County on a lease
basis. Access is from the existing landfill access on Taft Hill.
-134-
1
1
1
March 19, 1985
24. Resolution Appointing a Representative of the City to Serve as a
Member of the Six Cities Committee.
This resolution would appoint Mike Smith, Water and Wastewater Utility
Director, to the Six Cities Committee.
The Six Cities Committee is an advisory committee to the Northern
Colorado Water Conservancy District. Its major project in recent
years has been the Windy Gap Project. The City of Fort Collins
assigned its interests in the Windy Gap program to the Platte River
Power Authority with some reversionary or reuse privileges. Since the
City of Fort Collins is a member of the Platte River Power Authority,
City representation on the Six Cities Committee is important.
25. Motion Confirming the Appointment of Wanda M. Krajicek as City Clerk.
At the March 5, 1985 regular election, a Charter amendment was adopted
which requires the City Clerk and Department and Division Heads to
reside within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. Wanda Krajicek, who
is currently appointed as the Acting City Clerk, resides within the
Urban Growth Area.
The City Clerk is appointed by the City Manager with confirmation by
the City Council, and this motion would confirm her appointment.
26. Acceptance of the Canvass of the March 5, 1985 General City Election.
The Election Board has completed the canvass and certification process
for the election. Council is asked to accept the canvass and election
results.
Total Ballots Cast at the Election: 7,332
Total Registered Voters: 42,696
The following is a summary of the election returns:
CANDIDATES FOR DISTRICTS
VOTES CAST
District 1
Gerry Horak 5,525
District 2
John B. Knezovich 3,842
Barbara Liebler 3,217
-135-
March 19, 1985
nictrirt I
Bill Elliott
3,352
Larry Estrada
3,724
District 4
Ed Stoner
5,483
PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS
Proposed Charter Amendment No. 1
For the Amendment 3,366
Against the Amendment 3,789
Proposed Charter Amendment No. 2
For the Amendment 3,029
Against the Amendment 4,162
Proposed Charter Amendment No. 3
For the Amendment 4,244
Against the Amendment 2,662
Proposed Charter Amendment No. 4
For the Amendment 5,731
Against the Amendment 1,328
Proposed Charter Amendment No. 5
For the Amendment 6,007
Against the Amendment 1,090
Proposed Charter Amendment No. 6
For the Amendment 4,872
Against the Amendment 2,257
27. Routine Easement.
Approval is requested for an easement dedication from Golden Meadows
Business Park II for a 10 foot wide storm sewer easement located in
Golden Meadows usiness Park. The storm sewer was installed outside
the existing easement due to existing utility conflicts. Dedication
of this easement is therefore fulfilling City requirements that
utilities be in easements. Consideration: $1.
-136-
1
1
March 19, 1985
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 21, 1985, Zoning Property Known
as the CSU Bull Farm into the B-P, Planned Business, and R-P,
Planned Residential, Zoninq Districts.
Item #6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 23, 1985
Year Reserves in the Golf Fund for Capital
Item #7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 24, 1985, R
Street Oversizing Funds for the Completion
Projects.
Item #8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 25, 1985, Appr
pated Revenue of 216,000 in the Capital Pr
Purchase of Capital Equipment for Transfort.
ropriating Prior
pment Purchases.
priating 1984
raffic Signal
iating Unantici-
cts Fund for the
Item #9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 26, 1985, Appropriating Unantici-
pated Revenue in the UMTA Technical Studies Fund forTransit
Studies.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #10. Tabling of the Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 189,
1984, Adopting a School Site Acquisition Fee.
Item #11. Tabling of the Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 12,
1985, Adopting a Public Safety Capital Expansion Fee.
Item #12. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 29, 1985, Annexing
Approximately 8.567 Acres, Known as Fossil Creek Third Annexation
Item #13. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No.
Approximately 8.567 Acres, Known as Fossil Cre
into the B-P. Planned Business, oninq Distric
Item #14. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance I
approximate y acres Known as -the Hi
Item #15. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance
Approximately 8.15 acres, Known as the Hul'
30, 1985, Zoning
Third Annexation
31, 1985, Annexing
P ace nnexation.
lo. 32, 1985, Zonini
Place Annexation inti
e R-N, Manned xesiaentiai toning uistrict.
Item #16. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 33, 1985, Vacating a
Drainaqe Easement at Fairbrooke SID.
-137-
March 19, 1985
Item #17. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 34, 1985, Appropri-
ating Prior Year n esignate Reserves in t e ar and and for
Golden Meadows Park and Safety Surfacing and Landscaping at the
Rolland Moore Handicap Playground.
Item #18. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 35, 1985, Relating to
Affidavits of Intent for Write -In Candidates for Council ffice.
Item #19. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 36, 1985, Appro-
priating Unanticipated Revenue in the Light & Power Fund.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas:
Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and
Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Zoning Property Known as the
CSU Bull Farm into the B-P, Planned
Business, and R-P, Planned Residential,
Zoning Districts, Adopted on Second Reading
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: I
"This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February
19. The petitioner, Colorado State University and its agent, Larsen Asso-
ciates Professional Corporation, is requesting a rezoning on behalf of the
property owner, the State Board of Agriculture, of approximately 43.73
acres located north of West Elizabeth Street, west of City Park Avenue and
east of Skyline Drive, an area commonly referred to as the Bull Farm.
Actually, the rezoning action is an initial zoning since the property is
not presently zoned within the city limits. The City has no zoning, ie.,
land use control, over property owned by the State of Colorado and used for
governmental purposes within the city limits.
The specific zoning request for the 43.73 acres is to place approxi-
mately 8.69 acres into the B-P, Planned Business, zoning district and
approximately 35.04 acres in the R-P, Planned Residential, zoning district.
The tract to be placed in the' B-P zone is located at the southeastern
corner of the property, northwest of the Elizabeth/City Park intersection.
The remainder of the property will be placed in the R-P zone."
Barbara Allison, 1212 Lynnwood Drive, asked if any petitions had been
turned in opposing this.
-138- 1
March 19, 1985
' Planning Director Sam Mutch replied that a petition had been submitted
opposing the project but not the zoning. The petition contained approxi-
mately 212 signatures and has been presented to the Planning and Zoning
Board for their consideration at their March 25 meeting.
1
Councilmember Clarke asked what zoning Mrs. Allison would prefer for the
property.
Mrs. Allison replied she would like to see the property remain as it is,
unzoned, becuase of the traffic concerns.
Councilmember Clarke noted the City has an obligation under state law to
zone the property upon request.
Mayor Rutstein suggested Mrs. Allison present her comments to the Planning
and Zoning Board on March 25.
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to
adopt Ordinance No. 21, 1985 on Second Reading.
Councilmembers Stoner and Clarke commented that they felt the recommended
zoning was appropriate and urged adoption of the ordinance.
The vote on Councilmember Stoner's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 21, 1985
on Second Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada,
Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue
of $216,000 in the Capital Projects Fund
for the Purchase of Capital Equipment for
Transfort, Adopted on Second Readinq
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"On September 4, 1984, City Council approved Resolution 84-126, authorizing
the execution and filing of a Section 9A grant under the Urban Mass Trans-
portation Act of 1964. This grant provides the City of Fort Collins with
capital assistance in the amount of $216,000 for the purchase of two
30-foot lift -equipped transit coaches and computer/office automation
hardware and related software. The City's required match of $54,000 is
available in the Capital Projects Fund from savings generated on the
Transfort Facility project,•.and has been reprogrammed for this purpose.
The City has received formal notification of this grant award. This
ordinance was adopted on First Reading on February 19 by a 6-1 vote and
appropriates the $216,000 of unanticipated grant revenues in the capital
project fund."
-139-
March 19, 1985
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to I
adopt Ordinance No. 25, 1985 on Second Reading.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, asked if the City was duplicating
computer equipment and software recently purchased by Poudre R-1.
Director of Transportation Services Bob Lee responded that the computer
equipment was for office automation and a computer program for route and
rider analysis.
Councilmember Knezovich noted he was opposed to this ordinance, stated he
did not feel the City should be dependent upon federal monies, and sug-
gested the $216,000 be returned to Washington.
Councilmember Clarke felt the grant would give the City additional flexi-
bility in terms of providing transportation to handicapped individuals.
Councilmember Estrada felt the federal money was seed money and should be
used to improve upon the City facilities and noted he would support the
ordinance.
Councilmember Knezovich suggested staff check with Poudre R-1 to determine
if there was any equipment compatibility before the purchase of the com-
puter equipment.
The vote on Councilmember Ohlson's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 25, 1985,
on Second Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada,
Horak, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmember Knezovich.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Relating to Affidavits of
Intent for Write -In Candidates for
Council Office. Adopted on First Readin
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"At the March 5 election, 150 write-in votes were cast for candidates for
Council office. Since the City has no provisions for registration of
write-in candidates, all write-in votes had to be counted. An ordinance
limiting the write-in votes to candidates who have filed affidavits of
intent at least 5 days before the election will establish procedures for
write-ins and require that write-in votes for only registered write-in
candidates be counted.
The Colorado Municipal Election Code allows a municipality to adopt such an
ordinance.
-140-
I
1
1
March 19, 1985
The affidavit of the write-in candidate would require the write-in candi-
date to affirm his or her qualifications for the office sought. A draft of
the proposed affidavit form is attached for Council's review."
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to
adopt Ordinance No. 35, 1985 on First Reading.
Terry Foppe, 622 Whedbee, asked if write-in candidates would be required to
file nomination petitions.
City Clerk Wanda Krajicek replied that write-in candidates would be re-
quired to complete an affidavit affirming their qualifications for the
office sought but would not be required to circulate and submit nomination
petitions.
The vote on Councilmember Stoner's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 35, 1985
on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada,
Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Approving Rental Rates for
Surplus Water for the 1985 Season, Adopted
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"Each year after_ the irrigation companies have established the annual
assessment rates for their water, the Water Board makes a recommendation to
the Council on the rental rates to be charged for the City's surplus
water. The rental rates for 1985 were discussed at the February 15, 1985
meeting of the Water Board. The proposed rental rates are based on several
factors including assessment rates, past rental rates and anticipated
supply and demand conditions. The attached table shows the assessment
rates and proposed rental rates for 1985, as well as the corresponding
rates for 1983 and 1984.
The Water Board and staff recommend that the following rental rates be
adopted:
Irrigation Company
NCWCD Water (CBT)
North Poudre Irrigation Company
Water Supply & Storage Company
Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal Co
New Mercer Ditch Company
Larimer County Canal #2
Arthur Irrigation Company
Proposed 1985.Rental Charge*
-141-
$ 12.00/ac-ft
$ 100.00/share
$1500.00/share
$ 70.00/share
$ 225.00/share
$ 150.00/share
$ 15.00/share
March 19, 1985
* For late season rentals, rates may be adjusted to reflect the
proportional remaining yield of the water stock being rented (if
applicable).
The amount of surplus water rented will depend on both the City's supply
and demand for 1985 as well as the need for water by area farmers. In
1983, 4,860 acre feet was rented for $58,095, and in 1984, 4,377 acre feet
was rented for $45,655.
Municipal supply and demand will be monitored closely and quantities
available for rent will be determined periodically. An adequate amount of
water will be reserved to ensure that the City's requirements are met."
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to
adopt Resolution 85-34.
Councilmember Stoner asked how many acre feet were available for rental
during the '83 and '84 seasons and what percentage was leased of the amount
available for rent.
Water Resources Engineer Dennis Bode replied that 1983 was a wet year and
demands were low with almost 5,000 acre feet, or 50%, being rented. In
1984, about 4,400 acre feet was rented and that was also about 50% of the
water available for rental.
Councilmember Stoner asked what amount is kept in reserve for the upper
part of the City's water supply.
Dennis Bode replied a target amount based on a 1 in 20 type dry year is
kept in reserve for the municipal supply. This is reviewed through the
year and the amount of surplus water available is adjusted accordingly.
Councilmember Stoner noted the City reacts to the market conditions rather
than the actual costs in the product.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to adopt Resolution 85-34 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke,' Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson,
Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Citizen Participation
A. Proclamation Naming March 18-22 as National Catholic Education Week was
accepted by Jim 0 Neill, 2816 Eagle Drive, President of St. Joseph's
School Parent-Teacher Organization.
-142- 1
1
March 19, 1985
B. Resolution Expressing Gratitude and Appreciation to Bill Elliott for
his contributions to the community as Councilmember.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson,
to adopt Resolution 85-46. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada,
Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Former Councilmember Bill Elliott accepted the Resolution and a plaque
expressing the City's appreciation for his years of service as Council -
member.
C. Proclamation Naming March 17-24, 1985 as International DeMolay Week was
accepted by Kevis Ness and other members of the Fort Collins Masonic
Chapter of DeMolay.
D. Presentation of Plaque to former Mayor Gerry Horak.
Mayor Rutstein presented a plaque to Councilmember Horak expressing the
City's gratitude and appreciation for his year of service as Mayor.
Jim Woodward, 430 Garfield, suggested the Coloradoan be encouraged to
provide notice of all Council agenda items at least 24 hours prior to the
meeting. Failing that, he suggested the City purchase advertising to
provide that information.
Councilmember Clarke suggested staff investigate costs to purchase adver-
tising as suggested by Mr. Woodward.
Councilmember Horak suggested staff look at all the media sources avail-
able, not just the daily paper.
Councilmember Ohlson asked staff to present proposals for expanded notifi-
cation for Council consideration.
Resolution Delegating the City's Authority
to Issue Revenue Bonds to Provide
Residential Housing Facilities to
Larimer County During 1985, Adopted
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"Larimer County is again preparing to issue tax exempt bonds to finance low
and moderate income residential housing. In order to achieve an A rating
on the issue, and comply with the rules under which single family mortgage
revenue bonds are issued, the issue amount must be at least $10,000,000.
-143-
March 19, 1985
The City individually would not qualify for this amount, nor would the
County. The County has already received a delegation of authority from
Loveland. Larimer County will combine their authority with that of Weld
County, with a resulting 1985 Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bond issue in
the amount of $14,100,000 of which $8,100,000 will be Larimer County's
share, the balance of $6,000,000 being Weld County's share. The City of
Fort Collins will be entitled to approximately 21% of Larimer County's
share, or approximately $1,700,000.
Council passed similar resolutions in 1981, 1982, and 1983 (for 1984) to
allow the County to issue revenue bonds for housing on the City's behalf.
Enclosed is a background report on prior Larimer County Mortgage Revenue
Bond issues, a list of the participants in the most recent issue, and a
copy of Larimer County's Policy Statement on Single Family Mortgage Revenue
Bonds."
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to
adopt Resolution 85-36.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, noted 61% of the 1984 mortgages
went to people who have incomes between $2-3,000/month or $24-36,000/year.
He asked if the $36,000 cap was federal adjusted income.
Councilmember Stoner replied the gross income was adjusted downward by the
number of dependents, etc., not federally adjusted.
Mr. Lockhart suggested the 10% allotment for multi -family housing might be
raised since those units were more energy efficient. He felt the income
range was too high since it was well above the median income in Fort
Collins.
Councilmember Stoner pointed out this program was restricted to first-time
homeowners.
Mayor Rutstein suggested a letter be sent to the Larimer County Commis-
sioners addressing the concerns expressed about the high cost of the
mortgages and the high incomes of the people who qualify.
City Manager Arnold replied that he would draft a letter for the Mayor's
signature expressing those concerns and asking Larimer County for an
evaluation of the program and its effectiveness.
The vote on Councilmember Stoner's motion to adopt Resolution 85-36 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Rut-
stein, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmember Ohlson.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
-144-
March 19, 1985
Ordinance Relating to the Correction of
an Error in Ordinance No. 161, 1984
Providing for the Issuance and Sale of City
of Fort Collins, Colorado, Industrial
Development Revenue Bonds (the Dixon
Associates Project), Adopted on Second Reading
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"This Ordinance was adopted by a 6-0 vote on February 19 and makes a minor
change to the original ordinance that authorized the issuance and sale
of IDRB's for the Dixon Associates project.
The Ordinance requires repayment to be made in 46 semi-annual install-
ments rather than 30 as originally drafted."
Councilmember Knezovich asked the record to show he did not participate in
the discussion or vote on this item.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Ordinance No. 22, 1985 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
(Councilmember Knezovich withdrawn)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the Lease/Purchase
of Vehicles and Equipment and the
Sperry System 80/Model 8 Mainframe
Computer and Waiver of Normal Bid
Process for Said Computer and Equipment
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"A. Resolution Authorizing the Waiver of the Normal Bid Procedure in the
Procurement of a Sperry 80/Model 8 Computer and Equipment.
In 1976 City Council authorized the procurement of a Sperry Series 90
computer to serve the centralized data processing needs of the City
government. In 1980, City Council approved a plan to upgrade that computer
to serve the needs until 1985. The growth and capacity of that configura-
tion have been exhausted. We have no ability to add planned major programs
and systems.
Staff has planned and recommends replacement and lease/purchase financing
of a Sperry System 80/Model 8 computer. Procurement of this computer will
provide the necessary growth and capacity to meet the City's needs for
1 -145-
March 19, 1985
mainframe computing for the rest of the decade. Additionally, procurement M
of this computer will avoid the expenditure of nearly $500,000 in direct
and indirect conversion costs associated with the conversion to any other
computer.
The total cost for the upgrade/replacement computer is approximately
$400,000. Negotiated concessions from Sperry Corporation have netted
a substantial dollar savings of nearly $115,000, far more than could
be attained from third -party dealers of Sperry equipment. The computer
equipment will be lease/purchase financed over 5 years as part of the rest
of the City's equipment lease/purchase package. Money is available and
budgeted for the lease/purchase payments as part of the Information &
Communication Systems department's base operating budget.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 37, 1985, Authorizing the
City Manager to Enter into an Agreement for the Lease/Purchase of
Vehicles and Equipment and a Sperry 80/Model 8 Computer and Peripheral
Equipment.
Staff continues to recommend lease/purchase as a viable alternative to the
City's past method of providing for equipment needs.
The City solicited lease/purchase financing proposals from approximately
20 firms, with 9 responding. The bids were opened at 11:00 a.m. on March
14. The lowest net effective interest rate of 8.682% was received from
GELCO Municipal Services. Money for the 1985 lease/purchase payments was
budgeted when the 1985 Budget was adopted in October, 1984.
The City proposes in the Ordinance to lease/purchase:
QUANTITY DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST LIFE
19 1985 Celebrity Police Sedans $212,496.00 4
1 72" Riding Mower (Diesel) 11,088.00 4
1 72" Riding Mower (Gas) 10,419.00 4
1 Olathe Sweeper, Model 48 6,071.00 4
TOTAL $240,074.00
6 1985 Ford F250 3/4T. Trucks $ 61,444.00 5
3 1985 Chevrolet S10 Pickups 21,889.00 5
1 1985 GMC Van w/mtd. Versalift 24,900.00 5
1 Sperry System 80/Model 8 Computer 385,000.00 5
TOTAL $493,233.00
-146-
1
1
1
1
Taylor Trailer, Model LP-EO-1223 $
1985 F350 1 T. Cab/Chassis w/Stake
body
1985 IH 3 T. Cab/Chassis w/Dump
body 38,701.00
Barco Tree Loader & Cab/Chassis 40,000.00
March 19, 1985
2,566.00 6
11,625.00 6
TOTAL $ 92,892.00
GRAND TOTAL $826,199.00"
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Resolution 85-39.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, questioned the wisdom of the use of
lease/purchase financing by the City and asked whether the operating life
of police cars was four years. He questioned the $115,000 cost savings on
the Sperry computer.
City Manager Arnold replied police sedans last four years under the City's
one-to-one program, but can be expected to last only 12 months under
constant use. He noted lease/purchase allows the City to afford this
equipment without having to come up with a cash outlay every year. Lease/
purchase has been evaluated and has proven to be a cost saver for the
City.
Director of Information and Communications Systems Pete Dallow spoke of the
benefits to the negotiated agreement with Sperry for the computer to save
the $115,000. He noted the cost of conversion from the present system
would be approximately $500,000 if another vendor were to be awarded the
bid. He noted the price had been negotiated directly with Sperry and
stated he felt the price could not be met by other brokers or dealers.
The vote on Councilmember Ohlson's motion to adopt Resolution 85-39 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson,
Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to
adopt Ordinance No. 37, 1985 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
-147-
March 19, 1985
Resolution Approving the Water Board
Recommendation to Pursue the Purchase
of up to $150,000 of CBT Water, Adopted
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"This resolution would authorize the City Staff to pursue the acquisition
of up to $150,000 of Colorado -Big Thompson (CBT) water as it becomes
available at a price of not more than $900 per unit.
During the last four years, the price of CBT water has declined from over
$2000 per unit to $800 - $900 per unit. This price is exceptionally low
compared to the price several years ago and the cost of developing new
supplies in the basin. The price has apparently declined for several
reasons: (1) a slowdown in growth and water demands in the early 1980's,
(2) a financial commitment by other cities in this area to the Windy Gap
Project, and (3) less demand in the agricultural sector for CBT water.
As of January 1, 1985, the City of Fort Collins owned 11,237 units of CBT
water. The yield ranges from .6 acre feet to 1.0 acre feet per unit.
Since this water is a supplemental supply, higher yields are normally
allocated in dry years and lower yields in wet years. This makes the CBT
water an excellent source to supplement the City's other supplies. Al-
though the City has a comfortable margin of supply in excess of current
demands, additional supplies will be needed in the future for projected
growth.
Most of the City's new water supply is turned in as water stock by de-
velopers in satisfaction of raw water requirements. A portion of this
requirement, however, is provided as cash in -lieu -of water stock. This
cash is put into a water rights fund which currently has a balance of about
$200,000.
After discussing the possibility of purchasing CBT water several times
during recent months, the Water Board passed a motion on January 18, 1985
to "recommend that the City look into and purchase units of CBT water for
up to $150,000 at no greater than $900 per unit as it might become avail-
able." Some Water Board members believe the price of CBT water is at an
outstanding price and may soon rise again. A Water Board policy states,
"The City will not ordinarily, absent unusual circumstances or outstanding
value, pursue the purchase of raw water used for agricultural purposes
within the Poudre Basin, and will aid in efforts to maintain a viable
agricultural economy in the Basin." A letter from the Chairman of the
Water Board is attached.
During discussion on the issue staff suggested the price may yet go lower,
and so we may be acting prematurely in this authorization. On the other
-148-
March 19, 1985
hand, staff recognizes that an excellent value is there at $8-900 per acre
foot. We also have no storage projects or other water development projects
that would place a higher claim on the $150,000.
So staff has taken no position on the Board's recommendation because
there's a sensible rationale for either a "yes" or a "no" decision at this
level of expenditure."
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Resolution 85-40.
Councilmember Stoner asked if it would be a better investment to purchase
the water today than to invest the same money at a 10% rate. He asked if
water values would increase at a 10% rate.
Dr. Norman Evans, Water Board Chairman, replied that there was no basis for
estimating water values except to note that it has come down from $2200 to
$700 in the past seven years. The Board felt it would not likely go lower
but would go higher. He felt the water should be purchased when it was
available since that is not always the case.
Councilmember Horak felt the Water Board was taking prudent action since
this opportunity is available.
Councilmember Clarke felt it was very important to take advantage of this
opportunity to get additional supplies of water for the City.
Councilmember Horak noted the money for this water acquisition had been
paid to the City by developers because of growth and development and would
not be coming out of the General Fund or water fees.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to adopt Resolution 85-40 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson,
Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Establishing Goals and
Operating Procedures for Implementation
of a Rental Rehabilitation Program for
the City of Fort Collins. Adopted
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"The City of Fort Collins has utilized Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
since 1975 to assist in the rehabilitation of substandard, low-income,
-149-
March 19, 1985
owner -occupied homes. While the program has been successful, the full ■
impact and benefit of funds expended has not been realized due to the
number of substandard rental units in need of rehabilitation. In March,
1984, City Council authorized City staff to submit an application to HUD
for participation in the Third Round Rental Rehabilitation Demonstration
Program. The purpose of the program at the local level is to complete the
upgrading and removal of blight within entire blocks of the community.
Staff earmarked approximately $100,000 of available CDBG income to be used
to leverage private funds, on a 50-50 basis, for use in the program. Using
a City share of $5,000 per unit would allow for the rehabilitation of 20
rental units. While the City was required to utilize it's own funds in the
Demonstration Program, HUD would present a Section 8 Rental Subsidy Certi-
ficate to the Fort Collins Housing Authority for each unit rehabilitated.
Many communities entered the nation-wide competition for participation in
the Demonstration Program. When the City was notified by HUD that it had
been selected for the Demonstration Program, HUD also indicated that
only 11 Section 8 Certificates would be made available to the community.
Staff then reduced the amount of CDBG income funds earmarked for the
Demonstration Program to $55,000. City Council approved these funds as part
of the City's FY1984-85 CDBG Program.
In May, 1984, the City was notified by HUD that $73,800 had been allocated
to the community for use in a Rental Rehabilitation Grant Program. HUD
would again allocate Section 8 Rental Subsidy Certificates to the Fort
Collins Housing Authority for each unit rehabilitated. The Grant funds
would allow for the rehabilitation of an additional 14 rental units. These
funds were also approved by the Council as part of the City's FY1984-85
CDBG Program.
In January of 1985, the City was notified by HUD that a second Rental
Rehabilitation Grant for $72,000 had been allocated to the community.
These funds would allow for the rehabilitation of an additional 14 rental
units.
The Federal Regulations for the Demonstration and Grant Programs are very
similar. Staff has attempted to merge the programs so the City can essen-
tially implement them as a single program. Combining the programs means
$200,800 is available to rehabilitate approximately 39 rental units.
The program is a cooperative venture with the Fort Collins Housing Author-
ity, since the Authority will eventually receive 39 Section 8 Certificates
and assist in tenant related• matters. The program is a cost-effective
program in that subsidies for rehabilitation work are kept separate from
tenant rental subsidies. The program is locally designed and operated.
Public sector participation is stressed to assure better long-term manage-
ment and maintenance of rehabilitated property., Listed below are the
recommended major goals and operating procedures for the City of Fort
Collins' Rental Rehabilitation Program.
-150-
March 19, 1985
Purpose of the Program
The purpose of the City of Fort Collins' Rental Rehabilitation Program is
to increase the supply of decent rental housing for low- and moderate -
income people, while preserving the City's existing housing stock and
revitalizing older neighborhoods, particularly the three CDBG Neighborhood
Strategy Areas (NSA's) of Holy Family; Buckingham, Alta Vista and Anderson-
ville (BAVA); and Laurel School. The three NSA's have been the focus of the
City's owner -occupied rehabilitation program. In many cases, blight has not
been eliminated from entire block faces because of the presence of rental
units also in need of rehabilitation. It will be a major goal of the
program to attempt to include rental units located in areas where previous
City housing rehabilitation efforts have been made.
A secondary goal of the program will be to reduce the number of people
presently on the waiting list for Housing Authority units. Vacant units
which can be economically rehabilitated will be given a high priority on
the condition that they be offered for occupancy by those on the waiting
list. This goal will also help utilize the Section 8 Certificates coming to
the Authority under the program.
Crucial to the success of the program is the assurance that operating
costs, amortization of rehabilitation loans and existing debts, and reason-
able profit can be achieved within market rents after rehabilitation.
Subsidy Mechanism
The rental rehabilitation subsidy to owner/landlords is recommended to be
in the form of a shared equity deferred payment loan. (There will be no
limitations, such as income level, amount of property owned, etc., re-
stricting what type of landlord can apply to participate in the program.)
The property will have to be appraised and the amount of public funds put
into the project will then be calculated as a percentage of the value of
the property (appraisal plus cost of rehabilitation). When the property is
sold, the City will receive its percentage share of the gross sales price
of the property (prior to payment of the real estate commission).
A clause will also be placed in the contract between the City and owner/
landlord guaranteeing the City will at least get back the funds it placed
into the project. The deferred loan amount may not exceed 50% of the
rehabilitation cost and in very rare special cases exceed $5,000 per unit.
Only enough public funds to make rehabilitation feasible at current market
rates will be used to write down the cost of private financing. The de-
ferred loan is the best financial subsidy to entice property owners to
participate in the program and the due on sale aspect potentially enables
the recycling of funds back into the program. Staff believes the admini-
strative problems involved in trying to administer low interest bearing
loans would not be worth the effort for the amount of funds that would be
returned.
-151-
March 19, 1985
It will be the responsibility of potential owner/landlord participants to ■
secure their own private financing. The City will have no formal agreements
with local lenders for private financing of projects. However, the CDBG
staff will inform local lenders of the program in order to permit the
lenders to be familiar with the program before owner/landlords begin
requesting loans.
Rehabilitated units will be rented at market rents for the neighborhood in
which they are located. There will not be any artificially imposed rent
levels. During the application process, CDBG and Housing Authority staffs
will assist potential participants in determining what the current market
rents are in the specific neighborhood.
Tenant Strategy
Section 8 Rental Subsidy Certificates will be utilized to assist eligible
tenants. It will be a goal of the program to reduce the number of people
presently on the Fort Collins Housing Authority's waiting list and to
utilize the Section 8 Certificates coming to the Housing Authority in the
program. To help achieve this goal, vacant rental units, which can be
economically rehabilitated, will be given a high priority on the condition
that they be offered to people on the waiting list. Rental units which are
occupied by people who qualify for Section 8 Certificates, but do not have
one, will also be given a high priority.
The Section 8 Certificates are given to the tenant and are not tied to the
rehabilitated unit. The tenant may, at any time within lease agreements,
desire to move to another location. If that happens, the tenant keeps the
Section 8 Certificate and the owner/landlord would have to refill the
vacant unit. The owner/landlord would have to notify the City of any
vacancies and the CDBG and Housing Authority staff would assist in the
finding of new tenants. Under the program, however, the City does not
guarantee occupancy. The City does not have to pay rent to owner/landlords
who are participating in the program for vacant units.
Federal Fair Housing Laws and the City's affirmative marketing procedures
will be adhered to in the program. A special outreach program for minori-
ties will be conducted through community organizations.
ect Selection
Staff cannot guess, at this time, what the owner/landlord response to the
program will be. There have been a few preliminary inquiries, but• not
enough to make a firm determination predicting the success of the program.
To be eligible for rehabilitation under the program, rental properties must
require the correction of all minimum building code violations. The City of
Fort Collins' Building Codes and HUD Section 8 Existing Housing Quality
-152-
March 19, 1985
Standards will be used to determine the level of rehabilitation needed. The
CDBG staff will review the viability of a rehabilitation project from the
standpoint of health, safety, welfare and energy conservation aspects.
Ultimate selection of which applications will receive assistance will be
based upon an analysis of physical condition, occupancy, locational and
economic factors. As a general rule, vacant substandard rental units
will be rehabilitated first as the highest priority. The three CDBG NSA's
will have the highest locational priority, particularly units located in a
block face where the City has expended funds to rehabilitate owner -occupied
units. Economic factors, such as project feasibility, amount of subsidy
required, equity in the property and track record of the landlord will also
be considered.
It will also be a major goal of the program to rehabilitate units for large
families. Therefore, a high priority will be given to units which have
three or more bedrooms.
The CDBG office will establish an initial application timeframe deadline.
If applications are received for a total of more than the 39 units avail-
able, staff will have to analyze and decide which proposals best fit the
goals of the program. If applications are received for less than the 39
units available, projects which address the goals of the program will be
funded and new applications will be reviewed on a first -come basis."
Councilmember Estrada made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to
adopt Ordinance No. 35, 1985 on First Reading.
Councilmember Estrada asked about the outreach process and what means of
communication would be used to contact prospective landlords.
Chief Planner Ken Waido replied that staff would do a substantial adver-
tising program in the various media and would contact the Board of Realtors
and property management associations.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if there was a prioritizing of the properties in
need as far as limited resources, code violations, etc.
Ken Waido replied that at a minimum the'property must need an upgrading of
all the building codes and must meet Section 8 housing quality standards.
Units without code violations would still be eligible but would not score
well against other properties. He noted staff would be working with the
Housing Authority staff and the property owner to determine the market rate
for each unit in a particular neighborhood. Those numbers would be used to
determine the income potential to -see if the project is feasible. He noted
there was no limit on the rental rate but ,that the market would limit the
demand if the unit was not priced 'competitively. The owner is not guaran-
teed occupancy.
-153-
March 19, 1985
David Herrera, Executive Director of the Housing Authority, noted this
program would give some relief to the numbers of people on the Housing
Authority waiting list.
Councilmember Knezovich felt the City should share in the full appreciation
of properties and suggested using standard language used by savings and
loan establishments to make sure the City receives its fair share of the
equity.
City Attorney Huisjen noted that at the time any of these transactions are
negotiated, documents insuring the City's portion of the transaction is
protected will be entered into. These methods have been used in other
communities and staff intends to borrow documents to use as models for the
City's agreements.
The vote on Councilmember Estrada's motion to adopt Resolution 85-41 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson,
and Rutstein. Nays: Councilmember Stoner.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Authorizing the Sale
of the East 60 Feet of Lot 9,
Block 8, Scott Sherwood Subdivision
(1113 West Olive Street), Adopted
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"The area served by the electrical substation at 1113 West Olive Street has
been converted to a higher voltage. As a result, the load previously
served by this substation has been permanently transferred to circuits
served by other substations in the system. The equipment has been dis-
mantled and sold and the lot vacated.
There have been three attempts to sell the vacated site since 1982. The
first purchase agreement for $6,000 was contingent upon the purchaser
obtaining a variance from'the Zoning Board of Appeals for the placement of
a 1,000 square foot per level building envelope on the site. The Agreement
of Sale and Purchase between the City and Mr. Nix was approved by Council
May 18, 1982; however, the Zoning Board of Appeals denied the variance July
8, 1982 on a 3 - 2 vote. This action voided the original contract with Mr.
Nix.
In October of 1983, Mr. Tucker presented the second offer to purchase the
property at an updated appraised value of $6,000. His offer was contingent
upon obtaining the approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals to move or
-154-
March 19, 1985
construct a single family house of between 700 and 960 square feet on this
lot. This time the contract was phased to have the Zoning Board of Appeals
hearing before submitting the agreement to Council for final action. This
variance failed 3 - 2 on October 13, 1983.
The third contract for sale was submitted by W.J. Vansant in December of
1984. It was contingent upon obtaining a Zoning Board of Appeals variance
for a 1,000 square foot building envelope. The residence was to be owner -
occupied. The contract was also contingent upon an updated appraisal. The
appraiser was asked to appraise the site in two ways:
a) as a building site with the Zoning Board of Appeals variance
approved - estimated value is $6,500; and
b) as a vacant lot without the variance - estimated value is $1,500.
The variance was again denied by the Zoning Board of Appeals with a 3 - 2
vote on December 13, 1984. At this time, Mr. Vansant indicated he wanted
to appeal the Zoning Board of Appeals' decision. Based on this informa-
tion, staff sent a request to the property owners in the neighborhood
asking if there was any interest in bidding for the vacant site in a
back-up position with no contingencies for variances from the Zoning Board
of Appeals. The minimum acceptable bid would be $1,500. Two bids were
received - Mr. Vansant at $2,107 and Ms. Nye at $1,510. As the high
bidder, Mr. Vansant agreed to drop his earlier contract with contingencies
and purchase the site for $2,107 with no contingencies other than receiving
Council approval for the sale.
On March 14, ZBA unanimously (5-0) granted the variance to Mr. Vansant.
However, this decision could be appealed to Council within 14 days of the
ZBA decision (by March 28)."
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada,
to adopt Resolution 85-42.
Councilmember Clarke expressed concern that the value of the site with a
variance was $6,500 -but that the proposal before Council would sell the
property for $2,107. He felt the property should not sell the property for
less than the $6,500 appraised value.
Deputy City Manager Shannon stated staff felt it would be unfair to Mr.
Vansant to raise the price of the property since he had submitted the high
bid for the property when it was offered by the City. He noted Mr. Vansant
had bid on the property and signed a commitment to purchase the lot assum-
ing the risk that the variance might not be granted.
-155-
March 19, 1985
Councilmember Horak asked if the $2,107 bid could have been legally with-
drawn.
Deputy City Manager Shannon replied that Mr. Vansant was committed to
purchase the lot.
City Attorney Huisjen stated Mr. Vansant had made an offer to the City
which had not been accepted.
Deputy City Manager Shannon noted $1,500 of the purchase price had been
received as earnest money under an option to purchase and that Mr. Vansant
had no opportunity to withdraw. He was committed to purchase the lot
regardless of the ZBA decision on the variance.
Joe Vansant, purchaser, noted the other bidder would have been able to
construct the same home on this lot without a variance by using 60 feet of
her adjoining lot. He noted the structure would be owner occupied.
Councilmember Knezovich urged adoption of the Resolution noting he felt
this was a classic case of a citizen beating the City at changing its own
rules.
The vote on Councilmember Knezovich's motion to adopt Resolution 85-42 was
as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich,
Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to Oak Park
Residential Project
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 27, 1985, Issuing $510,000 Tax Incre-
ment Notes.
This ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 19.
These notes will be issued directly to Jack and Elsie Russell and are
subordinate to payment on the debt service for the $8.2 million tax
increment bond.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 28, 1985, Appropriating Unanticipated
Revenue in the Downtown Development Authority Fund for Construction
and Related Expenses of the Oak Park Residential Project.
-156-
March 19, 1985
This ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 19. The
DDA Board of Directors have reviewed the Oak Park Residential Housing
proposal and have arrived at an agreement which will provide the greatest
benefit to the downtown and the eastside neighborhood, and will also allow
the economic incentive to the developer to continue with the project. This
agreement provides for the Authority to purchase the land at its appraised
value for highest and best use and sell the property to the developer for
residential housing at a cost comparable to that outside the downtown. In
addition, the DDA will finance demolition and off -site improvements.
Clauses in the contract with the developer limit the use of the property to
residential housing and provide other safeguards guaranteeing the develop-
ment of the property and its "as built" assessed valuation.
The project has received preliminary and final approval from the Planning
and Zoning Board for 43 units, 27 in a mid -rise tower and 16 townhomes
fronting on Remington Street. Parking will be located beneath the site
with elevator service into the mid -rise facility. The project is designed
to blend with and maintain the integrity of the surrounding neighborhood.
The DDA budget for the project:
Revenues
Sale of Land $320,000
$8.2 Bond Revenues 50,000
Total Revenues $370,000
Expenditures
Down Payment on Land $200,000
Demolition/Improvements 100,000
Administrative/Issuance Fees 20,000
First Year Debt Service 50,000
Total Expenditures $370,000
The DDA will purchase the property from the Russells for $710,000 with
a down payment of $200,000. The $510,000 balance due will be held by
the Russells in a tax increment note. Payments on this note will be
subordinate to the debt service on the $8.2 million bond."
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Ordinance No. 27, 1985 on Second Reading.,
Chuck Blazek, Western Appraisal Services (formerly Harold Jungbluth Asso-
ciates), answered questions relating to the appraisal. He noted he felt
the appraisal was still valid and described the process used for the
appraisal.
-157-
March 19, 1985
Joe Stern, 1221 LaPorte Avenue, read a letter expressing his concerns over
the appraisal process.
Carol Gyger, 425 North Whitcomb, asked when the Russells approached the DDA
about this project and when the property on Mathews was added to the DDA.
Bill Kingsbury, Executive Director of the Downtown Development Authority,
replied the Russells had not approached the DDA. _He noted he had sought
out the Russells in late 1982. He stated the Mathews property had been
included in the DDA district boundaries in 1983 as a voluntary inclusion.
Jim Woodward, 430 Garfield, strongly opposed the project and felt the City
would be subsidizing $100,000 units and furthering the profit margin of the
developer.
Jerry Siegel, former tenant on the site, spoke in support of the project
and noted all tenants were aware they were subject to a 30-day notice to
move and that the units were in poor condition in exchange for low rents.
Liza Dailey, 400 South Grant, opposed the project and asked about the
percentage of profit of the developer.
Marty Hamilton, 206 Remington, one of the units on the site, addressed the
question of whether tenants would be forced out on the street by noting all
tenants were aware they might have to move in the near future.
Ron Capella, developer, spoke to the profit involved in the project noting
he would be at risk for the total dollars borrowed. He stated there would
be an approximately 20% rate of return if the project performs well,
dwindling down if the project does not perform well.
Councilmember Knezovich clarified the finance issue and noted he felt the
project was a reasonable risk for the DDA. He felt the appraised value was
reasonable and urged support for the ordinances.
Councilmember Clarke felt funding for this project was a reinvestment
rather than a subsidy in the. downtown area. He felt the project would help
the downtown by providing residential units in the downtown.
Councilmember Ohlson noted Council would be considering policies for
relocation assistance for low income people when redevelopment occurs and
for the generation of funds to create new low income housing stock. He
supported the project.
Councilmember Estrada felt this project was a good inital project for the
downtown and would generate other projects.
-158-
March 19, 1985
The vote on Councilmember Clarke's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 27, 1985
on Second Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada,
Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to
adopt Ordinance No. 28, 1985 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Clarke, Estrada, Horan, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to Industrial Development
Revenue Bond Policies and Economic Development
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"A. Resolution Revising Industrial Development Revenue Bond Policies and
Criteria.
During 1984 Council adopted Resolution 84-92 establishing policies and
criteria for Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (IDRB's). Following the
review and inducement of several IDRB applications last year, it was
recommended that staff refine the existing policies and criteria in order
to facilitate both the application and review processes. This Resolution
and the accompanying application and evaluation sheets respond to these
recommendations. Very little has been changed with this refinement,
instead, items which were ambiguous have been clarified, some unnecessary
items have been deleted, and we have provided more explanation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 38, 1985, Establishing a
Policy Supporting the Use of Industrial Development Revenue Bond Fees
to Promote Economic Development.
During 1982 the City Council established a policy supporting economic
development in the City. In this policy the Council authorized the use of
Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (IDRB's) as one means of supporting
economic development. The Council also established fees to be collected
whenever IDRB's were issued. The revenue generated by the IDRB fees was to
be used to support other economic development activities. However no
specific policies were adopted indicating how this money should be spent.
The purpose of this Ordinance is to establish so
for the use of monies generated by the issuance
would authorize the Mayor and City Manager to
-159-
Tie policies and procedures
of IDRB's. This Ordinance
waive any capital related
March 19, 1985
development fees or agree to construct public improvements for any industry
meeting the criteria for targeted industries, up to the amount previously
authorized for this purpose.
The Ordinance would also provide for the use of the economic development
monies to make whole the funds which did not receive development fees due
to these waivers.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 39, 1985, Appropriating
Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for the Purpose of Economic
Development.
At the present time more than $250,000 has been paid to the City in the
form of IDRB fees. The purpose of this Ordinance is to appropriate a
portion of these monies, ($100,000) for economic development. Expenditures
from this appropriation will be authorized by the Mayor and the City Man-
ager, in order to waive any capital related development fees or agree to
construct public improvements up to the amount of $100,000 for any industry
meeting the criteria for targeted industries."
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Resolution 85-43.
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to
table Resolution 85-43 to April 16. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada,
Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to
adopt Ordinance No. 38, 1985 on First Reading.
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to
table Ordinance No. 38, 1985 on First Reading to April 16. Yeas: Council -
members Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner.
Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to
adopt Ordinance No. 39, 1985 on First Reading (Option 1).
Mayor Rutstein read the changed portion of the ordinance in full.
Councilmember Horak asked the motion maker and the second if they would
agree to substituting $60,000 for $100,000 in the ordinance.
-160-
March 19, 1985
Councilmembers Clarke and Estrada stated they would accept the change as a
friendly amendment.
Tom Clark, Chamber of Commerce, stated the Chamber's economic development
group was willing to match the City's contribution dollar for dollar.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, asked what the Sunstrand Corpora-
tion would be manufacturing. He questioned whether the company might be
adversely affected by attempts to reduce the federal deficit since they
largely depend on government contracts to produce military and aerospace
items.
Liza Dailey, 400 South Grant, noted she understood approximately 20% of
Sunstrand's operation dealt with defense contracts. She noted there was a
segment of the community opposed to defense contracting particularly if the
City subsidized the company. She suggested public hearings be held.
Shelley Robinson, 2944 Dean Drive, felt the City should not subsidize an
industry and questioned whether the types of jobs produced by Sunstrand
were needed in the community. She felt the corporation would not add to
the quality of life in Fort Collins.
Jim Woodward, 430 Garfield, noted he had not been able to obtain any
information on the corporation from City files. He asked Mr. Clark what
products would be manufactured at this plant and what percentage depended
on government contracts. _
John R. Deland, 400 South Grant, felt a public forum should be held on the
issue. He asked whether any toxic or radioactive materials would be used,
handled, or transported to Fort Collins. He opposed any City subsidy.
Tom Clark spoke on the economic cycles of government spending noting they
follow a typical 10-year trend. He stated this was a counter cyclical
industry in that it cycles at a different wave than the traditional con-
sumer economic cycle. He estimated 20% of Sunstrand's contracts were
military and noted Sunstrand was not engaged in the manufacture of nuclear
triggers. He noted they made a standardization package for their avionics
that would have both military and civilian application. He stated the data
from the State employment office indicated there was a demand for these
types of jobs and noted the only spent material to be utilized at the plant
would be sulphuric acid which would be, pretreated' and stabilized before
being released into the sanitary waste system for normal processing. He
noted the company's main concern was the ability to recruit skilled occu-
pations from within the Fort Collins labor force and to train them. He
noted the company would have strong minority and women hiring requirements.
-161-
March 19, 1985
Councilmember Ohlson noted he would oppose the ordinance as he did not
support, in most cases, the waiving of fees by the public entity.
The vote on Councilmember Clarke's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 39, 1985
on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada,
Horak, Knezovich, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmember Ohlson.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Appeal of the Pier PUD,
5th, Tabled to May 21
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"The 5th Amendment to the Pier PUD was denied by the Planning and Zoning
Board at their December 17, 1984 meeting. This denial was subsequently
appealed by Osprey, the developer, and scheduled for the January 15, 1985
Council meeting. At that meeting, the appeal was tabled to the February
19, 1985 meeting to give the appellant time to try to satisfy the concerns
of the Planning and Zoning Board. The appeal was tabled to this date on
February 19. At this time, the appellant has decided to pursue the appeal.
Applicants are requesting to amend the Pier PUD located on the northwest
corner of Harmony Road and Boardwalk Drive. The proposal is to revise
approximately one acre in the southwest portion of the Pier PUD. Thirty-
six (36) residential units (3 12-plex buildings) are proposed to replace
the previously approved 11,000 square foot retail building.
The proposed residential units will consist of three (3) 12-plex buildings
similar to those existing at the Pier development. They are two and one
half stories in height. Access to the residential buildings will be from
an interior parking lot system off of Boardwalk Drive, as previously
planned. Required parking for the proposed residential units has been
incorporated into the plan without changing the approved circulation
system.
The Pier PUD was originally approved in 1979 before the adoption of the
Land Development Guidance (LOGS) System. The property was approved for 235
apartment units at a density of twenty-four (24) dwelling units per
acre.
The Pier development was approved as part of the entire Landings PUD, a
mixed -use project with an overall density of six (6) dwelling units per
acre. Since that approval the plan has been amended as follows:
-162-
March 19, 1985
1) First Amendment to the Pier PUD - June 1982 - reduced the number of
residential units from 235 to 169 and added 46,000 square feet of
office/retail space and a 5,100 square foot day care center in the
southern portion of the site;
2) Second Amendment to the Pier PUD - November 1983 - replaced the
approved office/retail building with a 2,600 square foot conveni-
ence center with two gas pumps. The total number of residential
units did not change with this amendment;
3) Third Amendment to the Pier PUD - July 1984 - replaced the approved
office/retail buildings with twenty (20) residential units ( 2
10-plex buildings) and an 11,000 square foot retail building. The
total number of residential units increased to 189;
4) Fourth Amendment to the Pier PUD - November 1984 - proposal to
replace the 11,000 square foot retail building with thirty-six (36)
residential units ( 3 12-plex buildings). The total number of
residential units proposed to be increased to 225. The Amendment
request was denied by the Planning and Zoning Board on a 4-2 vote.
The Board cited the following concerns with the amendment request
as their reasons for denial:
a. Impact of Harmony Road noise on the adjacent residential units;
b. Closeness of proposed building to the existing convenience
store;
c. Appearance of building mass from Harmony Road
5) Fifth Amendment to the Pier PUD - December 1984 - proposal to
replace the 11,000 square foot retail building with thirty-six (36)
residential units ( 3 12 plex buildings). The total number of
units proposed was not changed from the requested fourth amendment,
but the following site plan modifications were proposed;
a. The distance between the two buildings along Harmony Road was
increased from 10 feet to 25 feet.
b. Landscaping along the'west side of the convenience store was
increased and changed from deciduous to evergreen plantings to
provide greater screening;
c. Deciduous plantings along Harmony Road were relocated closer to
the buildings and replaced with additional evergreen plantings
for noise attenuation and visual screening of buildings.
-163-
March 19, 1985
At the December meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board voted, 4-3, to deny ,
the Fifth Amendment to the Pier PUD. The denial was based on the Board's
opinion that the above site plan changes had not adequately addressed their
original concerns.
The applicants are now appealing the Planning and Zoning Board's denial of
the Fifth Amendment to the Pier PUD.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Pier PUD , 5th Amendment. The project is
in conformance with the criteria of the Land Development Guidance System."
Councilmember Stoner asked the record to show he did not participate in the
discussion or vote on this item.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to
table the hearing of the appeal of the Pier PUD, 5th. Yeas: Council -
members Clarke, Estrada, Horak, and Rutstein. Nays: Councilmembers
Knezovich and Ohlson. (Councilmember Stoner withdrawn)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Making an Appointment to
the Planning and Zoning Board, Adopted
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"A vacancy currently exists on the Planning and Zoning Board due to the
resignation of alternate member Randy Larsen. The board liaison has
conducted interviews for the vacancy.
The recommendation for this vacancy will be forwarded under separate
cover."
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Resolution 85-44 inserting the name of Linda Lang to fill the vacancy
for the alternate position on the Planning and Zoning Board. Yeas:
Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and
Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Appointing Councilmembers to
Various Committee Assignments, Tabled to March 21
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
-164-
March 19, 1985
"This Resolution appoints Councilmembers to various committee assignments
and to represent the City in various organizations. A list of current
assignments has been previously provided to Council.
Mayor Rutstein has elected to serve on the Board of Directors of PRPA and
no confirming action is necessary. The Airport Authority is not included in
this Resolution because Ed Stoner's term on the Authority runs until July,
1985.
Council needs to select the Councilmembers to be appointed to each of the
assignments and adopt the Resolution."
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Knezovich, to
adopt Resolution 85-45.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, tc
table Resolution 85-45 to March 21. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada,
Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Tabled to March 21
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to
table Item #17, Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 34, 1985,
Appropriating Prior Year Undesignated Reserves in the Parkland Fund for
Golden Meadows Park and Safety Surfacing and Landscaping at the Rolland
Moore Handicap Playground; Item #21, Resolution Regarding Operating Re-
strictions Imposed Upon Horsetooth Reservoir; and the City Attorney's, City
Manager's and Councilmembers' Reports to March 21. Yeas: Councilmembers
Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to
adjourn the meeting to 7:00 p.m. on March 21. Yeas: Councilmembers
Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays:
None.
The meeting adjourned at 12:20 a.m.
t� o r
TTEST:
City Clerk
-165-