HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-12/16/1986-Regular' December 16, 1986
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on
Tuesday, December 16, 1986, 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, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein,
and Stoner.
Staff Members Present: Burkett, Huisjen, Krajicek
Agenda Review: City Manaaer
City Manager Burkett requested Item #5, Second Reading of Ordinance No.
193, 1986, Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Industrial Development
Revenue Bonds, Series 1986 for the Vipont Laboratories, Inc. Project in the
Principal Amount of $3,800,000, and Item #12, Resolution 86-191 Authorizing
the City Manager to Enter into a Contract with the Humane Society of
Larimer County for Animal Control Services, be removed from the Consent
Calendar.
City Attorney Huisjen stated that the two IDRB ordinances scheduled for
second reading (Opera House and Vipont) had been revised to add an
emergency ordinance clause so that the ordinances are effective immediately
upon adoption on second reading. He stated it was necessary to add that
clause so that the bonds could be closed prior to December 26. He noted
that Ordinance No. 196 concerning the Opera House project had several
amendments and that those amendments were being read in an adjacent room.
Councilmember Estrada asked that Item #13, Resolution 86-195 Authorizing
the City Manager to Contract with Architectural Energy Corporation in the
Amount of $40,000 for the Technical Development of a Residential Energy
Rating System, be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda.
Councilmember Horak requested Item #11, Items Relating to a Hazardous Waste
Management Plan, be removed from the Consent Calendar.
Consent Calendar
This Calendar is intended to allow the City. Council to spend its time and
energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends
approval of the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this
calendar be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately.
' Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be considered separately
-255-
December 16, 1986
under Agenda Items #19 and #31, 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 discussed immediately following the Consent Calendar.
4.
5.
RE
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on
December 4, allows the issuance of Industrial Development Revenue
Bonds for the Vipont Laboratories Project in the amount of $3,800,000.
The project is located in the Prospect Park East P.U.D., Lots 5, 6,
and 7. The bond proceeds will be used to acquire and construct a
50,000 square foot office, distribution and light manufacturing
building. The facility will be constructed for lease to and occupancy
by Vipont Laboratories, Inc., a local manufacturer of products for the
treatment of oral health.
The developer of The Meadows at Redwood Replat, Phase I, is requesting
vacation of the existing easement on all open space in the P.U.D., and
dedicating an 8 foot utility easement adjacent to the City
right-of-way along both sides of all streets.
On December 4, this Ordinance vacating those easements was unanimously
adopted on First Reading and a motion accepting the dedication of
replacement easements unanimously carried.
All utilities have been contacted and have no problems with the
vacation and dedication.
Second Reading of Ordinance No 195 1986 Adopting the 1987 Pay Plan
Each year the City Council adopts the pay plan' -which sets the salaries
of City employees. This plan is designed to meet the Council's goal
of rewarding employee performance and remaining competitive in the
labor market. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First
Reading on December 4, adopts the 1987 Pay Plan.
-256-
December 16, 1986
1
A
a
This ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on
December 4, creates a residential fire sprinkler program based on a
code equivalency -incentive implementation strategy by including a new
chapter in the Uniform Building Code and two new appendices in the
Uniform Fire Code. This ordinance does not mandate new requirements
but creates a new design standard for residential sprinkler systems
and two sets of alternative design criteria for residential buildings
equipped with residential sprinkler systems. With only one minor
modification, these are the same amendments recommended by staff for
adoption with the 1985 Editions of the Uniform Building and Fire
Codes.
R. P. Plaza, Ltd, owners and developers of the Robinson Piersal Plaza,
are requesting the vacation of the alley in Block 124 of the City to
conform with the needs of the approved P.U.D.
The affected utilities have no objection to the proposed vacation.
The existing alley still has a sewer line, a gas line and telephone
poles located within it. The developer has agreed by letter with each
affected utility company to bear the costs of removal and, where
necessary, relocation of the facilities. However, for Mountain Bell
and Public Service Company, the agreement is not final until they
receive payment in advance of their work. In order to assist the
developer with his project schedule, we recommend adoption of this
Ordinance on First Reading. Final release from the utilities must be
received prior to Second Reading scheduled for January 6, 1987.
10. Items Relating to the Linden Hotel Project
A. Resolution 86-193 Approving DDA Financial Participation in the
Linden Hotel Redevelopment Project.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 207, 1986, Approving
the Reimbursement Contract between the DDA, City, and the
Developer Funding Certain Public Improvements.
The DDA Board in a unanimous vote approved Resolution 86-14 expressing
an intent to participate in the Linden Hotel Redevelopment project at
a regularly scheduled Board meeting, July 10, 1986.
Restoration of the Linden Hotel will bring a new use into Old Town
Fort Collins. Planned as a boutique style hotel similar to the
Boulderado, renovation of this national historic structure should
significantly contribute to the economic and physical vitality of
downtown Fort Collins.
-257-
December 16, 1986
11. Items Relating to a Hazardous Waste Management Plan '
A. Resolution 86-194 Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into an Agreement
with Larimer County and the City of Loveland to Prepare a
Hazardous Waste Management Plan for Larimer County.
12.
13.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 208, 1986,
Appropriating $27,600 of Economic Development Funds to Pay 3/4 of
Fort Collins' Share of the Project.
Recognizing the need of businesses and households for assistance to
safely and lawfully dispose of hazardous wastes, Larimer County and
the Cities of Loveland and Fort Collins propose a study of hazardous
waste management alternatives for Larimer County. Larimer County
staff will have the lead role in the one-year, $80,000 project, with
funding contributed by each in proportion to population (Larimer
County - 34%, Loveland - 20%, Fort Collins - 46%). In addition to
reviewing the technology and management options for a county -wide
Hazardous Waste Management Plan, the project includes educational and
outreach programs to assist small businesses and households.
The City of Fort Collins has contracted with the Humane Society for '
Larimer County for animal control services since 1981. This year's
contract is for a continuation of that service. The contract provides
for both animal control enforcement and shelter care.
The contract totals $135,672. Of this total, $97,672 is allotted for
enforcement and the remaining $38,000 is for shelter care.
The objective of the rating system is to make use of marketplace
incentives to gradually increase the energy efficiency of the Fort
Collins housing stock. It will provide a standardized means to
measure the relative energy efficiency'of the home, analogous to the
EPA "miles per gallon" ratings for automobiles.
To meet its objective, the rating system must be technically valid and
designed with a multitude of users in mind. To accomplish this,
technical and marketing consultants have been chosen via a competitive
bidding process. The total project budget as proposed is $55,000,
broken down as follows: Technical development - $40,000 by
Architectural Energy Corp.; marketing development - $10,000 (to be '
done concurrently with technical development) by Infinite Energy; and
$5,000 for implementation. The Light and Power Utility will fund the
-258-
December 16, 1986
' project and ha
14.
Transfort.
s
acceptance
to authorize
budgets. The system
in the marketplace.
the Infinite Energy
Transfort is seeking a grant in the amount of $412,747 from Section 9
of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended, to provide
operating assistance for Calendar Year 1987 for Transfort and
Care -A -Van; capital purchase of two bus passenger shelters, including
freight and installation charges, and planning assistance for a Task
Force to study transportation needs and options for Larimer County.
15.
Water Treatment Plant #2 needs six (6) Chemical feed pumps. These
pumps are used to accurately add chemicals to raw water to ensure
water quality standards are met. It has been determined that
Pulsafeeder pumps meet our standards for performance, reliability and
interchangeability. The six (6) pumps will cost a total of $26,620.
16. Resolution 86-198 Setting Forth the Intent of the City of Fort Collins
to Annex Certain Areas to the City.
Six properties are included in this resolution of intent to annex.
Following adoption of this resolution and appropriate notification of
affected property owners, the annexation requests, along with zoning
requests, will be considered on first reading at the January 20, 1987,
Council meeting. The six properties include:
East Vine Drive 9th Annexation: 5.00 acres
2400 East Vine Drive
West Laporte Avenue 5th Annexation: .271 acres
2444 Laporte Avenue
West Laporte Avenue 6th Annexation: 1.866 acres
2314 Laporte Avenue
2316 Laporte Avenue
2224 Laporte Avenue
4. West Laporte Avenue 7th Annexation: .897 acres
2318 Laporte Avenue
' S. Hansen Annexation: .373 acres
1944 Laporte Avenue
-259-
December 16, 1986
6. Lake Sherwood Annexation: 40.04 acres
17. Request fnr an nff_
The applicant is requesting approval of a waiver to the requirements
for off -site street improvements for a seven lot subdivision on 3.87
acres. The project is located on the east side of Gregory Road,
adjacent to Long Pond, approximately 1/4 mile north of Country Club
Road, northeast of Fort Collins. Staff feels that granting the waiver
is warranted from the standpoint that the existing roadway currently
serves the traffic needs of a number of other subdivisions in the
area, and the impact from the proposed subdivision would contribute
only a small portion to the overall use of Gregory Road and Country
Club Road. The proposed development exemplifies the type of in -fill
development which the waiver process was created to accommodate.
18. Routine Easements.
a. Deed of Easement from Steven Paul Hubert to install underground
electric services at 605 South Mason. Consideration: $1.
b. Deed of Easement from Anita D. Wright to install underground
electric services at 332 Edwards Street. Consideration: $1.
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #5.
Item #6.
Item #7
Item #8.
Second Reading of Ordinance No 195 1986 Adopting the 1987 Pav
Plan.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #9.
-260-
December 16, 1986
IItem #10. B.
Item #11. B.
Councilmember Estrada made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Liebler, to
adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas:
Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and
Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to a
Hazardous Waste Management Plan
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
A. Resolution 86-194 Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into an Agreement with
' Larimer County and the City of Loveland to Prepare a Hazardous Waste
Management Plan for Larimer County.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 208, 1986, Appropriating
$27,6OO of Economic Development Funds to Pay 314 of Fort Collins' Share
of the Project.
Recognizing the need of businesses and households for assistance to safely
and lawfully dispose of hazardous wastes, Larimer County and the Cities of
Loveland and Fort Collins propose a study of hazardous waste management
alternatives for Larimer County. Larimer County staff will have the lead
role in the one-year, $80,000 project, with funding contributed by each in
proportion to population (Larimer County - 34%, Loveland - 20%, Fort
Collins - 46%). In addition to reviewing the technology and management
options for a county -wide Hazardous Waste Management Plan, the project
includes educational and outreach programs to assist small businesses and
households.
Background
Larimer County staff has proposed a Letter'of Agreement'setting forth the
funding commitments and work plan for the Hazardous Waste Management Plan
project and naming a steering committee (the Larimer County Hazardous Waste
Committee). The Resolution authorizes the Mayor to sign the Agreement.
I
The Economic Development Task Force investigated economic development
issues important to the Fort Collins citizens. Their report notes
-261-
December 16, 1986
particular concern for environmental issues. The proper handling,
transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials were considered to be
crucial for business development and environmental protection. The
recommendations made by the Task Force note the need for a hazardous waste
transfer facility and recommended funds be used to explore the best method
of developing such a facility and research the issues such as liability
insurance, Iocational criteria on a county -wide basis. $20,000 to $40,000
from the Economic Development Account was suggested as appropriate for this
project, and the funding was noted in the Economic Development Work plan
presented to the City Council October 14, 1986. While Council's discussion
centered on other issues of the plan, there was no opposition to the
project or funding.
The Ordinance appropriates $27,600, or 75% of the City's share from the
Economic Development account. The balance of the City's share, $9,200,
will come from funds already appropriated by the Water and Sewer Division.
Water and Sewer anticipates that proper collection of hazardous waste may
prevent these wastes from reaching wastewater treatment facilities."
Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada,
to adopt Resolution 86-194.
Councilmember Horak expressed concern about implementing an element of an
economic development plan that has never been adopted. He suggested this
item be delayed until the economic development plan is considered in
January or February.
Councilmember Rutstein stated she felt the economic development plan was
presented in the same manner as the report by the Task Force on Women's
Issues. She indicated she thought the process involved accepting the plan,
and then implementing individual pieces of the plan.
Councilmember Estrada agreed with Councilmember Rutstein's point, but
indicated he would like to have the economic development plan brought
before Council as soon as possible.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated she also felt it important to have the
entire plan discussed, but indicated that due to the cooperative nature of
this item she did not feel it should be delayed.
Councilmember Horak stated he did not feel a comparison between the report
of the Task Force on Women's Issues and•.the economic development report was
appropriate. He stated the economic• development contained specific
recommendations with funding proposals attached to each recommendation, and
the Task Force on Women's Issues report was very broad with many
recommendations.
Mayor Ohlson stated he supported this item, noting he felt due to the
cooperative nature of the item Council should move ahead. He expressed
concern with the funding split for this project.
1
IN-M
December 16, 1986
The vote on Councilmember Kirkpatrick's motion to adopt Resolution 86-194
was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick,
Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Liebler, to
adopt Ordinance No. 208, 1986 on First Reading.
Councilmember Horak also expressed concern about the funding split and
stated he felt there should be some recognition by the County of their
responsibility to the people living within the urban areas who pay County
taxes.
Director of Natural Resources Roger Krempel addressed how the City/County
split was determined. He stated the split is identical to the one used for
the household hazardous waste collection day. He indicated the City was
the lead on that project and that the project being considered now is
similar in that respect.
Frank Lancaster, Director of Larimer County Natural Resources Department,
stated the funding split proposal came from City staff. He stated the
Commissioners were comfortable with the split.
' Councilmember Estrada stated he would support the project under
consideration at this time, but would like to see more equitable funding
splits in the future.
Mayor Ohlson stated he felt this was an important project and indicated he
looks forward to working with the.County on this issue.
The vote on Councilmember Rutstein's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 208,
1986 on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada,
Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays:, None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 86-191 Authorizing the City
Manager to Enter into a Contract with
the Humane Society of Larimer County
for Animal Control Services Adopted
Following is staff's memorand'um'on this item:
"Executive Summary
The City of Fort Collins has contracted with the Humane Society for Larimer
' County for animal control services since 1981. This year's contract is for
a continuation of that service. The contract provides for both animal
control enforcement and shelter care.
-263-
December 16, 1986
The contract totals $135,672. Of this total, $97,672 is allotted for
enforcement and the remaining $38,000 is for shelter care.
Background
As was discussed in the September budget work sessions, the 1987 contract
has been reduced from the 1986 amount. The contract has been reduced from
the 1986 amount by $27,041.08. This reduction resulted from a decrease in
animal control enforcement coverage. Specifically, one and one half
positions have been eliminated. The result is loss of overlap coverage,
Monday -Friday, 10:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. and seasonal park and trail patrol
May -September, Monday -Friday, 1:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. and Saturday and
Sunday, 11:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.
The one FTE providing overlap coverage amounts to approximately $12,563.
The seasonal park and trail patrol position costs approximately $5,045.
The remaining amount (approximately $9,433) results from line item
reductions identified by the Humane Society during their 1987 Budget
process.
During the budget discussions, it was decided that the decision to add the
above reductions back into the 1987 service delivery contract would be
addressed at a later date when we had a better feeling of our financial
position.
For informational purposes, Humane Society statistics for the first three
quarters of 1986 are presented below.
Cases assisted
52
Animal bites
122
Cases initiated
1675
Wildlife calls
371
Cases assigned
4580
Welfare checks
185
Dogs impounded
1109
Dog at large summons
627
Cats impounded
427
No tag summons
788
Dogs released
1062
Other summons
109
Cats released
12
Warning summons
183
Others released
22
People contacted
7557
Injured/sick
94
Livestock worked
68
Dead animals
385
Average response times, in minutes, by call type:
Injured animal (hit by car)
15
Barking dog `.
30
Animal bite
36
Dead animals
61
In custody
28
Wildlife
34
Dog -at -large
23
Welfare checks
29"
Councilmember Rutstein made
a
motion, seconded
by Councilmember
Kirkpatrick, to adopt Resolution
86-191.
-264-
December 16, 1986
City Manager Burkett and Police Chief Bruce Glasscock responded to
questions from Council about the reductions in the budget, the services the
City receives from the Humane Society, and the records kept on animal
control calls.
Jim Brozo, Executive Director of the Humane Society, stated he felt the
partnership between the City and the Humane Society was a good one, and
indicated the City was receiving an extraordinary bargain in terms of the
value for dollar. He urged the Council to approve the agreement.
Councilmember Horak stated he had a problem with the level of funding for
the services being received. He specifically addressed the issue of dogs
running loose on the trails and in the parks.
The vote on Councilmember Rutstein's motion to adopt Resolution 86-191 was
as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson,
Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmember Horak.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 86-195 Authorizing the City
Manager to Contract with Architectural
Energy Corporation in the Amount of
$40,000 for the Technical Development of a
Residential Energy Rating System Adopted
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
The objective of the rating system is to make use of marketplace incentives
to gradually increase the energy efficiency of the Fort Collins housing
stock. It will provide a standardized means to measure the relative energy
efficiency of the home, analogous to the EPA "miles per gallon" ratings for
automobiles.
To meet its objective, the rating system must be technically valid and
designed with a multitude of users in mind. To accomplish this, technical
and marketing consultants have been chosen via a competitive bidding
process. The total project budget as proposed is $55,000, broken down as
follows: Technical development - $40,000 by Architectural Energy Corp.;
marketing development - $10,000 (to be done concurrently with technical
development) by Infinite Energy; and $5,000 for implementation. The Light
and Power Utility will fund the project and has funds available in the
198611987 budgets. The system will be self-supporting following acceptance
in the marketplace. (Note:' Council action is not required to authorize the
Infinite Energy contract as it is underl$20,000.)
-265-
December 16, 1986
Background '
In response to the Request for Proposals issued by the City's Purchasing
Department, nine technical and six marketing proposals were submitted to
the City. The final selection was done using the City's standard
consultant selection process.
Conceptual development of a Residential Energy Rating System for the Fort
Collins community began in the fall of 1984, and was included in the July,
1986 CHOICE Committee Recommendations Report. The final recommendation was
developed as a cooperative effort of the CHOICE Committee, a citizen's ad
hoc committee, and the Light and Power staff. Excerpts from the CHOICE
Committee Recommendation Report dealing with the rating system and a letter
of endorsement for this project to the City Council from the CHOICE
Committee are attached for your reference.
During the development of the rating system recommendation, contact was
made with the Colorado Office of Energy Conservation (OEC) and other local
parties with an interest or potential interest in joint participation in
this program. This option was presented to the ad hoc committee for
consideration. After evaluating potential benefits and liabilities of this
approach, the committee concluded that the viability of a rating program
would be very dependent upon its sensitivity to local needs and
marketplace. Therefore, the recommendation to proceed on a strictly local
basis was given.
Subsequent to the final CHOICE recommendation, the OEC received a grant of
$960,000 from the Exxon
'
oil overcharge settlement to examine rating systems
on a statewide basis. Light and Power staff met with the CHOICE Committee
to re-examine the option of participating with the OEC in rating system
development. The following pros and cons were discussed and the committee
re -affirmed their original recommendation to proceed with the development
of a localized system. Further, it was suggested that following
development of the Fort Collins system, a request be made for funds from
the OEC to enhance the implementation phase of the program.
OPTIONS DISCUSSED:
Develop independent localized rating system.
Pros:
* A customized local program, developed with affected party input, has
a stronger chance of acceptance and utilization.
* Would allow coordination with the City Planning Staff for integration
into the Land Development Guidance System.
* A realistic development timetable for a local program is 6 to 8
months compared with up to 3 years for the state -'program. '
-266-
0
December 16, 1986
* State OEC has expressed strong support for the development of the
Fort Collins system and wi11 be receptive to requests for
implementation funding.
Cons:
* Does not guarantee compatibility with statewide program or rating
system.
* Limited local budget ($55,000) compared to State OEC Exxon grant
resources ($960,000).
* Local program could be overshadowed by major statewide media "blitz"
if compatibility does not exist.
2. Coordinate development of Fort Collins system with the statewide
system.
Pros:
* As part of a joint effort, greater resources would be available both
in funding and staffing.
* If uniform statewide rating system is developed, this approach would
assure compatibility of the local program.
* Budgeted Utility funds could be utilized to adapt and implement state
system on local basis.
* Statewide advertising and acceptance could carry over into the local
marketplace.
Cons:
* Standards developed for statewide acceptance may be too generalized
and/or liberal to meet the expectations of the local marketplace.
* Fort Collins' program would be dependent upon the success of the
state wide program.
* An implementation delay of up to three years could be expected.
* State OEC has strongly supported the independent development of a
local system and hopes to integrate the proven (by then) Fort Collins
"calculational" approach into the statewide system."
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Liebler, to
adopt Resolution 86-195.
PWA
December 16, 1986
Special Projects Engineer Dennis Sumner described the project and gave a
breakdown of the costs involved with the He the Residential
'
project. noted
Energy Rating System is a voluntary program. He answered questions from
Council about the project.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, pointed out that energy efficiency
can be determined by studying past utility
bills for a residence. He
objected to funding coming from the Light and Power Fund since gas is the
main heating fuel. He suggested Public Service Company should assist in
the funding for this project. He stated he felt excess funds in the Light
and Power fund should be returned to the ratepayers rather than be used for
projects of this type. Mr. Lockhart suggested the City inspect its own
facilities for energy conservation, citing the lighting at the EPIC Center
parking lot.
Philip Friedman, Chairman of the CHOICE Advisory Committee, noted the
committee was looking into energy strategies. He stated the energy rating
system was determined to be a way for the City to provide leadership in
improving energy efficiency within the community. He indicated the main
goal of the energy rating system is to provide a forum of comparison for
citizens in making choices on housing stock.
Dan Keating, CHOICE Advisory Committee Member and Chair of the Ad Hoc
Committee on this project, pointed out that this is a long-term program
that will not be fully achieved for three to five years. He stated the
goal is to get homeowners to upgrade their energy packages. He stated the
ad hoc committee felt the City needs to be on the leading edge of this
'
program. Mr. Keating answered questions from Council about the ad hoc
committee's work on this proposal.
George Betz, 1101 Kirkwood Drive, expressed concern with the program. He
stated he was concerned that although the program might start out as
voluntary, it may end up being a mandatory program. He stated he felt
energy efficiency should be left to the private sector.
Councilmember Estrada thanked the Committee and staff for their work on
this issue. He stated that although he feels the majority of the citizens
in Fort Collins want energy efficiency, he does not feel the program is
well -planned at this stage and could not support the Resolution.
Councilmember Stoner stated, based on the information presented tonight he
would vote against this item.
Councilmember Rutstein pointed out the issue at this point is the
development of the system. She stated she felt the system could be
beneficial to the community in making energy efficiency more understandable
to the consumer.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated she would support the Resolution, noting
she felt the energy rating would be more accurate than using utility
records as a measure of energy efficiency.
'
-268-
December 16, 1986
' Councilmember Liebler supported the program, stating the strength of the
system is the fact that it is an incentive program that uses the natural
forces of the marketplace.
Mayor Ohlson stated he liked the voluntary aspect of the program and
strongly supported the program.
The vote on Councilmember Rutstein's motion to adopt Resolution 86-195 was
as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, and
Rutstein. Nays: Councilmembers Estrada and Stoner.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
a.
Citizen Participation
was forwarded to the appropriate persons.
b. Police Chief Bruce Glasscock gave recognition to the Fort Collins
Police Reserve Unit for their contributions to the community. He noted
that the time commitment and continuing training need.has reached a
point that the program cannot be continued.
Mayor Ohlson presented plaques to the members of the Reserve Unit
present.
Dan Keating, 3243 Grovewood Drive, advised Council of another program being
offered by the Light and Power Department in January to allow the public to
infrared scan their homes. He indicated they would be contacting the
Housing Authority to make arrangements to scan their units.
Items Relating to the Mill First
and Mill Second Annexations
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 209, 1986, Annexing
Approximately 1.88 Acres, Known as the Mill First Annexation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 210, 1986, Zoning
Approximately 1.88 Acres, Known as the -Mill First Annexation, into the
B-P, Planned Business, Zoning'District.'
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 211, 1986, Annexing
Approximately 2.13 Acres, Known as the Mill Second Annexation.
-269-
December 16, 1986
D. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 212, 1986, Zoning '
Approximately 2.13 Acres, Known as the Mill Second Annexation, into the
B-P, Planned Business, Zoning District.
This is a request to annex and zone a total of approximately 4.01 acres
located west of S. College Avenue, south of Harmony Road, and north of the
Cameron Business Park, and place the property into the B-P zoning district
with a condition that all development be processed as part of a PUD.
Background
The applicants, Eddie and Mary Ann Mill of Ault, CO, are requesting
annexation of a total of approximately 4.01 acres, located west of South
College Avenue, south of Harmony Road, and immediately north of the Cameron
Business Park. This is a voluntary annexation. The property is presently
the site of Mill Brothers Landscape & Nursery, Inc.
During the summer of 1985, the property owners wanted to move the office
the existing business from within a house on the site to a new building.
According to County zoning regulations, such a move was not possible within
the existing zoning district and would, thus, only possible if the property
were rezoned. According to the INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE FORT
COLLINS URBAN GROWTH AREA between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer
County, the County has agreed not to rezone any property which was eligible
for voluntary annexation into the city. The County thus referred the '
applicants to the City.
City staff met with the property owners and County staff to discuss the
proposed move of the business's office. According to City regulations,
such a move would require a planned unit development, a relatively more
costly and time consuming process than the County's process. Given the
minor nature of the requested change a compromise was reached between the
property owners and the City and County staffs. The elements of the
compromise were:
1. The owners would petition for annexation of the property into the
city but, City staff would delay processing the application to the
City Council until the owners were able to obtain the necessary
building permits from the County for the office move.
2. The owners would petition the County for rezoning and/or variances
necessary to move the office location.
3. The County would grant the rezoning and/or variances necessary to
move the office location on the condition the property owners
agreed to annex the property into the city.
The annexation petitions for the Mill First and Mill Second Annexations
were reviewed by the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board on October 28, I
1985. At that meeting the Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the
annexation and B-P zoning requests.
-270-
December 16, 1986
On December 27, 1985, City staff, under the impression that all County
processes had been completed, sent a letter to the property owners
informing them that the Fort Collins City Council would consider the
ordinances annexing their property on January 21, 1986.
On January 9, 1986, City staff received a letter (dated January 7, 1986)
from the property owners requesting a tabling until August 1986 of the
annexation ordinances because they had been unable to finalize building
plans and thus had not obtained County building permits. Staff agreed to
give the property owners more time to complete their building plans.
On October 23, 1986, City staff again contacted the property owners
informing them the ordinances annexing their property would be considered
by the City Council on November 18, 1986.
On October 28, 1986, City staff received a letter (dated October 24, 1986)
from the property owners stating their desire to withdraw their annexation
petitions indicating the plans for development of the property had changed.
On November 12, 1986, City staff contacted the property owners and informed
them that according to Colorado law (CRS 31-12-107) a petition for
annexation cannot be withdrawn after being submitted to a municipality.
Staff also indicated the ordinances annexing the property would be heard by
the Council on a new date, December 16, 1986.
On November 14, 1986, County staff forwarded to City staff a letter from
the property owners outlining their desire to complete the building process
in the County and then annex into the city as initially indicated in the
compromise reached in 1985.
A copy of all correspondence discussed above is attached to this Agenda
Item Summary.
Staff feels the property owners have had sufficient time to fulfill their
building plans and obtain their County building permits. The annexation
petition is over one year old and staff feels the Council should complete
action on the petition.
The property is located within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area.
According to policies and agreements between the City and Larimer County
contained in the INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE FORT COLLINS URBAN
GROWTH AREA, the City will annex property in the UGA when the property is
eligible for annexation. The Mill First Annexation gains the required 116
contiguity to existing city limits from.a common boundary with the Fairway
Estates Business Annexation and the Fossil Creek First Annexation to the
east. The Mill Second Annexation gains its required contiguity from the
Mill First Annexation.
' Staff has reviewed the B-P zoning request and feels the request is
supported by the City's Comprehensive Plan. The property is presently in a
commercial use and the property owners intend on continuing the use after
-271-
December 16, 1986
annexation. The B-P zone is designated for areas to provide business
service uses. Uses likely to develop on this site will be similar to uses
existing in the Cameron Business Park directly to the south. Commercial
development is only allowed in the B-P zone as part of a planned unit
development (PUD), which means any proposed redevelopment of the property
will be reviewed against the criteria of the LAND DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE
SYSTEM.
It has been the practice of the City to place a PUD condition on the zoning
of all property annexed into the city, except properties which request low
density residential zoning (i.e., the R-F, R-E, R-L, or R-L-P zones). The
existing landscaping business will become a legal non -conforming use when
the property is annexed and zoned by the City because the use was not
approved as part of a PUD. The applicants are aware of the implications of
the zoning condition.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the annexation and B-P zoning with a PUD
condition.
The implications of annexing and zoning this property to the property
owners are as follows:
If the property owners cannot complete their building process in the
County prior to annexation, any building changes would have to be
processed either as a PUD or an expansion to a non -conforming use,
depending on the nature of the proposal.
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation
The Planning and Zoning Board, at their regular meeting on October 28,
1985, voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the annexation and recommend
approval of the B-P zone with a PUD condition.,,
Chief Planner Ken Waido gave a brief overview of the item.
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Ordinance No. 209, 1986 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Ordinance No. 210, 1986 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
1
-272-
December 16, 1986
Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Liebler,
to adopt Ordinance No. 211, 1986 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Liebler,
to adopt Ordinance No. 212, 1986 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 196, 1986, Authorizing the
Issuance and Sale of Industrial Development
Revenue Bonds, Series 1986 for the
Historical Opera House Properties, Ltd. in
the Principal Amount of $5,800,000, Adopted
on Second Reading as an Emergency Ordinance
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"This Ordinance, adopted by a 6-1 vote on First Reading, authorizes the
issuance and sale of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for the
Historical Opera House Properties, Ltd. in the amount of $5,800,000. The
project is located at 117 - 149 112 North College Avenue. The proceeds of
the bonds will be used to acquire, renovate and construct three commercial
buildings located in the downtown business district of the City.
The Ordinance is being amended on Second Reading to insert the interest
rate and to make any technical changes recommended by Bond Counsel. Staff
and bond counsel will make a presentation of the changes during Second
Reading of the item."
Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember
Rutstein, to adopt Ordinance No. 196, 1986 as an Emergency Ordinance as
amended on Second Reading.
Financial Policy Analyst Pam Currey reviewed the item, noting the City has
received and reviewed the documents pertaining to this item and has found
them acceptable. She stated, staff is therefore recommending adoption of
the item as amended on Second Reading. She introduced Bond Counsel Loring
Harkness.
Loring Harkness, bond counsel with Ballard, Spahr, Andrews and Ingersoll,
described the amendments made to the Ordinance prior to Second Reading. He
emphasized the City has no liability with this issue and explained the
' terms of the letter of credit involved with this issue.
-273-
December 16, 1986
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, questioned why certain documents ,
were not available for public inspection prior to December 16.
Loring Harkness replied that the number and type of documents required to
secure the transaction have changed since First Reading of the Ordinance.
He indicated that the documents referred to in the amended Ordinance are on
file in the Clerk's Office and have been reviewed by City staff and are
available for public inspection.
Mr. Lockhart questioned the legality of the timing of the preparation of
the documents involved. He stated he felt the magnitude of the changes in
the documents may well constitute an emergency ordinance. He stated he saw
no good reason to issue this IDRB. Mr. Lockhart objected to the
displacement of the Bennett Hotel residents and elimination of other single
room occupancy housing in the downtown area.
Dick Beardmore, A-E Design Associates, disagreed with Mr. Lockhart's
comments relating to the elimination of single room occupancy in the
downtown. He commented on efforts being made to replace single room units.
City Attorney Huisjen responded to Mr. Lockhart's comment regarding the
possible emergency nature of the Ordinance. He stated the Ordinance has
been amended to add language that clearly makes it an Emergency Ordinance.
He noted that language has been added so that the Ordinance will become
effective immediately so that the bonds may be closed prior to December 23
when the State cap expires. '
Councilmember Estrada stated he felt Mr. Lockhart's comments relating to
the Council's stand on low-income housing were inaccurate. He stated he
felt housing in the downtown is being improved and this project will help
in that respect and will help rejuvenate the entire downtown area.
Councilmember Liebler restated her reasons for voting against the Opera
House project. She stated she did not feel there was an adequate balance
between the amount of tax incentive and public benefit to be realized from
the project.
Councilmember Rutstein stated she felt the issuance of IDRB's was
preferable to undertaking a massive urban renewal project as has been done
in other cities.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated although she was not pleased with.the need
to rush this item, she understood its necessity due to the sunseting of the
IDRB's at the end of the year and would support the Ordinance due to the
overall positive impact of the project.
Mayor Ohlson responded to comments made by Mr. Lockhart. He spoke of
Council's commitment to improving the quality of life for low and
moderate -income individuals.
The vote on Councilmember Kirkpatrick's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 196, '
1986 as an Emergency Ordinance as amended on Second Reading was as follows:
-274-
December 16, 1986
1
Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Ohlson, Rutstein, and
Stoner. Nays: Councilmember Liebler.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 213, 1986, Authorizing the City
Manager to Enter into a Contract with Downtown
Development Authority and Historic Opera
House Properties Ltd.. Adopted on First Reading
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
City Council passed Resolution 86-73 on April 15, 1986 approving the
incorporation of the Opera House Block Project into the DDA's Plan of
Development.
The DDA has approved the contract agreement and has recommended approval by
City Council. The DDA would be obligated to reimburse to the developer a
maximum of $403,945 for the cost of public improvements, fees, and certain
expenses associated with the relocation of the Bennett Hotel residents.
Background
The Opera House Block project consists of 28,784 square feet of net
rentable office space, 13,000 square feet of which will be "gold suite"
type space. The project has 225 linear feet of frontage along the west
side of North College Avenue.
The developers of the Opera House Block Project have requested Downtown
Development Authority financial participation for $403,945 in public
improvements associated with the project. The DDA Board of Directors voted
unanimously to participate in this project at a regularly scheduled board
meeting on January 23, 1986 by and confirmed that vote with the passage of
Resolution 86-5, March 27, 1986. This resolution approves participation in
the project, subject to a number of contingencies. The project is expected
to generate almost $500,000 in supportable tax increment.
USE OF DDA FUNDS:
Alley Improvements
College Avenue Improvements
Public improvement fees
Interest carry on cost of public
improvements
Bennett Relocation
Contingency
$95,000
85,000
107,000
88,945*
5,000
22,800
Total $403,945
IFAVAM
December 16, 1986
*Interest fees on the cost of borrowing money to pay for public
improvements is a maximum figure and assumes that the entire
amount borrowed is spent of the first day of construction, must
pay 12.5% interest, and is not retired until permanent financing
is obtained.
COMPUTATION OF TAX INCREMENT AND SUPPORTABLE DEBT:
Value of Completed Project $5,406,400
Less Existing Value _ (1,116,395)
Value Generating the Tax Increment $4,290,005
Tax Increment
($4,209,005 x .569 x .29 x .111863) 79,187
Supportable Debt (9.5%, 15 years) 619,896
The contract agreement is similar to the agreement on Robinson Piersal
Plaza with the following exceptions:
1. The tax increment on the project must be certified by July
31, 1988. This insures that bonds for this project can be
issued as part of the Robinson Piersal issuance.
2. Developer must reimburse the City/DDA for any shortfall in
debt service obligations based upon the amount of tax
increment used on the project. This project used 65% of the
annual increment generated. If the total tax increment is
reduced, regardless of the reason, the developer must make up
the difference between 65% of the original tax increment and
65% of the reduced tax increment."
Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember
Rutstein, to adopt Ordinance No. 213, 1986 on First Reading.
DDA Executive Director Chip Steiner answered questions from Council.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick spoke of the review time spent prior to formal
consideration of the Opera House project. She reemphasized her feelings
about the benefit to the downtown area.
The vote on Councilmember Kirkpatrick's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 213,
1986 on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada,
Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 86-199 Making an Appointment to the
Human Relations Commission: Tabled to January 6
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
-276-
December 16, 1986
' "A vacancy currently exists on the Human Relations Commission due to the
resignation of Ernest Chavez. The individual Council liaison has reviewed
the applications on file and will announce the recommendation at the
December 16 Council meeting.
In keeping with Council's policy, this Resolution will be tabled until
January 6, 1987, to allow for public input."
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Resolution 86-199 inserting the name of Chuck Griffin.
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
table Resolution 86-199 to January 6, 1987 to allow for public input.
Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson,
Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
City Manager's Report
City Manager Burkett reported on the City's food drive effort to benefit
the Food Distribution Center which had resulted in the collection of 3,514
pounds of food. He thanked employees for their participation in the food
drive and recognized Shirley Herzog of the Light and Power Department for
her organization of the drive.
City Manager Burkett then introduced Mike Davis, the newly -hired
Development Services Director.
Councilmembers' Reports
Councilmember Kirkpatrick spoke about the Linden Hotel project which was
approved as part of the Consent Calendar and linked the success of the
Linden Hotel project with the hotel -convention bureau. She commented on
recent communication problems between the Council and the Cultural
Resources Board and spoke of efforts being made by Communications and
Public Affairs Manager Johnie Pearson to improve communications with all
boards and commissions.
Councilmember Rutstein reported on the $25,000 grant received by Platte
River Power Authority for the study of photovoltaic electric generation in
Colorado.
Councilmember Horak reported on a neighborhood meeting in the Andersonville
area and the discussions of diverting north Lemay around the -'neighborhood.
277-
December 16, 1986
Mayor Ohlson praised staff
storm. He raised the issue
for the sanding done
of speeding on City
during the recent snow
streets and
'
expressed a
desire to investigate ways
to increase community
awareness and increase
self -enforcement, especially
in school zones and at
red lights.
Items Relating to the Settlement
Agreement between Water Supply and
Storage Company and the City of Thornton
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
A. Resolution 86-204 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an
Agreement with Water Supply and Storage Company.
B. Resolution 86-205 Authorizing the Mayor to Sign a Memorandum of
Understanding with WSSC and the City of Thornton.
C. Resolution 86-206 Authorizing Staff to Vote the City's WSSC Shares in
Favor of the WSSC/Thornton Settlement Agreement.
A special meeting of the Water Supply and Storage Company (WSSC)
shareholders has been called for December 19 in order for shareholders to
vote to ratify or reject a settlement agreement between WSSC and the City '
of Thornton. That agreement contains water quality provisions of concern
to the City. The resolutions authorize an agreement between WSSC and Fort
Collins and a Memorandum of Understanding among the three parties which
alleviate the water quality concerns. A resolution authorizes staff to
vote in favor of the settlement agreement if those two documents are signed
by the appropriate parties.
Background
A special meeting of the WSSC shareholders has. been called on December 19
in order for them to ratify or reject a proposed settlement agreement
between WSSC and the City of Thornton. The agreement would resolve
differences that resulted from Thornton's purchase of 47Y of WSSC's stock
and from the lawsuit in regard to 300 additional shares that were issued by
the Company. The proposed agreement describes the background of the
dispute, allows Thornton to use its water and to seek first use agreements
with shareholders, provides for local control of the Company, and sets
water quality standards for waters returned to the system under the first
use agreements. Ratification of the agreement requires affirmative votes
of two-thirds of the shareholders who attend the meeting or send proxies.
Fort Collins has 17.9 shares to vote.
Attachment A prepared by WSSC iegal counsel, Fisher, Brown, Huddleson, and
Gunn, summarizes the issues addressed in the agreement. Staff and the ,
Water Board have examined the agreement and have found it to be very
favorable to shareholders in terms of funds that will be'channeled into the
-278-
December 16, 1986
'
Company and
there are
improvements that can be made to the supply system. However,
some serious concerns with the water
quality provisions
(Attachment
B) associated with the first use
agreements. The diversion of
Poudre water from the Larimer County Canal
and replacement of it with
lesser quality water from the South Platte
River is likely to result in
some degree
of deterioration of adjoining
lands, groundwater, affected
reservoirs,
and the Poudre River downstream of the canal headgate.
The staff has reviewed the agreement and offer the following pros and cons:
PROS
Thornton will be providing the Company with capital contributions
valued in excess of $9 million. These contributions could result
in a more reliable water supply, increased yield per share, and
lower annual assessments to shareholders.
2. Thornton's future actions will not impair the historic water
deliveries to shareholders.
3. Five of the nine positions on the Board of Directors are reserved
for local shareholders.
CONS
1. Thornton's plan to divert Poudre River water out of the Larimer
County Canal and replace it with water piped from the South Platte
River near Greeley will likely result in a general deterioration
of the quality of water in the canal. Although data on the
quality of South Platte Water is limited, the available
information indicates that there may be an impact on land which is
irrigated by the water.
2. South Platte River water in the canal may result in degradation of
groundwater in Larimer and Weld Counties.
The agreement allows Thornton to put their return water into the
canal at any point between the headgate on the Poudre River and
Rocky Ridge Reservoir. Returning the water near the headgate on
the Poudre increases the possibility that ditch seepage and
agriculture return flows could enter the Poudre River and degrade
its quality. This could have a serious impact on the City's
present efforts to improve the overall environmental quality
(including aquatic life and wildlife) of the riparian area through
Fort Collins. Degradat°ion of the•'water quality in the River could
also have a serious ,impact on' the City's wastewater discharge
permits.
4. A number of plains reservoirs owned by WSSC presently support
I aquatic life and are so classified by the State. The water
quality standards in the proposed agreement are not consistent
-279-
December 16, 1986
with the standards necessary to protect the aquatic life in the
reservoirs or to avoid degradation of the existing water quality.
5. The language in the agreement dealing with quality assurance of
monitoring procedures and providing for monitoring data review are
inadequate.
6. The standards in the agreement are not consistent with any set of
currently established water quality standards or guidelines (i.e.
drinking water standards, stream standards, ground water
standards, etc.). Rather, the standards appear to be a
combination of selected criteria which Thornton found acceptable.
The consultant working on the standards suggested the inclusion of
others but was advised that Thornton would not agree to them.
A special meeting of the Water Board (See minutes, Attachment C) was held
on December 5 in order for the Board to develop a recommendation for
Council concerning the proposed agreement. Staff recommended to the Board
that the City vote against the agreement because of the inadequacies of the
water quality protection provisions. Legal counsel and water quality
consultants to WSSC attended the meeting. They indicated that there was no
opportunity to amend the water quality provisions. The Water Board, on a 5
- 2 vote, recommended that the City vote in favor of the agreement if 1) an
agreement between the City and WSSC could be developed which addressed the
water quality concerns and 2) a memorandum of understanding was signed by
all three parties agreeing that the City's affirmative vote in no way
precludes the City from future objections to any actions which may cause
injury to the City. If either of these conditions cannot be met, the Board
recommends voting against the settlement agreement.
A meeting with WSSC representatives was held to pursue the agreements
outlined by the Board, and an acceptable resolution of the water quality
concerns was found. The agreement is that the City will be empowered to
determine the location of the return pipe into the Larimer County Canal.
The return point will be located below the Box Elder Creek, probably east
of I-25. The map (Attachment D) illustrates that this arrangement would
prevent impacts on the Poudre River, groundwaters, or reservoirs in the
Fort Collins area, thus protecting water quality where River improvements
are contemplated and limiting; -possible impacts on wastewater discharge
permits. There ist'some possibility that the placement of a return pipe
east of Box Elders would be more expensive than placing it west of Box
Elder. In that case, the City would have the option of paying the
increased cost or allowing the pipe to be placed west of Box Elder Creek.
The WSSC Board of Directors will meet on December 12 to consider the
agreement with Fort Collins and the Memorandum of Understanding. If the
Company agrees to both of these documents and Thornton agrees to the
Memorandum, then the City agrees to vote in favor of the settlement
agreement. The Resolutions before the Council are as follows:
min
December 16, 1986
' A. A Resolution authorizing the City Manager to sign the agreement
with WSSC which provides that the City will determine the location
of Thornton's return flow pipe. This agreement also provides
other considerations that favor the City of Fort Collins as a
result of our participation with WSSC.
B. A Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign a Memorandum of
Understanding with WSSC and Thornton stating stating that the City
has not compromised its rights, by voting in favor of the
settlement agreement, to object in the future to any actions that
may cause injury to the City.
C. A Resolution authorizing staff to vote the City's WSSC shares in
favor of the settlement agreement if the above conditions are met.
If both agreements are not signed by all parties by the December
19th shareholders meeting, staff will vote against the agreement.
In summary, it appears that a resolution to the City's concerns with the
water quality provisions of the settlement agreement has been found, if the
package of three Resolutions above are approved by City Council and the
agreement and memorandum are signed by all parties."
Director of Utility Services Rich Shannon summarized the Thornton water
issue and explained the need for the Resolutions under consideration. He
introduced Norm Evans and Henry Caulfield of the Water Board and stated
they were available to answer questions.
Norm Evans, Chairman of the Water Board, answered questions from Council
about the specifics of the settlement.
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Liebler, to
adopt Resolution 86-204.
Bill Fischer, Fischer, Brown, Huddleson and Gunn, representing Water Supply
and Storage Company, gave a history of what has happened since the
preliminary injunction. He described the negotiations that have taken
place with Thornton. He outlined three goals the Board of Directors of
Water Supply and Storage had achieved in their negotiations: (1) control
of the Company, (2) integrity of the system, and (3) water quality.
Dave Stewart, Vice -President of Environmental' Consultants, presented
information relating to the water quality issue':• He discussed the
standards that were developed for water quality.
Water Utilities Director Mike Smith answered questions from Council about
the presentation given by Mr. Stewart and the terms of the agreement':
Manuel Pineda, 38280 Weld County Road #19, Fort Collins, farmer in Larimer
and Weld Counties, addressed the agricultural, economic, and financial
' conditions that exist in Northern Colorado. He supported ratification of
the agreement. He also addressed the water quality issue.
281-
December 16, 1986
Henry Caulfield, Vice -Chairman of the Water Board, summarized some of the
provisions of the settlement agreement.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated she felt agreements between entities such
as the one being considered this evening are preferable to using the courts
to find a solution to water quality issues.
Councilmember Rutstein supported the Resolution, stating she felt water
quality was extremely important to the City of Fort Collins.
Councilmember Estrada stated he supported the Resolution with the idea that
an agreement can be reached that is acceptable to all parties involved.
Mayor Ohlson thanked Mr. Fischer and Mr. Stewart for their presentations.
He also expressed appreciation for the work done by the Water Board on this
issue.
The vote on Councilmember Rutstein's motion to adopt Resolution 86-204 was
as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler,
Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada,
to adopt Resolution 86-205. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak,
Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. I
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to
adopt Resolution 86-206.
Councilmember Horak questioned the use of the word "authorized" rather than
"directed" in the Resolution.
City Attorney Huisjen stated the word "authorized" was used so that staff
may be authorized to vote the shares in the event the conditions are met,
and the authority to vote no in the event the conditions are not met.
Councilmember Horak asked if the Councilmembers making the motion would
agree to changing the word "authorized" to "directed".
Councilmembers Stoner and Estrada agreed to include that as part of their
motion.
Councilmember Horak expressed his appreciation to the members of the Water
Board and the staff for their hard work on this issue. He also thanked
Bill Fischer and Ward Fischer for their contributions. He commented on his
views on the negotiation process.
-282-
December 16, 1986
11
The vote on Councilmember Stoner's motion to adopt Resolution 86-206 as
amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick,
Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the Acquisition of
Colorado Big Thompson (CBT) and North
Poudre Irrigation ComDanv (NPIC) Water
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
A. Resolution 86-200 Authorizing the Purchase of CBT Water from Three
Separate Sellers and the Purchase of Shares of Stock in the North
Poudre Irrigation Company.
B. Resolution 86-201 Approving a Temporary Use Permit with the Northern
Colorado Water Conservancy District for 1350 Units of CBT Water
(Moody).
C. Resolution 86-202 Approving a Temporary Use Permit with the Northern
Colorado Water Conservancy District for 99 Units of CBT Water (Koch).
D. Resolution 86-203 Approving a Temporary Use Permit with the Northern
Colorado Water Conservancy District for 225 Units of CBT Water
(Anderson).
E. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 214, 1986, Appropriating
Prior Year Reserves in the Water Fund.
Background
A number of water acquisition opportunities have recently become available
to the City. Staff and Water Board have reviewed these opportunities and
are recommending that purchases be made. The purchase proposals have been
evaluated by the Water Board and are consistent with both the existing and
proposed water acquisition policies of the Board. Included in the offers
are a total of 1779 units of CBT water and 105 shares of North Poudre
Irrigation Company stock. These water supplies are compatible with the
City's existing water supply system and will be very useful in meeting
future water demands during drought conditions. The CBT water yields more
water in dry years and less in wet years in order to enhance drought
protection.
As of December 1, 1986,
yield ranges from .6 to
would increase the total
water sold for more than
the City owned 11,400 units of CBT water. The
1.0 acre feet per unit. The proposed purchases
units owned by the City to 13,179. Although CBT
$2000 per unit about five years ago, prices have
-283-
December 16, 1986
declined and the purchase prices for these units range from $750 to $775
per unit.
When CBT units are transferred, the Northern Colorado Conservancy District
requires that a Temporary Use Permit be approved by an appropriate
resolution by the City Council. Since transfers of units using permanent
contracts take longer and are more complicated, they are initially made
using Temporary Use Permits. Every few years, all CBT water owned and used
under a Temporary Use Permit is converted to use under a permanent
contract.
It is also proposed that the City purchase 105 shares of NPIC water at
$3250 per share. The market price for NPIC water has been $3500 to $4000
per share with an average annual yield per share of about 5.9 acre feet.
The City presently owns about 1025 shares of NPIC stock out of the total of
10,000 shares issued by the Company.
The following summarizes these proposed purchases:
Annual
Supply
Quantity
Unit Cost
Total Cost
Assessment
Harrison CBT Units
135
-units
$775
1,046,250
$14,157
(J.Moody - owner)
Koch CBT Units
99
units
$750
$ 74,250
$ 1,040
(Koch & Koch - owner)
Hammond CBT Units
330
units
$765
$ 252,450
$ 3,465
(Anderson - owner)
Harrison NPIC Stock
105
shares
$3250
$ 341,250
$ 7,875
(Matsuda, Eby & Roth -
owner)
Total $1,714,200 $26,537
Please note that Harrison and Hammond are representing the actual owners
and do not own any of the water being purchased.
The Temporary Use Permit for the Hammond CBT water is for only 225 units
because 105 units were previously transferred to Fort Collins. In 1979 an
agreement with Mr. Anderson authorized temporary transfer of 105 units to
the City for its use and. gave the, City the first right of refusal when he
decided to sell the units.
It is proposed that the Koch and Hammond purchases in the amount of
$326,700 be made from funds in the existing budget. This money is available
in the 1986 Budget due to the fact that all the budgeted funds for work on
the Michigan Ditch were not needed this year. The Ordinance appropriating
$1,387,500 from Water Fund Capital Reserves for the other two purchases is
attached. On the average, annual rental of the above waters will generate
about $20,300. It should be noted that the Harrison CBT units will be
leased back to the seller for a period of 11 years. This is ok because we
do not anticipate needing this water to meet dry year water demands during
that time period.
11
-284-
December 16, 1986
I� In summary, the staff and Water Board recommend the acquisition of the
water stock outlined above for the following reasons:
1. These are high quality water supplies at attractive prices.
Only four to five years ago the price of CBT water was over
$2000 per unit and NPIC stock was selling for $10,000 per
share.
2. These waters are compatible with our existing water system.
Unlike a lot of ditch company stock, both CBT water and NPIC
can be delivered to the City from Horsetooth Reservoir
directly into Water Treatment Plant No. 2. NPIC is able to
deliver water to the City from Horsetooth Reservoir because
over half of the company's water supply consists of CBT units
(40,000) which the company owns.
3. One of the things learned from the Drought Study was that
some water rights are more "drought resistant" than others.
For example, two water rights, "A" and "B", may have the same
yield during an average year, but during an extended drought,
say 6 to 8 years, water right "A" may yield 70Y of average
while water right "B" may only yield 35Y of average. If the
cost of both "A" and "B" are about the same, then obviously
"A" has much more value. If possible, the City should
optimize its water supply by attempting to acquire more of
,l type "A" water than type "B" The water rights discussed
above are of the type "A" variety.
4. With the Denver folks entering the northern Colorado water
market, the competition for water rights has increased
significantly. The City of Thornton has purchased in excess
of 280 shares of Water Supply and Storage Company stock,
which amounts to about 47Y of the total stock in the Company.
The staff has also learned from various sources that there
are investors trying to buy other large amounts of northern
Colorado water. All this activity may significantly impact
the City's ability to acquire the more premium or "drought
resistant" water rights in future years."
Director of Water Utilities Mike Smith briefly overviewed the items and
answered questions from Council.
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Resolution 86-200.
Bill Fischer, 1104 Lynnwood Drive, complimented the staff and Council for
looking for additional water sources and expressed support for the
purchases.
' Manuel Pineda, vice-president of North Poudre Irrigation Company, also
supported the Resolution.
-285-
December 16, 1986
Councilmember Estrada stated he felt buying these water rights while they r
are available at a good price makes good sense and indicated he would
support the Resolution.
Councilmember Horak stated this purchase is a continuation of the water
policies of the City.
Mayor Ohlson commended Mike Smith for his preparation of this agenda item.
The vote on Councilmember Rutstein's motion to adopt Resolution 86-200 was
as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler,
Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Estrada made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Liebler, to
adopt Resolution 86-201. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak,
Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Estrada made a motion,
seconded by Councilmember Horak, to
adopt Resolution
86-202.
Yeas:
Councilmembers
Estrada, Horak,
Kirkpatrick, Liebler,
Ohlson,
Rutstein,
and Stoner. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Estrada
made a
motion, seconded
by Councilmember Rutstein, to
adopt Resolution
86-203.
Yeas:
Councilmembers
Estrada, Horak,
Kirkpatrick, Liebler,
Ohlson,
Rutstein,
and Stoner. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Liebler, to
adopt Ordinance No. 214, 1986 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Placing Proposed Charter
Amendments on the Ballot for the
March: 1987 Regular Municipal Election
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
W:re
December 16, 1986
11
"Executive Summary
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 197, 1986, Submitting a Proposed
Charter Amendment to a Vote Concerning Election of Four Councilmembers
by Districts of the City. (Adopted as Amended 6-1)
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No
Charter Amendment to a Vote
Councilmembers. (Adopted 7-0)
198, 1986, Submitting a Proposed
to Increase the Compensation for
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 199, 1986, Submitting a Proposed
Charter Amendment to a Vote Concerning Recall, Initiative and
Referendum. (Adopted 6-1)
D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 200, 1986, Submitting a Proposed
Charter Amendment to a Vote Concerning Eligibility for Council.
(Adopted 7-0)
E. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 201, 1986, Submitting a Proposed
Charter Amendment to a Vote Concerning the Conduct of City Elections.
(Adopted 7-0)
F. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 202, 1986, Submitting a Proposed
Charter Amendment to a Vote Concerning the City's Boards and
Commissions and Administrative Branch. (Adopted 7-0)
G. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 203, 1986, Submitting a Proposed
Charter Amendment to a Vote Concerning Housekeeping Items for the
Financial Administration Provisions of the Charter. (Adopted 7-0)
H. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 204, 1986, Submitting a Proposed
Charter Amendment to a Vote Concerning Franchises and Public Utilities.
(Adopted 6-1)
These ordinances were adopted as indicated on First Reading on December 4,
1986. They contain much of the substance of the Charter Review Committee's
recommendations for charter amendments as modified or added to by Council
suggestions at work sessions and by further staff -initiated requests.
Several minor amendments are proposed for second reading, the most
significant of which is the deletion of the distinction for "taxpaying
electors" as the only electors entitled to vote on franchises or on the
city's acquisition or construction of public utility facilities.
Background
The first proposed amendment'• would provide for true district elections for
the present 4 district council positions, without changing the present
system of selecting a mayor from among council members. The second
proposed amendment would increase the amount of council compensation. The
third proposed amendment involves extensive housekeeping of the recall,
initiative and referendum procedures articles. The fourth proposed
amendment would decrease the age of eligibility for council to 21 years.
-287-
December 16, 1986
The remaining amendments deal primarily with housekeeping matters
concerning elections, financial administration and general administration,
except that the final amendment would provide a new method for granting
franchises by ordinance subject to the initiative and referendum rather
than to a prior mandatory election.
Amendments
Proposed amendments since first reading of the ordinances are contained in
the agenda materials and are presented that way for inclusion in the
ordinances. Passage of the ordinances on second reading causes the
amending and adoption of the ordinances unless the proposed changes are
specifically rejected.
I
2
3
Ordinance No. 197, 1986 (Proposed Charter Amendment No I)
Page 2, Part A. The second sentence of Article II, 1(d) has been
changed as introduced by Ms. Rutstein to read:
"Each regular biannual City election shall alternate between
selecting "at -large" members of the Council and SELECTING members
nominated AND ELECTED BY from districts."
Ordinance No. 199, 1986. (Proposed Charter Amendment No 3)
Page 5, Section 2(e) (1) & (2):
Change the last phrase in both paragraphs from "AS ESTABLISHED BY THE
COLORADO CONSTITUTION" to read "AS SUCH NUMBER IS ESTABLISHED BY THE
COLORADO CONSTITUTION."
Also change the introductory phrase to Section 2(e)(2) to read: "AFTER
ONE RECALL PETITION AND ELECTION, . " (This addition is consistent
with the language in the Colorado Constitution and was inadvertently
omitted.)
Ordinance No. 201, 1986 (Proposed Charter Amendment No 5)
Page 2, Part D: addan effective date for repeal of run-off:
" Part D. Sections 2.1 and'2.2 of Article XVI of the Charter of the
City are hereby repealed in their entirety, effective May 1. 1987,
and, if Proposed Charter Amendment No. 1 concerning council members
elected by district is not adopted by the voters, then Section 12 of
said Article shall be amended as follows: . . .
(This amendment clarifies the effective date of the deletion of the
run-off requirement so that the 1987 election is not affected. Once
the 1987 election process is commenced under the present charter it
should be concluded under those procedures).
IT-1.1
December 16, 1986
IPage 9, Part L:
Change the word "removes" to "moves" (removes) in the last sentence
of Section 18.
4. Ordinance No. 202, 1986. (Proposed Charter Amendment No 6)
Page 10, Part R: narrow the definition of "misdemeanor" to be
consistent with recodification which decriminalized certain traffic
violations by adding the following:
Part R. Section 2 of Article XIV and the definition of
"misdemeanor" in Article XXI of the Charter of the City are hereby
amended as follows:
ARTICLE XXI.
'Misdemeanor' means a violation of this Charter or of any city
ordinance SO DESIGNATED, and it shall not have the meaning
attached to it in the criminal statutes of the State of Colorado "
5. Article XI11 of the Charter currently uses the term "taxpaying
electors" in the context of elections on the issues of granting a
franchise or acquiring or constructing public utility facilities.
There is an unsettled question as to whether the requirement of
property ownership and payment of currently assessed property taxes as
an additional voter qualification in the context of franchises and
public utilities may constitutionally be retained.
The charter provision giving the Council power to acquire public
utilities also provides that "(s)uch public utilities acquired by the
city, except water works and transportation systems, shall not be paid
for out of general taxes or general obligation bonds, but shall be paid
for from revenue derived from the public utility." (XIII, 6). All
residents of the city are potential ratespayers, whether or not they
are also property taxpayers, and since municipal general bond
obligation elections may not be constitutionally limited to property
owners, then perhaps there is less justification for limiting the
question of utility acquisition paid from utility revenues to property
owners.
The state constitution formerly limited a home rule city's right to
grant a franchise by requiring the.�vote of the "taxpaying electors."
The constitutional amendment adopted by the state's electors on
November 4, 1986, not only eliminated the requirement of a mandatory
election but also the reference to "taxpaying electors" since voting on
' franchises would only occur as part of the initiative or referendum
process which is not limited to "taxpaying" electors. Proposed Charter
Amendment No. 8 (Part A) would make the same changes to the Charter.
December 16, 1986
Staff recommends that the distinction between "effectors" and "taxpaying '
electors" be eliminated from the charter in its only remaining context,
that of voting on the construction or acquisition of public utilities.
Such amendments for second reading affect Ordinances No. 201, 202 and
204 (Proposed Charter Amendments 5, 6 and 8, respectively) as follows:
(a) Ordinance No. 201, 1986 (Proposed Charter Amendment No 5)
Page 7, Part F. delete sentence in Article XV1, Section 7, "Form of
Ballots", referring to separate ballots for taxpaying electors:
-L'Fer- measures- 4imited--te--taxpaying-eleeters;-a-separate-ballet
shall-be-used:'-7
Page 10. Substitute new Part N which would in addition to eliminating
"qualified elector" and substituting "registered elector" as was
proposed on first reading, also eliminate the definitions related to
"taxpaying elector" and further edit the remaining definitions
pertaining to electors and vote requirements as follows:
"Part N. Article XXI of the Charter of the City is hereby amended
by modifying, adding and deleting the following definitions:
�'Elector'-''--means--a--person--who--4s--entitled-4e--vote-at--a
particular-time-and-ineludes-the-terra-!'qualified-eleeter:' '
'-'Qualified--elector!'-- means- -"eleeter and--4s--synonymous
therewith-.
'-'QuaI ified--taxpaying-eleeter--'- means -an-eleeter-who ; --in-the
calendar- -year- -last- -preceding- 4he- -time; -election; -er-ether
date;- shall - -have- paid - a- -tax-upon- real -er- personal - property
situated- within- the - city- and- owned-by-and-assessed-te-him-en
the--assessment--rolls;--and--ineludes--the--term--!'taxpaying
eleeter:"
"REGISTERED ELECTOR" OR "ELECTOR" MEANS A PERSON RESIDING IN
THE CITY WHO HAS REGISTERED TO VOTE IN CITY ELECTIONS IN THE
MANNER REQUIRED BY LAW.
!'Taxpaying-eleeter''-'- means- "qualified--taxpaying-eleeter''-'-and
is-synonymeus-therewith:
"Vote of the electors" and- "vote-ef- the- qua lified-eleeters''-'
means a favorable vote by a majority of the electors voting
in an election.
'Vete-e€--the--taxpaying-eleeters''-'-and--vete-of- the- qualified
taxpaying-eleeters''-'- mean- a-€averable--vete-by- a- majority- ef '
the-taxpaying-eleeters-voting-iR-aR-electieR-"
-290-
December 16, 1986
' Page 10, Section 2. Add to the ballot language a reference to the
proposed changes regarding "taxpaying elector" definitions as follows:
"eliminating the distinction between "electors" and "taxpaying
electors" so that property ownership is not a voter
qualification,..."
(b) Ordinance No. 202. 1986. (Proposed Charter Amendment No 6)
Pages 6 & 7, Part L. Change to read as follows:
"ARTICLE XIII
Section 6. City -may -acquire -utilities OPTION TO PURCHASE
(no new changes to Ist paragraph which is being deleted)
Every grant, extension, or renewal of a PUBLIC UTILITY franchise
or right shall provide that the City may, upon the VOTE OF THE
TAXPAYING ELECTORS AND THE payment therefor of its fair valuation,
purchase and take over the property and plant of the grantee in
whole or in part...
ARTICLE IX
Section 1. City may acquire utilities.
' The Council upon vote of the taxpaying electors shall have the
power within or without the territorial limits of the City to
construct, condemn and purchase, acquire, and lease water works,
gas works... and other public utilities... AN ELECTION OF -THE
TAXPAYING -ELECTORS IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE PURCHASE OF A PORTION OF
A UTILITY SYSTEM WHICH IS NOT INCLUDED IN AN AREA BEING ANNEXED TO
THE CITY AND WHICH IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF AN EXISTING CITY
FRANCHISE. Such public utilities... "
(c) Ordinance No. 204, 1986. (Proposed Charter Amendment No 8)
Pages 2 & 3, Part B. Change to read as follows:
"Section 6. City may acquire utilities.
The Council upon the vote of the taxpaying electors shall have the
power within or without the territorial limits of the City to
construct, condemn and purchase, acquire, and lease water works, gas
works... and other public utilities... AN ELECTION BF --THE
TAXPAYING -ELECTORS IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE PURCHASE OF A PORTION OF
A UTILITY SYSTEM WHICH IS INCLUDED IN AN AREA BEING ANNEXED TO THE
CITY AND WHICH IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF AN EXISTING CITY FRANCHISE.
Such public utilities...
Every grant, extension, or renewal of a PUBLIC UTILITY franchise
' or right shall provide that the City may, upon THE VOTE OF THE
TAXPAYING ELECTORS AND THE payment therefor of its fair valuation,
-291-
December 16, 1986
purchase and take over the property and plant of the grantee in
whole or in part..."
Page 4, Section 2. Add to the ballot language the following phrase.
"and to provide that all 'registered electors' rather than only
'taxpaying electors' may vote in elections considering acquisition
or construction of public utility facilities."
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Liebler, to
adopt Ordinance No. 197, 1986 on Second Reading.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated she would be voting against this item
because it does not include direct election of the mayor.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 197, 1986
on Second Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak,
Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmember Kirkpatrick.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
adopt Ordinance No. 198, 1986 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak,
to adopt Ordinance No. 199, 1986 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, and Rutstein. Nays:
Councilmember Stoner.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
adopt Ordinance No. 200, 1986 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to
adopt Ordinance No. 201, 1986 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
adopt Ordinance No. 202, 1986 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
11
-292-
December 16, 1986
' Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember
Kirkpatrick, to adopt Ordinance No. 203, 1986 on Second Reading. Yeas:
Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and
Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember
Kirkpatrick, to adopt Ordinance No. 204, 1986 on Second Reading. Yeas:
Councilmembers Estrada, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner.
Nays: Councilmember Horak.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 193, 1986, Authorizing the
Issuance and Sale of Industrial Development
Revenue Bonds, Series 1986 for the Vipont
Laboratories, Inc. Project in the Principal Amount
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on December
4, allows the issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for the
Vipont Laboratories Project in the amount of $3,800,000. The project is
located in the Prospect Park East P.U.D., Lots 5, 6, and 7. The bond
proceeds will be used to acquire and construct a 50,000 square foot office,
distribution and light manufacturing building. The facility will be
constructed for lease to and occupancy by Vipont Laboratories; Inc. ,;a,
local manufacturer of products for the treatment of oral health.
Interest rates which were not available on December 4 have now been.` "
included on pages 4 and 5 of the Ordinance."
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
adopt Ordinance No. 193, 1986 as amended on Second Reading (to include
paragraph providing for adoption as an Emergency Ordinance). Yeas:
Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and
Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
-293-
December 16, 1986
Other Business ,
Councilmember Horak raised the question of providing prospective homebuyers
information about parks, road improvements, etc. He indicated his
recollection was that the local realtors might volunteer to disseminate
that information.
Councilmember Rutstein suggested information on SID's also be included-.
Councilmember Horak commented on the anticipated windfall to the State of
Colorado because of changes in tax codes.
Councilmember Estrada expressed concern that policies are not effectuated
in a very efficient manner. He stated he felt there needs to be a more
orderly process to involve boards and commissions in policy formulation.
He stated he felt worksessions should be used better and increase the input
of boards and commissions when policies are examined. He raised the idea
of initiating more Council review committees. He asked staff to look at
ways to become more efficient in effectuating policies.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick suggested the format for boards and commissions
minutes be standardized to allow more ease of reading.
Councilmember Horak suggested looking at restructuring the board and
commission liaisons to fit more closely with the new structure of the
organization. He stated he would like to have the jurisdictions of the
various Council committees sorted out to provide more clarity.
Ad.iournment
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to
adjourn the meeting. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick,
Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
The "mee't'ing."adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
IX, MAIMOM 311 i1a M�
MM-
-294-