Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-09/20/1983-RegularSeptember 20, 1983 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council -Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting - 5:30 p.m. A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, September 20, 1983, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Council members: Clarke, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. (Secretary's Note: Councilmember Elliott arrived at the meeting after the recess.) Staff Members Present: Arnold, Huisien, M. Davis, Meitl, Widmer, Hays, Harmon, Krempel, and Wood. Agenda Review: City Manager City Manager Arnold called Council's attention to information submitted to ' clarify Agenda Item No. 13, Resolution Approving "Intent to Proceed" with the Replacement of the Linden Street Bridge, and Agenda Item No. 19, Resolution Authorizing the Deferment of Improvement District Assessment for Lillian Hamilton. 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 #29, 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. Consider Approving the Minutes of the regular meeting of September 6. 5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 1983, Vacating a Portion of an Access, Parking, Utility and Storm Drainage Easement in Tract C, South Glen PUD, 2nd Filing. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 6. -1- September 20, 1983 This easement is part of a "blanket" easement which will no longer be needed due to a subsequent platting, namely South Glen PUD 3rd Filing, which was heard and approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on July 25, 1983, by a vote of 7-0. 6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 1983, Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts from the Street Oversizing Fund to the Capita Projects Fund for ra is Signal Installations. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 6. The Ordinance establishing the Street Oversizing Fee includes an amount for traffic signal installation resulting from new development. The amount budgeted in the Street Oversizing Fund each year for traffic signal projects is based upon 14.6% of estimated street oversizing fees to be collected. These funds are transferred from the Street Oversizing Fund to the Capital Projects Fund as projects are identified. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 1983, Appropriating Revenues in ' the Capital Projects Fund. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 6 and authorizes the transfer of funds from Streets Contingency and various completed capital projects to a new project account for the design and construction of a railroad crossing and signal protection at the Burlington Northern crossing on Harmony Road west of College Avenue. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 115, 1983, Appropriatinq Unanticipated Kevenues in the capital Nrojects tuna tor North Lemav keaeslgn. Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) has purchased an easement from the City for installation of a part of their Timberline/Poudre Transmis- sion Line on City property and right-of-way for $16,350. The purchase was approved by Resolution 83-47. Normally PRPA would not purchase an easement in a street from the City. They would just use the street right-of-way. However, in this case it was agreed with PRPA that they would purchase the easement and then the funds could be used to pay for the redesign of the North Lemay Subdivision utility plans, and for the redesign of North Lemay Avenue to allow for the placement of PRPA towers. This ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 6 and establishes a North Lemay Redesign project account. -2- 7 L_ 1 September 20, 1983 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 1983, Amending Chapter 16 of the Code to Provide for Prepayment of Special Assessments and for the Acceleration of Defaulted Assessment Obligations. Colorado statutes make available to persons obligated to pay assess- ments rising out of improvement districts the right to prepay the entire remaining principal balance of such assessments together with all the accrued interest to the next installment due date. The City's bond counsel has advised that this prepayment right should be included in Chapter 16 of the Code of the City in order to encourage prepayment of assessments, particularly in voluntary districts. The proposed Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 6, would afford such a prepayment right. 10. Items Relating to Phase I of Lemay/Harmony Special Improvement Dis- trict No. 8. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 117, 1983, Authorizing the Issu- ance of Lemay/Harmony Special Improvement District No. 78 (Phase I), Special Assessment Bonds, dated October 1, 1983, for $1,885, 000 and the establishment of an escrow agreement to further secure the bonds. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. I Bond Proceeds in the Capital of the capitalized interest. 118, 1983, Appropriating the Phase Projects Fund, with the exception This item contains two ordinances which were unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 6. The first ordinance (A) authorizes the issuance of $1,885,000 in Special Assessment Bonds for Phase I of the District. The second ordinance (B) appropriates the expenditure of the bond proceeds from the Capital Projects Fund. 11. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 119, 1983, Vacating a Portion of a Utility, Access, and Drainage Easement in Tract F, Par Central P.U.D., Phase II. Tract B of Park Central P.U.D., Phase II, was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board in August, 1983 with a larger building envelope then was platted with the original P.U.D. To accommodate the larger envelope and added landscape treatments, the applicant is requesting that portions of the easement be vacated. All utilities were contacted and all indicated no problems with this request. -3- 12 13 14. September 20, 1983 Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 1983, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue from the Mineral Severance Tax Fund Program In e Nouare Tire und. In 1983, the City has received $861 from the mineral severance tax fund program. This statewide program allocates money to local govern- ments based on the number of energy company employees who reside in each jurisdiction. This Ordinance would appropriate the money received from the State for the Poudre Fire Authority to use to augment funding for the HMRT. These funds will apply toward the purchase of a hydro-carbon/oxygen deficiency detector which is used to measure the presence of toxic and/or flammable vapors in the atmosphere. Resolution Approving "Intent to Proceed" with the replacement of the The State Highway Commission, through the Special Highway Committee has approved $424,154 in funds from the proceeds of the state motor fuel tax for funding up to 80% of the construction costs for the replacement of the Linden Street Bridge. This was one of 12 bridge projects funded statewide from a special fund source. The City's share of the replacement cost would be about $175,000. To secure this funding from the state, it is necessary for the City to pass a reso- lution approving a "Certificate of Intent to Proceed" which the state must receive by October 7, 1983, or else the funds will be allocated to other projects. Resolution Establishing City of Fort Collins Position on WAPA Mar - an. The Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) is presently formulating the marketing criteria for the Federal Hydroelectric Power for the period commencing in 1989. A portion of this power is presently being purchased by Platte River Power Authority for resale to its members, including Fort Collins. The current contract for purchase by Platte River expires in 1989. WAPA is holding a series of customer comment forums to solicit input on the proposed post'89 marketing plan. It appears that there are some changes being proposed which could ad- versely affect PRPA and Fort Collins. The resolution would spell out the Fort Collins' position with regard to these proposed changes and would name Bill Carnahan as the spokesperson for the City at the upcoming hearings. me September 20, 1983 ' 15. Resolution Approving License Agreement with Pueblo Library District for Purchase of Updated Computer Based Circulation Inventory Control System. The computer based circulation/inventory control system used by the Fort Collins Public Library was developed in the late 1970s by the Pueblo Library District. That system has been substantially upgraded by Palm Springs California Public Library. The upgraded system is now being marketed by Pueblo Library District under their agreement with Palm Springs. This upgrade will allow us to add author/subject access to our online database and will ultimately enable us to have a com- pletely online catalog. The cost of this upgrade is $7500. This money was budgeted to the Library in 1982 and encumbered for this purpose in 1982. The upgrade is now ready to be delivered to us. These encumbered funds were then carried forward into 1983. Since the purchase of this upgrade entails an intergovernmental agreement with Pueblo Library District, this resolution must be approved by City Council. 16. Resolution Adopting New Trust Agreement with the I.C.M.A. Retirement Corporation. ' The resolution represents a new trust agreement with the I.C.M.A. Retirement Corporation. These changes do not change the retirement plan as far as our employees are concerned. This change is made to conform to Internal Revenue Service regulations issued in September 1982. These changes also established a Board of Trustees which are selected by participating employees, thus giving the employers ulti- mate control over the management of the funds. This is a positive change since the prior arrangement left control in the hands of the corporation itself. For us to vote in the first election for members of the Board of Trustees we need for this resolution to be approved at this session. 17. Items Relating to the Expansion of the Computerized Traffic Signal System. A. Resolution Authorizing the Approval of an Intergovernmental Agreement with the State Department of Highways Allocating $176,760 of the 1982-83 Federal Aid Urban Systems (FAUS) Money to Computer System Expansion Project. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 1983, Appropri- ating Unanticipated Revenue in the FAUS Grant Fund. ' The City of Fort Collins has received Federal and State approval in 1983 to use 1982-83 Federal Aid Urban Systems money, totaling $176,760 -5- September 20, 1983 for the continued expansion of the computerized traffic signal system. These grant funds are to be used for engineering, material procurement and installation of the system expansion. The work to be done with this project includes: • Modernization of the traffic signals at College Avenue/Vine Drive and College Avenue/Highway 1. • Modernization of the intersection of College Avenue/Columbia Road to accommodate pedestrian crossings. Modification at most traffic signals on College Avenue to actuate pedestrian movements on all approaches. 18. Routine Deeds and Easements. A. Deed from Landings Communitv Association. Inc.: Islands in certain cul-de-sacs in the first replat of The Landings Filing One and The Landings, Second Filing were platted as "tracts" to permit the developer to landscape these islands and maintain via the "community associations". The developer chose not to landscape these tracts and, in fact, did pave the entire cul-de-sac. Therefore, it has become apparent that the Association cannot properly maintain an island of paved street in what is otherwise a dedicated street right of way, and is desirous of deeding these tracts to the City. The City will be responsible for future maintenance of these tracts which, in actuality, are an integral part of the street that is currently City maintained. Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Molly Davis, Deputy City Clerk. Item 745. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 1983, Vacati an Access, Parking, Utility and Storm Drainage Ea C, South Glen PUD, 2nd Filing. a Portion of ent in Tract Item #6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 1983, Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts from the Street Oversizing Fund to the Capital Projects Fund for Traffic Signal Installations. Item #7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 1983, Appropriating Revenues in the Capital Projects Fund. Item #8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 115, 1983, Appropriating Unanti- cipated Revenues in the Capital Projects Fund for North Lemay I Redesign. 1. September 20, 1983 Item #9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 1983, Amending Chapter 16 of the Code to Provide for Prepayment of Special Assessments and or the Acceleration of Defaulted Assessment Obligations. Item #10. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 117, 1983, Authorizing the Issuance of Lemay Harmony Special Improvement District No. 78 Phase 1), Special Assessment Bonds, dated October 1, 1983, Tor $i,b6b,UUUand the establishment of an escrow agreement to further secure the bonds. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 1983 18, 1, Appropriating the P ase I Bon Proceeds in the Capita Projects Fun , with the exception of the capitalized interest. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Molly Davis, Deputy City Clerk. Item #11. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 119, 1983, Vacating a Portion of a Utility, Access, and Drainage Easement in Tract F, Par Centra P.U.D., P ase II. ' Item #12. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 1983, Appropri- ating Unanticipated Revenue from the Mineral Severance Tax Fund Program In The Poudre Fire Authority Fund. Item #17. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 1983, Appro- priating Unanticipated Revenue in the FAUS Grant Fund. Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to adopt and approve all items on the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Council - members Clarke, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution Authorizing the Deferment of Improvement District Assessment for Lillian Hamilton, Adopted as Amended Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "Mrs. Lillian Hamilton of 2035 West Mulberry has requested that the assess- ment on a property owned by her at 2045 West Mulberry be either waived or deferred. Mrs. Hamilton approached staff with this request after receiving notice from the Larimer County Assessor's office of the pending sale of the -7- September 20, 1983 property for non-payment of the assessment. After receiving Mrs. Hamil- ton's request, we asked the County to postpone further action on the sale until her request could be evaluated. Staff is bringing this request to Council in response to her request with a recommendation supporting defer- ment of the assessment based on special conditions. Those conditions are detailed below. Mrs. Hamilton owns 3 pieces of property fronting on Mulberry (see attached map). All 3 were assessed for street improvements done under Improve- ment District No. 74. The amounts assessed are 2045 W. Mulberry (a ren- tal property) $3,511.88; 2035 W. Mulberry (Mrs. Hamilton's residence) $3,633.31; no address $538.77, total amount assessed $7,683.91. The property at 2045 was also assessed $9,175.19 for street improvements on Improvement District No. 71 (Taft Hill Road). The total amount assessed against the property at 2045 as a result of both projects is $12,687.07. The tax certificate for that assessment was obtained by the City after the assessment was not paid. Mrs. Hamilton has been paying installments on the assessment against her home and the property with no address. After reviewing both income and operating expenses with Mrs. Hamilton there does appear to be an economic hardship in this case. The property at 2045 does represent a negative cash flow situation of between $175 and $200 per month. However, since this property is not her place of residence it does not meet the guidelines for a deferred assessment as stated in Chapter 36 of the City Code. The Code allows for deferment through administrative action of assessments for economic hardships on personal residences only. A deferment in this case would need to be granted by a Council action. This matter has been brought before the Council on two previous occasions, however, no action was taken at either time. The first appeal was at the public hearing creating the improvement district and the second at the time the right of way settlement was approved. On both occasions Council granted no relief from the assessment. It should be noted that no specific information was provided by Mrs. Hamilton as to the extent of any hardship the assessment would create. We are bringing this item back to Council at the specific request of Mrs. Hamilton and at a time when it can be heard as a separate issue from the actual assessment action. If Council does not approve the deferment the property will be put up for tax sale. In the past the City would then normally purchase the tax certificate and collect the assessed amount when the property is sold to a new owner. The options available to Council are: 1) deferment - the assessment cost becomes a lien against the property and is collected at the time of sale or transfer of the property, 2) waiver - the assessment is cancelled and funds will need to be allocated to cover the assessed amount, 3) proceed with the assessment - the property will be sold at a tax sale. The City would have the option to purchase the tax certificate." 1 September 20, 1983 Tom Hays, City Engineer, stated that staff is recommending deferment rather than a waiver of the assessment. Although Mrs. Hamilton does not meet the income guidelines set out in the deferment ordinance, her financial obliga- tions on this corner property are greater than her income. Mayor Knezovich asked whether the assessment for Improvement District #74 could be paid in installments rather than in a lump sum. Tom Hays stated that payments could be made in installments unless the property is sold at a tax sale, in which case the full amount would be paid. Mayor Knezovich asked about recovering the interest costs of the bond issue. City Manager Arnold stated that Council could grant this deferment with conditions. Lillian Hamilton, 2035 West Mulberry, stated that her income from this property would not allow her to pay this assessment. She stated also that ' the property was assessed for Improvement District #71 and Improvement District #74 since this is a corner property. Mayor Knezovich asked about previous requests from Mrs. Hamilton for relief from improvement district assessments. Councilmember Clarke inquired about Mrs. Hamilton's income from this property. Mrs. Hamilton described her mortgages and other expenses on this property. She also stated that rezoning requests for this property have been denied. Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to adopt Resolution 83-152 authorizing deferment of the assessment. Mayor Knezovich expressed concern about recovering interest costs. City Manager Arnold stated that Council could add a condition to the Resolution to recover interest costs. He stated that staff has tried to work out a solution to lessen the impact of these assessments on Mrs. Hamilton and supported deferment as the fairest solution. Councilmember Stoner stated that this may not be fair to others who paid the full assessment. He supported amending the Resolution to recover ' interest costs if the City does not intend to waive the assessment. M September 20, 1983 ' Mayor Knezovich asked whether Mrs. Hamilton could request a similar defer- ment of the Improvement District #71 assessment if she would pay the part of the assessment that is currently in arrears. City Attorney Huisjen stated that Mrs. Hamilton could request a waiver or deferment. Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Mayor Knezovich, to amend Resolution 83-152 to incorporate a provision to add the cost of the inter- est or the bonding to the assessment. Councilmember Clarke stated that if Mrs. Hamilton's second mortgage on the property is not counted, there is a positive cash flow. He stated that deferring the assessment with recovery of interest costs would be the best way to protect the City's interests. The vote on Councilmember Clarke's motion to amend Resolution 83-152 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, and Rutstein. Nays: Councilmember Stoner. THE MOTION CARRIED. The vote on Councilmember Ohlson's motion to adopt Resolution 83-152, as I amended, was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution Setting Forth the Intention of the City of Fort Collins to Issue Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for Baker Instrument Company (BIC) Building Partnership, Adopted Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "Formal application for City of Fort Collins Industrial Development Revenue Bonds was received from Baker Instrument Company (BIC) Building Partner- ship. The application has been reviewed by the departments of Finance, Planning & Development, and the City Attorney's Office. The project consists of construction of a 17,500 square foot, two -level building; the design provides for use as a combination of office, light assembly manufacturing, and warehouse space. Initially, Baker Instrument Company will occupy approximately 8,500 square feet of the proposed building. The remainder will be leased to others for a relatively short , period until Baker requires the additional space. -10- F� September 20, 1983 The Inducement request is in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $910,000. First Interstate Bank of Fort Collins, N.A., have extended to BIC Building Partnership a commitment to purchase up to the $910,000 amount. Included with this Inducement Resolution are memoranda from Planning & Development, Finance Department, and a description of the project by Fischer, Brown, Huddleson, & Gunn, Bond Counsel for the BIC Building Partnership. Also included is a copy of Resolution 82-25 adopting Indus- trial Development Revenue Bond policies and guidelines. Included in the Inducement Resolution as part of Section 2 is the following language: " . .BIC shall pay to the City a fee of 1/16 of 1% of the unpaid principal amount of the bonds at the end of each bond year." Additionally, BIC Building Partnership has deposited with the City $1,000 to reimburse the City for Staff review time." Jim Harmon, Controller, summarized the staff review of the application for issuance of IDRB's for this office/manufacturing facility in the Seven Lakes development. Baker Instrument Company met the IDRB guidelines in regard to competition, and the main benefit to the City will be in in- creased jobs. He stated that BIC has received a local commitment for purchase of the bonds. Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to adopt Resolution 83-153. Mayor Knezovich asked about BIC's equity in the project. David Schump, Managing Partner in Baker Instrument Company, stated that BIC would have at least a 10% equity. An appraisal has not yet been completed, and building costs are preliminary. IDRB's can not be issued for more than 90% of the appraisal. Councilmember Stoner asked if IDRB financing can be used for fixtures. David Dwyer, bond counsel, stated there is no intent to finance manufac- turing equipment through the IDRB's. The fixtures mentioned in the Resolu- tion are air conditioning, heating equipment, and other fixtures of the building itself. Mayor Knezovich asked if any of the BIC partners are involved in the development of this property. Mr. Dwyer replied that the developer of the property has no beneficial ' interest in the BIC partnership. He stated that Mr. Schump is a partner in the Seven Lakes Partnership. -11- September 20, 1983 ' Mayor Knezovich stated for the record that he had voted for one Seven Lakes IDRB project (Ion Tech) and against another (Neenan Building Partnership) on the basis of the specialty building issue. He stated that this new project is, in his view, a specialty building and gives no competitive advantage to BIC. The vote on Councilmember Stoner's motion to adopt Resolution 83-153 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Knezovich announced that because of time constraints, Agenda Item No. 21 relating to cemetery fees would be considered at the end of the meeting. (Secretary's Note: Councilmember Elliott arrived after the recess at 7:30 P.M.) Citizen Participation ' A. Proclamation Naming September 17-23 as Constitution Week. Mayor Knezovich read the Proclamation and requested that it be for- warded to the proper party. B. Presentation of Plaque to Foothills Fashion Mall for Parks and Recrea- tion Gift Cataloq Donation. Mayor Knezovich spoke about the gift catalog program and stated he has received suggestions to begin a similar program for voluntary projects. Jerry Brown, Assistant to the Director of Parks and Recreation, asked Mayor Knezovich to present a certificate of appreciation to Paul Biehl of Raintree Productions in recognition of his contribution as consul- tant on the gift catalog project. Tim Buchanan, City Arborist, described the gift catalog contribution of landscape planters donated to the City by the Foothills Fashion Mall. Ron Young, representing Foothills Fashion Mall received a plaque from Mayor Knezovich in recognition of this donation. C. Georgia and John Locker, 713 Duke Square, introduced an AFS student from West Germany, who presented Mayor Knezovich with a letter from the Mayor of Giesen, West Germany. Mayor Knezovich stated he would reply I to the letter as soon as a translation could be made. -12- September 20, 1983 Resolution Reprogramming $132,000 of CDBG Program Income Received from Larimer County for Purchase of Block 31. Adopted Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "Lots 12 through 19 of Block 31 were purchased by the City using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. The City allocated a total of $335,035 of CDBG funds during Program Years FY '79-'80 through FY '82-'83 for the purchase of the lots, commonly referred to as the Grain Elevator Lease Payments. The City and the County entered into an agreement on February 3, 1981, to jointly purchase Block 31 for use as a parking lot. This purchase agreement determined the amount the County would repay the City for the share interest in the site at $132,000. According to HUD Regulations, the $132,000 from Larimer County is considered CDBG Program income and must be reprogrammed into an eligible CDBG activity. During the City Council's review and adoption of the City's FY '83-'84 CDBG Program on June 7, 1983, appeals were made from several day care operations for CDBG funds. Council did not allocate any CDBG funds for day care facilities at the June 7, 1983, meeting but, instructed the City Adminis- tration to investigate funding alternatives and continue to report to Council on the day care issue. The following is an outline of the meetings that City staff, and interested citizens have had to work to address day care as a social service need in the community. June: Meetings with community leaders were hosted by Jim Dean of the Coloradoan to identify and prioritize potential Gannett Grant recipients. July: City Manager John Arnold set up a Social Service Task Force to discuss community approaches to various social service needs including day care. This committee identified social service needs and dis- cussed various opportunities to facilitate the efficiency, cooperation and success of human service agencies in the community. The co -location of United Day Care and United Way agencies was viewed as a positive method of addressing the needs of United Day Care and other social service agencies. A joint United Way -United Day Care (UW-UDC) committee met to write a joint facility proposal. As a unique solution, the proposal is intended to attract funding from various public and prive sources. -13- September 20, 1983 The Social Service Task Force concurred with this combined facility approach, which could more effi- ciently use the resources available and serve the community more effectively. Further funding sources were to be investigated. The City Planning staff assisted the U14-UDC Committee in identifying potential sites. The Committee also surveyed other human service agencies which have indicated interest in the co -location proposal. The UW-UDC Committee continued to meet through August and September to refine the proposal for submittal to CDBG, and the Gannett Foundation. August: In preparation for the receipt of the Block 31 funds, the CDBG Program office placed an advertisement in The Coloradoan which indicated S132,000 of CDBG funds were available for reprogramming to meet the day care need in the City. September: At the September 2, 1983, deadline, two proposals had I been received. Both proposals were prepared to address day care concerns in the community. The CDBG Steering Committee met to review the two applications and have made their recommendation to City Council. Their recommendation has been sent under separate cover." City Manager Arnold stated that Council had received a new version of Resolution 83-154 which reflects changes recommended by the CDBG Steering Committee. -- Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to adopt the revised Resolution 83-154. Margaret Mitchell of the CDBG Steering Committee expressed a committee concern that the day care portion of the proposed United Way -United Day Care facility should be addressed first. She also expressed concerns about utility and street costs for the building, which should be costs borne by the City as a whole. The Committee also expressed concern that any new building should be appropriate for the site to avoid settling problems like those experienced at the Northside Center. Councilmember Clarke asked whether the Pine Street costs and utility costs could later be paid by the City if this Resolution is adopted. I -14- September 20, 1983 City Manager Arnold stated the Resolution as proposed would be consistent with City policy on such improvements. The amount of these costs can not yet be determined. He also stated that it has been suggested that the building site be away from the old landfill site. Dennis Griffith, 405 Mathews, a day care center owner/operator, stated that he views this proposal as a subsidy which gives an unfair advantage to the patrons of United Day Care Center. He stated he felt this would be unfair competition to other day care centers. Joan Fetters, operator of Children's Workshop day care center, stated that all but four of the day care centers in Fort Collins have openings and other new centers are proposed. She viewed this proposal as unfair com- petition. Wendie Kahler, Executive Director of Sunshine School, stated that Sunshine School will apply for funds again next year. Councilmember Elliott stated that CDBG funds should be invested for a long range return such as in capital investments. Councilmember Clarke commented that attracting a socio-economic mix is important for day care centers and this proposal would encourage such a socio-economic mix. He also stated that day care is an important service and public participation is justified. Councilmember Rutstein supported the proposal as a benefit to the community because of its cooperative -nature. The vote on Councilmember Rutstein's motion to adopt revised Resolution 83-154 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Public Hearing on Proposed 1984 Budget and Proposed Uses for Revenue Sharing Monies Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "This is the second of two advertised public hearings to gather public input on the proposed 1984 City Budget and proposed uses for Revenue Sharing monies in 1984. The first public hearing was held at the regular Council meeting of September 6th. -15- September 20, 1983 ' The "Budget in Brief," which gave notice of the public hearings, was published in The Coloradoan on Wednesday, August 31. Legal notices were also placed in the newspaper to advertise the two public hearings." City Manager Arnold clarified that the proposed 1984 Budget is not built on a sales tax for services. The budget does incorporate a two-year tax reform program which includes eliminating a sales tax on food. Other sources of revenue are being looked at to eventually replace the sales tax on food, but any new revenue sources will need study. Silvija Widmer, Budget and Research Officer, reviewed the 1984 Recommended Budget which is scheduled for formal adoption on October 4th. She sum- marized the various policy issues that have been discussed with Council, including unfunded expenditures, policy establishment and modification, existing revenue sources, and potential new revenue sources to be con- sidered. The net recommended budget is $81,000,000 including capital improvements. Mrs. Widmer stated that the 1984 budget assumptions include a sales tax growth of 9%, an expenditure growth of 5%, the continuation of Revenue Sharing, a population increase of 4,000 to about 81,000, and an increase in new dwelling units from 900 to 1,000. and additions in fees and rates and She summarized proposed the proposed 2.8 mill property adjustments tax increase to the maximum allowable levy of 13.5 mills. ' Mrs. Widmer also stated that by 1985 the City could experience a deficit of $518,000 in the General Fund because of low revenues. The proposed 1984-85 tax reform program would solve this problem through increased property taxes and replacing the sales tax on food with other revenue sources, such as a sales tax on services. Mrs. Widmer then summarized the proposed 1984 capital projects which were categorized as essential funded projects, essential unfunded projects, and needed projects with no funding. In compliance with federal requirements, Mrs. Widmer summarized the pro- posed 1984 Revenue Sharing Expenditures totalling $1,555,000. The following persons spoke during the public hearing on the budget: 1. Charles Mayhugh, architect, 2833 Eagle Drive, opposed a sales tax on professional services. 2. Carl Glaser, architect, 215 Jefferson, spoke against a sales tax on professional services. 3. Robert Sutter, architect, spoke in opposition to a tax on profes- sional services. -16- September 20, 1983 4. Nancy Wear, realtor, 712 Cambridge Drive, opposed a real estate transfer tax. 5. Bill West, realtor, 2944 Brookwood Place, spoke against a sales tax on services and in favor of keeping the sales tax on food. 6. Ramsey Myatt, attorney, suggested obtaining revenue from non- essential services, stating that most people would view legal services as essential. 7. Don Wedum, architect, supported the sales tax on food because of its stability. 8. Paul Biehl, 127 South College, stated that many items in the City budget subsidize automobiles, and that a tax on services would promote urban sprawl. 9. Bruce Lockhart, 615 Mathews, supported user fees and opposed any increases in sales tax. ' Mayor Knezovich declared the public hearing closed and requested a Budget Worksession for Monday, September 26 at 7:00 p.m. He requested that Councilmembers prepare lists of possible expenditure cuts and potential revenue sources for 1984-85. Mayor Knezovich stated that he believes that fund balance carry forwards are unacceptable and that the current capital program overlooks some serious capital needs. He supported reprioritizing how money is spent, cutting expenditure levels, broadening the tax base, possibly implementing an entertainment tax and a hotel tax, and discarding a sales tax on ser- vices. Resolution Adopting New Fees and Charges Schedule for Municipal Cemeteries, Adopted Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "Council, at its meeting of September 6, 1983, voted to table Resolution 83-142, as amended (the Amendment deleted a proposed new non-resident fee), which would have adopted a new Fees and Charges Schedule for Municipal Cemeteries. It is the understanding of staff that Council tabled the Resolution for further study and input, so that a new option of increasing certain Cemetery Fees and Charges could be prepared and considered for ' adoption. In amending Resolution 83-142 to delete the new non-resident -17- September 20, 1983 , fee, an amount equal to approximately $4,000 in revenues was 'lost', and Council indicated that revised fees should attempt to capture that $4,000 shortfall. In addition, Council asked staff to research other cemeteries to compare their fees and charges with ours. Attached is a Chart of Comparative Fees and Charges for Adult Single Grave Spaces, and Adult Opening and Closing costs. These two particular charges represent approximately 85% of the all the revenues generated through our Cemetery Fees and Charges, and are the most logical for comparison pur- poses. The information in the top portion of the chart was gathered on September 8, 1983, and is representative of the various other cemeteries in our region. The information shown in the bottom 2/3 of the chart was gathered May 11, 1983, and is basically still considered current. Since we are recommending a new increased Fees and Charges Schedule to you, to set new fees which will become effective on October 1, 1983, we asked the other regional cemeteries what they proposed/projected that their 1984 fees would be, so we could also provide that information to you. The various responses we got included: Boulder (Green Mountain) - No anticipated raise, last raise in 1981. Boulder (Mountain View) - No raise in 1984. ' Colorado Springs (Evergreen) - Yes, a 7 1/2% increase in January. Colorado Springs (Memorial Gardens) - Yes, probably a raise in 1984 fiscal year runs October 1st to September 30th), but don't know how much. Last year grave spaces went up $25 and Opening and Closing 10%. NOTE: Memorial Gardens is owned by the same company that owns Resthaven here in Fort Collins. Greeley (Linn Grove) - Probably a raise in January, 1984. Last year a minimal increase of $10 for grave space and $15 for Opening and Closing. Greeley (Sunset Memorial Garden) - Probably a raise October 1st, but don't know how much. Last raise last year was $50 per grave space and $25 for Opening and Closing. Loveland (Loveland and Lakeview) - No anticipated increase in grave space or Opening and Closing; however, going to double prices of cremains and foundations. Pueblo (Imperial Memorial Gardens) - No raises in foreseeable , future, but maybe in late 1984. Don't know how much. 6: September 20, 1983 Pueblo (Mountain View) - No raise in 1984. Last went up in January 1983. (They are using $130,000 interest from an endowment fund to subsidize 1984). Pueblo (Roselawn) - Probably will raise in March 1984. Don't know how much. Went up $25 per grave space last time. Windsor (Lakeview) - Had a raise in 1979 and 1982,'and don't anticipate a raise in 1984. Generally speaking, if other cemeteries in the region are planning on raising their fees and charges in 1984, they either have not yet determined the amount of the raise, or they simply are not telling us at this time. Resthaven here in Fort Collins is a good example. As a private -owned cemetery in competition with us, they have chosen not to tell us what their fees will be in 1984. Available Options Based upon the comments by several Council Members at the September 6th meeting, we are presenting Council with three options for consideration: Option 1 - Adopt the tabled Resolution (Resolution 83-142) as amended, knowing that there should be at least a $4,000 revenue short fall because of the previous deletion of non-resident fees. Option 2 - Adopt a revised Resolution which increases specific fees in order to generate the $4,000 needed to 'bal- ance' the 1984 Cemetery Budget. Option 3 - Adopt the tabled Resolution (Resolution 83-142) as amended, and increase the General Fund Subsidy to the Cemetery Fund by $4,000 to cover the revenue short fall caused by deleting the non-resident fee. If Option 2 is chosen, it should be noted that staff is recommending increasing only two specific fees to raise the $4,000 needed. Adult Grave Space will go up an additional $20, and Adult Opening and Closing costs will go up an additional $10. All other Fees and Charges remain the same. As stated before, 85% of all our revenues generated through Fees and Charges comes from Adult Grave Space sales and Adult Opening and Closing costs. Raising any of the other fees would not generate sufficient monies to justify raising them, and we want to keep our indigent, infant, cremains ' and monument charges in line with our competitors. -19- 1 September 20, 1983 The original Fees and Charges Schedule presented in Resolution 83-142 was determined in a large part by the competitive market place. Our main competition, generally speaking, is Resthaven and the City of Loveland, and many people will shop around when the time comes. Option 2 raises the fees to a point where we may be risking further losses in sales, especially at Roselawn, and Resthaven will pick up the customers. This year alone, we are down 59 sales through August 31st, which mainly 'can be attributed to marketing by Resthaven, as well as the general economic conditions of the past few years. Below is a chart which identifies all of the various cemeteries' fees and charges, showing the existing fees, and the new "pre -need" and "at -need" charges, with the two options for Adult Grave Space and Adult Opening and Closing. Option 2 raises $4,000 more. Present New New (P.C.) Fee Pre -Need At -Need Single Adult (G.V.)w/P.C. ($150) $435 *$400 or $420 *$435 or $455 Double Adult (G.V.)w/P.C. ($225) 655 *$600 or $620 *$655 or $675 Single Adult (R.L.)w/P.C. ($150) 350 *$300 or $320 *$350 or $370 Convert S.to D.(G.V.)w/P.C. ($100) 240 $200 $240 Indigent w/P.C. ($125) 125 Not allowed $125 Single Infant w/P.C. ($100) 185 $185 $185 Double Infant (G.V.) w/P.C. ($125) 280 $280 $280 Convert S. to D.(G.V.)w/P.C. ($ 50) 95 $ 95 $ 95 Cremains w/P.C. ($100) 167 $150 $167 * Option 2 increases the cost of grave space for adults by $20.00. Open & Close Adult Single $294 Not allowed **$330 or ** $340 Open & Close Adult Double 294 ea.Not allowed $330 ea. or $340 Open & Close Crypt 165 Not allowed $183 Open & Close Indigent 125 Not allowed $125 Open & Close Infant Single 117 Not allowed $130 Open & Close Infant Double 117 ea.Not allowed $130 ea. Open & Close Cremains 121 Not allowed $134 Disinter Adult 543 Not allowed $600 Disinter Infant 289 Not allowed $320 Disinter Cremains 100 Not allowed $111 ** Option 2 increases the cost of Opening and Closing for adults by $10.00 -20- r� Minimum Monument Setting Fee 2' through 2'10" 3' through 3'10" 4' through 4'10" 5' through 5'10" 6' through 6'10" 7' through 7'10" 8' through 8'10" 9' through 9'10" Vase Bronze Medallion Remove Foundation Border Only Foundation Only September 20, 1983 $ 50 $ 50 5 60 53 53 64 68 68 82 84 84 101 99 99 119 113 113 136 136 136 163 152 152 182 168 168 202 28 28 34 12 12 14 90 n/a 90 - 1/2 above fee - - 1/2 above fee - Drop -In By Mail Genealogical Research (3 or more names) -0- $ 2.00 $ 5.00 Document Fee -0- 12.00 14.00 (Opening and Closing Fees include Tent, Lowering Device and handling and installing grave liner.) CODE: G.V. - Grandview w/P.C. - With Perpetual Care R.L. - Roselawn S. to D. - Convert Single to Double Res. - Resident ea. - each Summary The major thrust of these new Fees and Charges is to encourage the usage of "pre -need sales", to help us in marketing our services, and to increase revenues generated at the cemeteries. Staff estimates that implementing Option 1 on October 1, 1983, will increase 1983 revenues approximately $3,500, and increase annual revenues approximately $14,000 for the full year in 1984. Implementing Option 2 on October 1, 1983, will increase 1983 revenues approximately $4,500, and increase annual revenues approxi- mately $18,000 for the full year in 1984. Local monument dealers and funeral directors reviewed Option 1 previously, but have had no real input in reviewing Option 2. Staff recommends Council adopt a Resolution adopt- ing new Fees and Charges for the Municipal Cemeteries, determining which option would be the best." City Manager Arnold stated that Option #2 is the Resolution recommended by staff. He stated that an analysis making comparisons with other cemeteries has been provided. -21- September 20, 1983 Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to adopt Resolution 83-142 (Option W . Yeas: None. Nays: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. THE MOTION FAILED. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to adopt Resolution 83-155 (Option #2). Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, El- liott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. City Manager's Report City Manager Arnold called Council's attention to letters received from Cynthia Burke, Ellen Thexton's daughter. Councilmembers' Reports ' Councilmember Elliott reported that a Poudre Fire Authority meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 27th. Councilmember Rutstein reported on a tour of buildings rehabilitated under the CDBG program. She also reported on Light and Power's tour and program presented to foreign visitors. Councilmember Clarke reported that Transfort ridership is up, that a petition has been received from the Midtown Merchants Association on the Mason -Howes couplet, and that energy awards were to be received by the City. Mayor Knezovich requested that Councilmembers each provide him with 3 or 4 qualified names of applicants for Boards and Commissions in order to save advertising time for Boards and Commissions vacancies. Mayor Knezovich commented on the front page article in The Coloradoan relating to EQUATAC and Anheuser-Busch. Adjournment Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, I to adjourn the meeting. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. -22- The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. nVA(1TyT�E..STT,: (�y]l� C i ty Clerk" -23- September 20, 1983