HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-06/17/1980-Regular1
June 17, 1980
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, June 17, 1980, 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: Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson, and Wilmarth.
Absent: None.
Staff Members Present: Lanspery, Liley, Lewis, C..Smith, _Mabry, O'Neill,
Mills, Wood, Rupel, Lee, Sanfilippo, Dallow,
Bunting, Strand, Buchanan, Phillips, and Harmon.
Agenda Review: City Manager
Assistant City Manager Lanspery stated that Item 15, Hearin and First
Reading of Ordinance No. 80. 1980, Authorizinq Conversion o roperty
located at bUl S. Howes trom Kesldentidl to non-KeslaenLldl uses, snouia be
removed from the Consent Calendar. items 26 and Z1, Hearing and First
Reading of Ordinance No. 85, 1980, Authorizing the City ana er to Enter
into an Agreement for the ease urc ase of7U bolt Carts; and Hearingan
first ea ding o r finance o. ut oriz�ing a City—Wa—nager to
E—in o an Agreement or a ease urc ase o Two Street—�$wee er_��s, need
major amendments. Item 34 Discussion Poolan Ice lnK wee,
was
pulled at the request of Mr. Jacob, and will —Be. rescheduled w en i is was
appropriate; and there is one item of other business.
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.
4. Consider aoaroval of the Minutes of the Regular Meetinq of June 3 and
the Aa.lournea Meetinq oT dune lU, iybu .
5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 76, 1980, Designating Certain Property
as a HistoricLaanfRar .
' This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on June 3rd and would designate
the Fancher Sarchet (Atkinson) House, 930 West Mountain as a Local
Historic Landmark.
184
June 17, 1980
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 77 1980, A propri_a_ti_n Unantici-
pate evenues ro Fort o ins ou�af n oar a ui ent to t e
inco n Community enter un .
This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on June 3rd and would appro-
priate the unanticipated revenues so that a timpani can be purchased
before the summer concert series.
7. Routine Deeds and Easements
A. Power line easement from Lillian M. Hamilton located at 2035 West
Mulberry Street for relocation of a power ine due to the West Mul-
berry Street Improvement District. Consideration: $50.00.
B. ' Deed from the City of Fort Collins to the Western Slo a Gas Company to
be used for a relocatedmeter station si a on a eas er y boundary of
Collindale Golf Course. The consideration for the property is $2,500
($1 per square foot).
C. Easement agreement with the Western Slo a Gas Comp for a 20'
easement on the easterly boundary o o in a e a utting the Union
Pacific right-of-way for the installation and maintenance of two
underground natural gas pipelines, in connection with the new meter I
station site. The consideration to the City for this easement is $500
($1.30 per linear foot).
D. Utility easement from The Landin s Ltd. in the first replat of the
Landings P.U.D. First F1 1ng, South of Horsetooth Road. This easement
dedicates Tracts D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, and L, which were previously
platted but never dedicated for utility purposes. The easement is
being donated.
E. Right -of -Way Agreements with the below listed grantors for Mulberry
Street Improvement District No. 74 from Crestmore to Tyler, based on
the appraised values as follows: takings in fee simple based on $1.00
per square foot; temporary construction easements based on 10e per
square foot for a 180 day construction cycle; and permanent easements
based on 75Q per square foot.
Permanent
Fee Simple
Temp. Const.
Easement
Total
Grantor
Consideration
Consideration
Consideration
Consideration
Margaret J. Betzing
$180.00
$ 70.00
-0-
$250.00
Austini& Nellie Simonds
170.00
80.00
-O-
250.00
David & Shirley Chesnut
180.00
70.00
-0-
250.00
Kent & Florence Welch
300.00
100.00
-0-
400.00
Rose L. Miller
Mildred L. Hanna
440.00
218.75
50.00
31.25
$ 10.00
-0-
500.00
250.00
'
Helen M. Blatt
100.00
50.00
-0-
150.00
185
June 17, 1980
8. Expansion of Bobby Lynn Day Care Center, 2430 W. Prospect Street.
This is a request for expansion of an existing non -conforming use
at The Bobby Lynn Day Care Center, located at Prospect Street and
Fuqua Drive.
9. Four Seasons Master Plan (formerly Chisms P.U.D.)
This is a request for master plan approval of 155.96 acres consisting
of 935 dwelling units located on the southeast corner of the inter-
section of Shields Street and Horsetooth Road.
10. Kelger Park P.U.D., Final, a Replat of Lots 2-5.
This is a final proposal for a P.U.D. for 14 units on 1.4 acres zoned
R-M, Medium Density Residential, located on Jamith Place, South of
LaPorte Avenue, west of Shields Street.
11. Mail Creek P.U.D
This is a request for preliminary P.U.D. plat approval consisting of
144 multiple family units, located on a 15.54 acre site north of
' Harmony Road, east of Larkbunting Drive, west of the C & S railroad
tracks and south of Troutman Parkway.
12. New Hampshire Subdivision Preliminary.
This is a request for preliminary subdivision plat approval for 37
acres consisting of 4 lots located north of Danfield Court, south of
Sundown Street, west of Timberline Road and east of the Union Pacific
Railroad tracks.
13. Resolution a rovin an inter overnmental a reement with the Cit of
rva a re a ing to s aring t o cost o a tour o t e io a e.
This Resolution would authorize the payment of $3,290 to the City of
Arvada for the Lincoln Community Center performance scheduled in
November.
14. Hearin and first Re ad in of Ordinance No. 79 1980, Vac at in Exist
asemen s in t e tone en a ixt i in , an a ication
ReDlacement Easements.
This Ordinance would vacate several easements in the Stonehenge P.U.D.
6th Filing. In addition, Council will accept the dedication of
replacement easements.
M
15
16
June 17, 1980
Hearin and First Readin of Ordinance No. 80, 1980, Authorizin
onversion o Property ocate at owes rom esi en is o
Non- esi entiaUses.
This Ordinance would authorize the conversion of the 6 story (College
Inn) Bromley Hall at 601 S. Howes from a private dormitory to an
office complex.
Hearing and First Readin�of Ordinance No. 81, 1980, Annexing Property
Known as piccett n� nezation.
This is a request to annex 36.47 acres located at the northeast corner
of Willox Lane and Redwood Street.
17. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 82, 1980, Zoni
m
19
This is a request to zone approximately 36.47 acres located at the
northeast corner of Willox Lane and Redwood Street. The applicant is
requesting conditional R-P, Planned Residential Zoning, with the
condition that the maximum density not exceed 9 DU/acre. The maximum
allowable density in the R-P Zone is 12 DU/acre.
intment of Alternate to COG Air Quality Board.
Council needs to formally appoint Councilman Elery Wilmarth as an
alternate to the COG Air Quality Board.
Report of Change Order to Parallel Taxiway Project.
The Capital Projects Control Manual directs that all change orders in
excess of $10,000 be reported to Council. The FAA has required a
change order to the airport Parallel Taxiway project amounting to
$43,169.80 and 15 additional working days.
20. Award of Construction Contract Sidewalk Repair District No. 7 (Bou
On June 2, 1980 the City received bids for the removal and replacement
of sidewalks within the boundaries of Sidewalk Repair District No. 7.
The low bidder was Kiefer Concrete Incorporated with a bid of $2.19
for 4-inch removal and replacement, $2.69 for 6-inch removal and
replacement of concrete sidewalk and $7.86 for tree root removal.
187
June 17, 1980
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Verna.Lewis.
Item #5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 76,11980, Designating Certain
roper y as a i�iC Landmark.
Item #6. Second Reading of Ordi
ci ated Revenues from
to t e inco n ommunit
Item #21. Second Readin of Or
re at ion o idewa c R
No. 77. 1980. ADDrobriatina Unanti-
Ordinances on First Reading .were read by title by City Clerk Verna Lewis.
Item #14. Heariand Fmiest Renadtine otfoOerdenanceN9i,x1980 Vacatin
asernts n a t i in ; axistrn e ication of ReDlacement asemen s.
Item #16. H_earing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 81, 1980, Annexing
ropheriy Xnown as NcRi{ nnexa ion.
' Item #17. Hearin and First Readin of Ordinance No. 82 1980, Zoning
roperty Known as is ett nnexation.
Councilman. Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman. Reeves, to
adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas:
Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson, and
Wilmarth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Adopted Authorizing
Conversion of Property Located at
601 S. Howes from
Residential to Non -Residential Uses
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on thii item:
"Proposal:
A request to convert the 6 story (College Inn) Bromley Hall at 601 S.
Howes from a private dormitory to an office complex. Bromley Hall has
a capacity to house 364 students in a dormitory one block from campus.
' Bromley Hall also has food service and recreation facilities. The
June 17, 1980
request proposes to convert 84,000 GLA to offices for research and
administrative facilities for CSU related organizations with approxi-
mately 200 employees total.
Neighborhood Description:
The College Inn is situated in a residential area. Uses along Howes
between Myrtle and Laurel are all rental student housing except for a
church. The area to the west along Meldrum is residential. The area
north of Myrtle is residential with several offices and has several
sites intended for two office buildings. The area is dominated by the
presence of the University.
Major Issues:
1. Goals: The request is in general conformance with adopted City
goals and policies.
2. Impact:
A. Deletion of existing use: If approved, living units accom-
modating 364 students would be eliminated approximately
one-half block from the University. This area is dominated by
student housing within walking distance to the University. If
this converts, there will be many additional requests for
conversions,in the area. The conversion of Bromley Hall will
raise the expectations of all the surrounding property
owners for their property. The long-term result will be the
elimination of residential along Howes Street within close
walking distance to the University.
B. Traffic: The traffic pattern in this area will be undergoing
significant change in the next two years. A one-way couplet
system may be introduced for Mason and Howes. This change
would have a major impact on the abutting land uses. The City
Traffic Engineer does not have any traffic counts for the
future traffic on these streets, but he hopes they will be a
by-pass alternative to College Avenue.
There will be additional traffic from this conversion even
though the area is close to the University because of addi-
tional morning and evening commuter traffic. Hopefully during
the day, there will be an emphasis for pedestrian traffic
between the University and these offices. There are 162
existing parking spaces. For the estimated 200 employees, 133
spaces will be required at the ratio of 2 spaces per 3 em-
ployees.
W
June 17, 1980
Land Use: The conversion of Bromley.Hall will erode the
residential environment and the residential potential of this
area. However, the recognition of the influence and the
impact of the University upon this area also needs to made.
There will be growing need for not only housing, -but Univer-
sity office space within close proximity to the University.
This area along Howes Street is an appropriate area -for
conversion to these types of University related uses. This
decision is also a conscious effort to retain other areas in
this proximity as residential, i.e., Meldrum Street, Sherwood
Street, Whitcomb, Loomis, Remington Street, etc.
3. Compatibility: Bromley Hall is the largest structure in this
area. The size of the building is not being changed. The
parking lots surrounding this structure will have to conform to
the parking ordinance which should improve the visual impact
upon the area, thus making it more compatible.
If this area along Howes Street is to convert, there are many
elements of the present environment which can be retained.
A similar approach was taken for the conversion of the 1400
' block of South College Avenue. The goal was to permit conversions
while retaining the residential appearance and environment. The
curb cuts were minimized, parking placed behind the structures,
trees, landscaping, etc. was retained while signs and other
commercial trappings were minimized. This same approach should be
taken for the area along Howes between Laurel and Mulberry.
Recommendation:
The staff of the Planning and Development Department and the Planning and
Zoning Board recommend approval of -this conversion to offices for research
and administrative facilities for CSU related organizations (#57-80).
Several property owners in the area spoke in favor of -this request at the
hearing."
Assistant City Manager Lanspery called attention to a letter from Mr. Ron
Kaiser, Treasurer of CSURF, regarding this issue. He further stated that
City Attorney Liley would like to address the concerns regarding the use
restrictions on the property.
City Attorney Liley stated "the letter you received from the applicant
raised some questions relating to conditions which were recommended to be
imposed by the Planning and Zoning Board. Before we discuss that specific
190
June 17, 1980
1
request, we would like to take a few minutes and discuss, in general, the
whole question of imposing conditions with regard to an R-H conversion.
Normally, this would be a work session type item and we would bring it to a
work session, but since the issue has been raised, in this specific case,
and we feel direction is needed by the staff, we would request your indul-
gence and perhaps we could discuss it for about ten minutes and you could
give us some direction that might be helpful in this specific case as
well.
At the time we adopted 'the R-H Conversion Ordinance, I think the Council
felt that it might take some reworking. They weren't sure that the concept
was workable, they were agreeable to try the R-H conversion system as set
forth in the Ordinance with an eye to reviewing it in a few months and see
how effective it was. We have encountered three problems with it, and I am
sure you are aware of it, because as we worked through the last two, some
of them cropped up. We ran into a procedural problem with how we go about
approving a conversion, do we do it by Ordinance or Resolution? We felt
there was a notice problem that could be resolved either recording either a
Resolution or an Ordinance.
Second question that came up was one of site plan, was the Council going to
look at specific details of a non-residential use, or were you concerned
more about just the general category of non-residential uses in the R-H 1
zone. At that time, Council appeared to be saying that no site plan was
required.
The third question that came up was related to conditions. The Planning
and Zoning Board last time recommended specific site related conditions.
For example, one of the last ones said "we recommend that the conversion be
approved, if it is used for professional offices, limited to 20,000 square
feet, 20 employees"; that kind of thing. Council very clearly said, we
don't want the site specific details as a part of the conversion approval,
but you did impose conditions, general use conditions. You said you can
use the property, it is allowed to be converted, to the extent it is only
used, for example, for general office purposes. Our problem on the staff,
and when I say staff I mean both the planning and legal staff, is that we
are somewhat confused, I guess, about the Council direction and the intent
of the Ordinance. If you read the Ordinance, it is a very simple Ordinance
and it pretty clearly focuses on the general conversion question. That is,
conversion from residential to non-residential, and doesn't really focus on
conversion from residential to a specific non-residential uses. And, I
think, at the time it was proposed, our intent, at least the staff's
intent, was that you would look at the general question of whether residen-
tial uses should remain, or whether you should go to non-residential uses
in a neighborhood, and it really didn't matter what non-residential use in
a residential use you want to use, but just any non-residential use would
be approved.
1
191
June 17, 1980
We would recommend, again based upon what we perceive the intent of that
Ordinance to be, that you consider adopting a policy of unconditionally
approving conversion, if you decide to approve them of course, and I think
there are some legitimate reasons why you should consider that'. One,
again', is that I think that was the intent as it was originally proposed
and appears to be the intent of the Ordinance. Secondly, it administra-
tively is very easy. As Chuck Mabry, Curt Smith and myself have been
talking about how we go about keeping track of conditional conversion
approval, it could be potentially a real problem in the future. One
problem is that if you are going to condition on a specific use, you have
definitional problems to the extent that they are not defined in the zoning
code. Technically, you should probably put a definition in the Ordinance.
To the extent that it is defined in a detailed way, you are going to limit
it to those specific uses, and if it falls outside of that definition, it
is going to come back for a complete review.
Secondly, in order to back these things, you are going to have to have a
very accurate system, and an easily accessible system, kept by Planning or
Building Inspection, --or someone so -that if a permit is applied for, a
building permit, that was different than the condition that was approved by
Council, we can track it. We can pull an agreement that we passed five
' years ago, and say Council conditioned it on "V use, that doesn't fit.
You have got to go back -through the review process. So we think there -are
some problems in doing that.
Lastly, I guess, if you decided to do it with an unconditional approval,
them you could do it by Resolution, and what that does is saves the appli-
cant 24 days because you are just approving the conversion, and if you are
not placing any restrictions on future conversions of the property, so you
could do it very simply by Resolution.
For those reasons, I think we would like to make recommendations that you
consider approving conversions unconditionally and you just approve a use,
a change from a residential to any allowable non-residential use in an R-H
zone. We at least would like you to discuss it and attempt to give us
direction because at this point we are somewhat confused, and it changes
the process of review that the planners go through, and it changes the kind
of legislation that we draft depending upon that kind of decision, and we
would like some direction and it clearly affects this particular case where
the Planning and Zoning Board has recommended not only a general condi-
tion, but also recommended a specific condition that it be related to CSU
affiliated organizations. So we would like some direction on that question
of conditions. " I - .
Mayor. Gray then called upon Mr. Kaiser to make additional comments. Mr.
Kaiser clarified that it is not the intent of this research foundation to
' provide office space for other than university -related organizations as a
first priority. He also spoke to the limitation placed by the 'type of
financing.
192
June 17, 1980
Councilman Wilmarth inquired into the status of an appeal of a decision of
the Zoning Board of Appeals on this site. Assistant City Attorney Ruggiero
clarified that question before the Zoning Board of Appeals was whether this
was a conversion within the parameters of the Ordinance, and then the
proponents pursued the R-H conversion to the Planning and Zoning Board. So
there were two courses of action and the Planning and Zoning Board approved
the conversion which negated the appeal to the Council. Council then
considered the conversion, the conditions and site plan consideration.
Mayor Gray suggested that since Council discussion is related to this
issue, to keep discussion to this issue and schedule a work session to deal
with the Ordinance.
Councilman Kross inquired if an Ordinance would place time restrictions on
CSURF. Mr. Kaiser responded that a Resolution would expedite the process
as it relates to financing.
Councilman Wilmarth made a motion, seconded by Councilman Kross, to amend
the language in the Ordinance so that it becomes ipso facto a Resolution.
Yeas: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Kross, St. Croix, Wilkinson, and
Wilmarth. Nays: Councilwoman Reeves.
THE MOTION CARRIED. 1
Councilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bowling to adopt
the Resolution. Yeas: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Kross, St. Croix,
Wilkinson, and Wilmarth. Nays: Councilwoman Reeves.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Adopted on Second Reading
Relating to the Creation of
Sidewalk Improvement District No. 8
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"Council is familiar with this improvement district and the policy issue
that needs resolution.
At last week's Work Session we reviewed the alignment and width proposals
for the sidewalk and reached agreement on these issues. The remaining
issue is whether or not four feet of right-of-way costs should be assessed
to the property owners and be an assessible cost to the district. The cost
of this right-of-way is estimated to not exceed $6,228.
193
June •17, 1980
We have prepared two alternative ordinances. The first ordinance (Alterna-
tive "A") includes the four feet of right-of-way.as a cost of 'the district
and is assesseaagainst the property owners. In this ordinance the total
project cost is $48,338. Of this total, $14,110 is assessed to the proper-
ty owners and $34,227 is the City's share.
The second ordinance (Alternative "B") excludes the four feet of right-of-
way as a cost of the district. Under it s approach the total- project cost
is $46,530. The property owners are assessed $6,075 and the City's share
is $40,445.
The administration's -recommendation is for Council to adopt Alternative
"B". We recommend this alternative for the following.reasons:
0 It ,will allow the project to be completed in time for the new
school year.
0 The project is still within the original budget allocation of
$45,600.
0 Because we have never previously assessed right-of-way costs back
to districts, and because the formation of this district spans a
' two year period, it is more appropriate to deal with this -district
in a manner similar to all other past and ongoing districts.
a
A further recommendation would be to schedule a Work Session to discuss our
improvement district ordinance in detail. Council may want to make changes
so that there is a specific policy with respect to right-of-way cost
allocation. This is something the staff is working on and should have
changes for the Council to consider by about September 1,.1980." .-
Assistant City Manager Lanspery stated he felt the engineering problems had
been cleared up and the only outstanding issue is .the assessment of the
four foot of right-of-way. He added that there are two Ordinances, one
would assess the right-of-way to the owners, one would not. The cost
differential to the City is $6,217.00. The recommendation of the admini-
stration is to not assess it to the property owners. -
Those speaking to the alternatives were as follows:
1. Mr. Harold Worth, home owner at 1501 Shields Street.
Councilmembers spoke to the two alternatives and Councilman Kross suggested
a work session on the policy question of including the right-of-way cost
back to the district.
194
June 17, 1980
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman Wilmarth, to amend
Ordinance No. 78, 1980 on Second Reading by adopting Section 3., found in
Alternative B. Yeas: Councilmembers Bowling, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix,
Wilkinson, and Wilmarth. Nays: Mayor Gray.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman Wilmarth, to adopt
Ordinance No. 78, 1980 as amended on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Bowling, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson, and Wilmarth. Nays: Mayor
Gray.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Adopted Authorizing
Amendments to the Contract with the
Fort Colins Development Corporation
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"The Local Development Corporation has requested three areas of change to
their contract with the City. Two of the requested changes are:.
'
1. An exception procedure that would allow the LDC to participate in
a few projects outside the boundaries of General Improvement
District No. 1. (The present contract restricts the LDC to the
boundaries of GID No. 1.)
2. Authority to participate in projects where property acquisition as
well as property rehabilitation is involved. (The present contract
does not allow LDC participation in projects that involve real
estate acquisition.)
The third requested area of change involves allowing the LDC to own and
operate real estate. There are a number of reasons they would like that
authority, one of the major ones being to do a demonstration project. The
City Staff and LDC Board of Directors are still working on the details and
implications of this third area of change.
However, the LDC has projects pending that require responses to the two
requested changes listed !above. Staff has reviewed these changes with the
LDC Board of Directors and concurs with their requests. The exception
procedure would require projects outside the boundaries of the GID No. 1 to
be approved by the City Manager.
Staff recommends adoption'of the attached resolution."
'
195
June 17, 1980
Mr. Frank Johnson, President of the LDC spoke to the three requested
changes.
Councilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bowling,-. to
adopt the Resolution. Yeas: Councilmembers Bowling', Gray; Kross, Reeves,
St. Croix, Wilkinson, and Wilmarth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Street Rehabilitation Program
Contract for Construction
Surveillance Approved
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on -.this item:
"Council tabled this item on May 20th and requested that staff interview
additional consultants and provide more information as to the need for the
contract.
As Council is aware, our street rehabilitation program budget -has expanded
from $600,000 to over $1 million. The magnitude and importance.of this
work requires careful construction surveillance to insure that the work is
completed to our specifications. .As the Street Sufficiency Study recently
indicated, some of our streets were not overlayed according to City spe-
cifications in prior years and as a result have deteriorated at a faster
rate. =
Recent attrition in City Engineering personnel coupled with the expanded
scope of the overlay program makes it impossible to handle the required
surveillance duties on a staff level.
Pursuant to Council's direction, we sent out 25 requests for proposals for
the surveillance.work. Six firms responded and the top -three were inter-
viewed by a review board composed of the Purchasing Agent, Streets &
Traffic Director, and Project Engineer. Those firms interviewed were
Taranto, Stanton and Tagge; Hogan and Olhausen,. Inc. ;'and Centennial
Engineering, Inc. The interview board recommended that the contract be
awarded to Centennial Engineering.
The work to be performed includes surveying, material testing, inspection;
and field administration.- Centennial's charges for their services are
estimated at a maximum of-$10,000 based on the followng assumptions:
0 Four months (June -Sept.) of construction requiring two full-time person-
nel for surveillance work.
0 One month "wind-up" work requiring one half-time person.
0 Surveying time.
0 Material testing.
196
June 17, 1980
Centennial Engineering has extensive experience in construction surveil-
lance and their performance on recent City projects such as the Street
Sufficiency Study and Lemay Extension has been excellent."
Assistant City Manager Lanspery stated this item was brought to our Council
a few weeks ago, and Council asked that it be brought back after some work
on the need for the construction surveillance and that more formal request
for proposals be solicited. He then called on the Purchasing Agent to
review the process used to do this.
Councilman Wilkinson raised a series of questions regarding the specific
work to be done by Centennial Engineering, the recommended contractor. He
expressed his concern that engineering and consultants are not being hired
locally. He then recommended that a committee be set up, with one or two
Councilmemers, some of the local enterprise being involved setting up a
procedure for reviewing requests for proposals.
Councilman Bowling concurred with Councilman Wilkinson's concerns.
•Mayor Gray suggested that the establishment of a committee and the make up
of the committee be discussed at the Council retreat.
Councilman St. Croix made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Reeves, to ,
accept the recommendation of the administration. Yeas: Councilmembers
Gray, Reeves, St. Croix. Nays: Councilmembers Bowling, Kross, Wilkinson,
and Wilmarth.
THE MOTION FAILED.
Councilman Bowling inquired how quickly the staff could talk to local firms
regarding this contract.
Assistant City Manager Lanspery stated they could negotiate with the second
firm on the list as soon as possible.
Councilmembers expressed concern about delaying the street program.
Assistant City Manager Lanspery stated the City has $500,000.00 worth of
bids already awarded, so the contractors will be starting in the next week
or two; the critical cut-off date would be July 1, but we might start
working before then.
Engineering Services Director, Roy A. Bingman, stated further that the
staff could spend the time to find a firm that is acceptable to the
Council.
L
197
June 17, 1980
Councilman Wilkinson made a motion to reconsider the previous action on
this item; in view of the delay and the need to move ahead on this project,
and in view of the fact that a committee will be set up at the retreat.
Mayor Gray did not accept the motion since a second was not made by a
member on the prevailing side.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman Wilmarth, to table
discussion on this item for two weeks. Yeas: Councilmembers Bowling,
Wilkinson, and Wilmarth. Nays: Councilmembers Gray, Kross, Reeves, and
St. Croix.
THE MOTION FAILED.
Mayor Gray then ruled that she would accept a motion by Councilman Wilkin-
son to reconsider the previous action on this item. The motion was
seconded by Councilwoman Reeves. Yeas: Councilmembers Gray, Reeves, St.
Croix, and Wilkinson. Nays: Councilmembers Bowling, Kross, and Wilmarth.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilman St. Croix, that
' the contract be awarded to Centennial Engineering. Yeas: Councilmembers
Gray, Reeves, St. Croix, and Wilkinson. Nays: Councilmembers 'Bowling,
Kross, and Wilmarth.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmembers' Reports
A. Councilman Bowling reported that at the Colorado Municipal League
Meeting, Mayor Gray would be one of the speakers.
B. Councilman Wilkinson distributed copies of the finding of the Blue
Ribbon Panel, entitled Private Choices, Public Strategies, which was
referred to by State Treasurer, oy omer, a a r� ecen governmental
Affairs Committee Eggs and Issues forum. The Governmental Affairs
Committee of the Chamber of Commerce is chaired by City Clerk, Verna
Lewis.
C. Councilwoman Reeves reported that the COG would be meeting. tomorrow
night, and the Air Quality Committee would be meeting in Fort Collins
on July 9, 1980.
D. Mayor Gray again reminded Council she would like to have Council items
' turned in for the Council retreat in Snowmass.
June 17, 1980
E. Mayor Gray then reported that she and Director of Streets and Traffic,
Bob Lee, County Commissioner Courtlyn Hotchkiss, and COG Director
Jonathan Rutstien would be meeting with the State Highway Commission
to attempt to get the State Plan amended to include the bypass.
F. Mayor Gray reported that she and Vice Mayor Wilmarth had been meeting
with Boards and Commissions members, and a full report will be made at
the retreat. She further requested Council complete their recommenda-
tions for Boards and Commissions appointments.
Stonehenge Preliminary P.U.D.
Amendment - Approved
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"This is the revised site plan for the preliminary amendment to the Stone-
henge P.U.D. At the May 20 City Council meeting, Council tabled considera-
tion of the item in order to explore solutions to the concerns raised by
the neighborhood, specifically, size of greenbelt areas and density. The
applicant met with neighborhood representatives May 28, and the following
compromises are offered by the applicant and are now reflected on the new
site plan. '
-- greenbelt areas behind existing lots have been increased to
the size shown on the original final plan.
-- the landscape buffer between the existing single family lots on
Brookwood and the proposed replat has been increased from 25' to
50'.
-- the 4 cluster lots proposed adjacent to the existing single family
lots on Brookwood have been replaced by 3 single family lots.
-- streets have been revised to meet City public street standards.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of this revised site plan of preliminary
amendment to Stonehenge (#26-80) as it adequately addresses concerns
raised by the neighborhood.
1
199
June 17, 1980
1
Chief Planner, Curt Smith, identified the area in question and reviewed the
changes in the plan.
Those persons speaking to the amendment were as follows:
1. Patty Martinez,_2012 Hunter Court
2. Frank Vaught, ZVFK
3. Lonnie Swenson, 2006 Brookwood Drive
4. Sam Flores, 2019 Brookwood Drive.
Councilman Kross made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bowling, to approve
the amendment to Stonehenge Preliminary P.U.D. - Yeas:- Councilmembers
Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, Wilkinson, and Wilmarth. Nays:_, Councilman
St. Croix.- j -
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Cunningham Corner Preliminary
P.U.D. Amendment - Denied
' Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: - A -
"Background:
This is a request to amend a portion of Cunningham Corner P.U.D.,
located at the northeast corner of Horsetooth Road and Shields Street.
The proposed amendment consists of 33 patio homes, 44 townhome/condo-
miniums, 216 apartment/condominiums and 103,360, square feet -of com-
mercial area. The site is zoned R-P, Planned Residential. The
commercial phase in the H-B, Highway Business zone.at the intersection
of Shields and Horsetooth is not being changed by this proposed
amendment.
The site was annexed to the City in 1977 and 26.8 acres were zoned
R-P, Planned Residential and 12.4 acres, Conditional H-B, Highway
Business, in 1978. The condition for the H-B zone was that the uses
be restricted to regional recreational uses and accessory uses.
The preliminary site plan was approved by Council on December 19,
1978, with final plan review required by the Planning and Zoning
Board. The final site plan was then approved by Planning and Zoning
Board April 19, 1979, and by Council on June 5, 1979.,
?T
June 17, 1980
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: R-L; Worthington Farms, Woodwest 7th (existing
single family residences)
S: R-L-P; Vacant (Four Seasons P.U.D. Master Plan
935 residential dwelling units)
E: FA-1; Vacant (First reading on annexation petition
May 20, 1980)
W: R-P and R-M-P; Vacant (Werner Annexation-29.5 acres
R-P and 18.7 acres R-M-P), existing
duplexes and Wagonwheel Subdivision (371
single family dwellings, zoned R-L-P)
Land Use Data:
Total Gross Land Area:
(As platted & Recorded)
Lot 4, Block 5 was
deleted from final
P.U.D. submission
Adjusted Gross Land Area
1,706,332 sq. ft.
(39.17 acres)
67,474 sq. ft.
1,638,858 sq. ft.
(37.62 acres)
Phase Densities
Patio Homes 8.2 acres 33 DU 4.ODU/AC
Townhome/Condominiums 7.8 acres 44 DU 5.6DU/AC
Apartment/Condominiums 9.5 acres 216 DU 22.7DU/AC
Building Types
Patio Homes
Original Plat Replat
2 or 3 Bedroom Units 18 22
3 Bedroom Units 20 11
Total 'M -n
Total Floor Area 49,800 sq. ft. 40,700 sq. ft.
Sq. Ft. Land Coverage 49,720 sq. ft. 44,770 sq. ft.
Townhome/Condominiums
2 or 3 Bedroom Units 62 44
Total Floor Area 124,000 sq. ft. 66,000 sq. ft.
Sq. Ft. Land Coverage 89,280 sq. ft. 26,400 sq. ft.
Apartment/Condominiums
1 Bedroom Units
2 Bedroom Units
3 Bedroom Units
Total
Total Floor Area
Sq. ft. Land Coverage
79
12
7
91,000 sq. ft.
48,350 sq. ft.
54
162
�Tb
218,916 sq. ft.
73,500 sq. ft.
201
1
Commercial
Sq. Ft. Coverage/
Floor Area
Coverage Breakdown
99,400 sq. ft
OF in
Ft % Sq.
Building Coverage
Driveway Coverage
Patio Homes
Townhomes
Off Street Parking
Apartment/Condos
Commercial
Total
Public Street R.O.W.
Total Open Space
On Lot Open Space
Total Active Open Space
Residential Density
(25.542 Acres)
Parking Spaces
Commercial
Patio Homes
.Townhome/Condominiums
Apts./Condominiums
Total
Discussion:
286,750
13,680
28,570
67,487
234,934
344,671
357,004
650,433
June 17, 1980
103,360 sq. ft.
Repl�att
Sq. Ft. %
17.5% 248,030 15%
21%
22%
39.5%
253,471. 15%
7.2 D.U./Acre
Original Plat
421
76
124
154
7/7
11,880
16,975
106,500
234,934
.
370,289
23%
294,648
18%
573,505
35%
152,386
9%
260,493
16%
11.47 D.U./AC
Replat
421
66
88
366
74T
The following indicate changes to the approved site plan as proposed
in this amendment:
1. Several changes have been made in the street system at Staff's
request to help improve traffic circulation. Windmill Drive has
been shifted to the eastern property line. Marathon Drive has
become a cul-de-sac, renamed Marathon Court, and Medallion Drive
has been deleted.
2. Five patio home lots in Phase One have been deleted. The deten-
tion area has been increased and three tennis courts and a shelter
have been added in this phase. The original jogging trail through-
out the development has been retained in this proposal. .
202
June 17, 1980
3. Eighteen dwelling units have been deleted in Phase Two, providing
additional open space.
The concept of townhome units has been changed to townhome/
condominiums with private driveways and sidewalks to the open
space areas. The units have been re -oriented on east/ west axes.
The commercial area in Phase Two was deleted from the final P.U.D.
site plan. This area has been included in the proposed amendment
with the access internally off Marathon Court.
4. The concept of condominium units in Phase Three has been changed
to apartment/condominiums and the number of dwelling units has
been increased to 216 units from 91 units. Each building is a
twelve-plex. Phase Three has been redesigned to cluster the
buildings around open space, where possible. As a result, cluster
areas have been formed in both the north and south areas of the
Phase with smaller pockets of open space provided in the central
area of the phase. Pedestrian walkways to the commercial phase
and to the tennis courts are provided, as are walkways within
Phase Three between the buildings and open space areas.
There is some neighborhood opposition to this proposal. Concerns
expressed include the design of Windmill Drive, the apartment/
condominium density and the tennis court location. Applicant
intends to relocate tennis courts further away from the dwellings
along the northern boundary of the proposal.
Recommendation:
Staff feels that the applicant has provided a better site design than
was originally approved, specifically by addressing the circulation
and the clustering of units around open space in Phase Three.
The staff of the Planning and Development Department and the Planning
and Zoning Board recommend approval of the Cunningham Corner Prelimi-
nary P.U.D. Amendment (#39-80)."
Chief Planner, Curt Smith, identified the
that the highway business zone, regional
consideration, but only the residential ar(
is being proposed to be changed. He a'
approved plan on this site.
Councilman Wilkinson expressed his concern
ing everytime this plan is amended.
203
area in question, and reported
recreational zone, is not under
�a and regional neighborhood area
so emphasized that there is an
that the density keeps increas-
June 17, 1980
The following persons spoke to this amendment and expressed their concern
with the increased density:
1. Eric Fellers, property owner to the north side.
2. David Dietrich, Gunnison Drive.
The architect for the developer spoke in favor of the plan and presented
elevations of the proposed residences.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman Wilkinson, to
approve the Cunningham Corner P.U.D. amendment. Yeas: Councilmembers
Bowling and Wilkinson. Nays: Councilmembers Gray, Kross, Reeves, St.
Croix, and Wilmarth.
THE MOTION FAILED.
Ordinance Adopted on First Reading
Annexing Property Known -as
Riverbend Annexation
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
" I. General Information:
The applicants are
requesting annexation of 11.791
acres of land.
The site is located
approximately 400 feet south of Colorado.
Highway
14, east of the Poudre River, and west of the Country
Side Park. The
property is zoned I,
Industrial, and FA, Farming, by
Larimer County
and is.improved with
an existing warehouse building.
The surrounding
zoning and land uses
are as follows:
N: C (County); Various commercial uses
S: FA (County); City owned Open Space
E: FA and M1 (County); Country Gardens Greenhouses
and existing mobile home Park (Country -Side Park)
W: T-Transition; vacant
II. Discussion:
1. Approximately 4.316 acres of the property is owned by the City of
Fort Collins and is part of the overall "Flatiron Open Space
Area".
2. Sewer and water service: Water service is presently available at
the intersection of Timberline Road and Prospect Road. Sewer
' service is installed in the proposed R.O.W. of the extension to
204
June 17, 1980
Timberline Road, approximately .4 miles to the west of the
subject property. The site is presently being serviced by Elco
Water and Boxelder Sewer Services. The City's Water and Sewer
Division staff feels that City services could not readily be
available to the site in the short run, and would recommend that
if the property were annexed, that it continue to be serviced
by the existing utilities. As the surrounding area develops
and is annexed, the necessary City utility connections would
become more feasible.
3. Electrical Service. The site is presently being serviced by
Public Service. The City's electrical utility is located at the
intersection of the Cache La Poudre River and Mulberry Street.
The City's Light and Power Department estimates that it would
cost the City approximately $300,000.00 to extend their lines to
service the site at this time. In the short run, they would
expect that the City might build the internal system within the
site, and allow Public Service to provide the power. As the
surrounding area is developed and annexed, the City's utility
lines would then be extended more economically.
Fire Protection. Fire protection for the site would be from the I
Poudre Valley Fire Department on Link Lane per automatic aid
agreement.
Police Protection. The site is presently serviced by County
Police. If the site were annexed, the police authority would be
by the City. The City Police are becoming increasingly concerned
over annexing areas on the perimeter of the City, and spreading
thin their existing manpower capabilities. In this instance, a
City patrol car would drive aprroximately 1.7 miles one way (3.4
miles round trip) through unincorporated areas to service the
site. The Police staff feel that the additional driving time to
service the individual site would erode their patrol time devoted
to other parts of the City.
6. Urban Growth Area. The subject property is within the Urban
Growth boundaries and is eligible for annexation.
III. Reason for Request
The petitioners request for annexation is as follows:
"The Riverbend Annexation appears consistent with City annexation
policy. It is within an area of urban growth as defined by Resolu-
tion 80-18 and also within the area the City has committed to annex
205
1
June 17, 1980
by Policy 42 of the City's Land Use Policies. Moreover, at the time
the City contracted to purchase the open space and park land in this
area, one requirement which the City made in the contract to purchase
was that the Riverbend Committee agree to annex all of their land to
the City. Because of this commitment, all of the planning relating
to this property contemplated annexation to the City and the storage
units now built on the property were specifically constructed
anticipating such annexation."
IV. Staff Recommendation:
The staff of the Department of Planning and Development recommend
approval of the annexation of the Riverbend property. (#22-80)
V. Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation:
At their regular business meeting on May 27, 1980, the Planning and
Zoning Board recommended denial of the petition for annexation of the
Riverbend property. The Board felt that the annexation was not
supported by the Goals and Objectives of the City, and that there
were serious sewer, water, electrical and police service problems
with the site. Several persons opposing the project were present at
' the hearing."
Chief Planner, Curt Smith, identified the area in question and identified
the potential alignment of Timberline Road, as it would affect the pro-
perty.
Attorney Arthur March, Jr., representing the petitioner, spoke in favor of
the Ordinance and reported the original petition had been for a larger
area, but had been reduced at the staff request and there is no objection
to bringing in the entire parcel.
City Attorney Liley addressed the requirement for dedication of right-of-
way at the time of development, or by an improvement district.
Councilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilman Kross, to adopt
Ordinance No. 87 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray,
Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson, and Wilmarth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Wilkinson requested the staff bring back the balance of this
parcel to the Council as soon as possible for annexation. Chief Planner
Curt Smith stated this would come back in about two months.
206
June 17, 1980
Ordinance Adopted on First Reading
Zoning Property Known as
Riverbend Annexation
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
" I. General Information:
The applicants are requesting zoning to I-L, Limited Industrial
Zoning District, for 11.7191 acres of land located approximately 400
feet south of Colorado Highway 14, east of the Poudre River, and west
of the Country Side Park. The property is zoned I, Industrial, and
FA, Farming, by Larimer County and is improved with an existing
warehouse building. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as
follows:
N: C (County); Various commercial uses
S: FA (County); City owned Open Space
E: FA and M1 (County); Country Gardens Greenhouses
and existing mobile home park (Country Side Park)
W: T - Transition; vacant
II. Discussion: '
1. Flood Plain. The property lies partially in the "Flood Way" and
partially in the "Flood Fringe". Since the "flood way" is an
extremely dangerous area due to the velocity of flood waters, no
development shall occur in that area unless a technical evalua-
tion demonstrates that the encroachment shall not result in an
increase in flood levels. Development may occur within the
"flood fringe" as long as it meets the requirements of the Flood
Hazard Area Codes.
Relationship to Policies Plan.
A. The policy plan recommends that industrial uses may be
located in "less hazardous flood plain designations provided
proper mitigation of the flood hazard and water quality is
preserved." The subject property will be required to meet
all City Codes in regard to flood plain areas prior to its
development.
The policy plan states that "industrial uses should locate
near transportation facilities that offer required access."
The site is within 400 feet of Mulberry Street which will
provide the necessary street facilities for the proposed
industrial uses. '
207
The policy plan states
located within the Cit
for the Urban Growth
existing development
Growth Area.
June 17, 1980
y
"that industrial development should be
or consistent with the phasing plan"
Area. The property is adjacent to
and is within the designated Urban
D. The policy plan states that "proper sizing of facilities such
as water, sewer, and transportation has occurred or planned"
for the proposed industrial uses. In the short run, the
existing utilities will continue to service*the subject
property (Elco Water, 8oxelder Sewer, and Public Service).
In the long run, when adjacent properties are annexed and
developed, the City's utilities will be extended to service
the subject property.
3. Existing Zoning. The site is zoned I, Industrial, and FA,
Farming, by Larimer County. The proposed I-L, Limited Industrial
Zoning District, would be compatible with the existing zoning.
The site is presently occupied by a warehouse structure. The
I-L, Limited Zoning District designation would be compatible
with the existing use.
4. Compatibility with Surrounding Uses. The site is bordered on the
north by commercial uses, on the east by a commercial greenhouse
use, and on the south by the "Flatiron Open Space Area". The
I-L, Limited Industrial Zoning District, would permit' the
development of light industrial uses and would afford the City
site plan review authority that should assure compatibility with
the surrounding uses.
III. Reason for Request
The petitioners request for zoning is as follows.
"The property is now zoned for industrial use in the county and the
improvements constructed on the property are appropriate for the IL
zoning. The surrounding neighborhood would not be conducive to any
type of residential development, and business or commercial develop-
ment removed from the Highway 14 frontage could not be anticipated to
be successful. Realistically, the property probably justifies an IG
zoning, but the IL zoning is acceptable to the owners."
IV. Staff Recommendation:
The petition for zoning to I-L, Limited Industrial Zoning District,
for the Riverbend Property is consistent -with the City's Land Use
Policies Plan and Urban Growth Area Plan! Therefore, the staff
reco�approval of the petition. j
MN
June 17, 1980
V. Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation:
At their regular business meeting on May 27, 1980, the Planning and
Zoning Board recommended approval of the zoning request of the
Riverbend property to I-L, Limited Industrial Zoning District,
subject to the condition of annexation to the City. (#22-80)"
Councilwoman Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bowling, to adopt
Ordinance No. 88 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Bowling;, Gray,
Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson, and Wilmarth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Defeated on First Reading
Assessing the Cost of Work Done on Trees
Against Properties
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"The City Code of Ordinances provide that the City Arborist may request
a property owner to remove diseased or dead trees from private property,
and, in the event such requested tree sanitation work is not performed,
the City Arborist can cause such work to be performed with the costs
incurred by the City to be assessed against the property. During the
past year, there were seventeen occasions in which the City Arborist
caused the requested tree sanitation work to be performed with the bill
for the costs incurred sent to the property owner. Seven of the bills
have been paid in full, a partial payment has been received on two bills
and lien -payment agreements signed on the remaining eight bills.
The City Code also requires that the Director of Finance on or prior to
July 1 report to Council for assessing any unpaid costs incurred by the
City for tree sanitation work on private property. There are two bills
sent to Mr. Ralph Switzer for the removal of two trees in the right-of-way
of which fifty percent (50%) of each bill is unpaid. Mr. Switzer appealed
the request to perform the tree sanitation work to the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board. The Board, at a meeting to hear Mr. Switzer's appeal, on
August 7, 1979, rejected the appeal but recommended his financial lia-
bility for removing the trees be reduced by fifty percent (50%). Mr.
Switzer has subsequently paid fifty percent (50%) of each of the two
bills. Please see attached list of bills to be assessed, along with the
minutes of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting for the!Switzer
appeal.
The'Director of Finance must also report to Council all tree sanitation
bills on which the City has entered into a lien -payment agreement.. Please
see attached list of bills on which lien -payment agreements have been
signed."
209
June 17, 1980
1
Assistant City Manager Lanspery reviewed the outstanding issue of Mr.
Switzer's bill, which he has_ paid., as recommended by the Parks and Recrea-
tion Board.
Councilwoman Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilman St.. Croix to deny
Ordinance No. 83 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray,
Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson, and Wilmarth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Adopted as Amended on
First Reading Creating a Parking Fund
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"This ordinance is to create a Parking Fund for the purpose of consolidating
parking related activities. These activities will include:
- Parking Enforcement.
- Coordinating the planning and development of new parking facilities.
- Other parking related services requested by City Council.
' Revenues for the Parking Fund will be generated from:
- Parking Fines.
- Rental of parking spaces.
- Other revenues designated for the support of parking related
services.
During the remainder of 1980, the Parking Fund will only collect revenues
from the rental of spaces. All other parking revenues are currently
budgeted in the General Fund. The 1980 expenditures will be limited to the
addition of two permanent part-time positions that were not originally
budgeted in the General Fund. (An appropriation ordinance will be required
for these positions once the revenue is received.)
The draft 1981 budget reflects the consolidation of Parking Fund revenues
and expenditures.11
Assistant City Manager Lanspery reviewed the recommendation of the Parking
Commission.
City Attorney Liley stated the following amendment was requested to add to
the last paragraph, the following language "and be it further ordained that
for purposes of collection of revenues generated from parking related
activities, that the parking fund created herein shall be deemed to be
I
effective as of June 1, 1980.
210
June 17, 1980
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Reeves, to amend
Ordinance No. 84, 1980 as recited by the City Attorney. Yeas: Council -
members Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson, and Wilmarth.
Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman Wilkinson, to
adopt Ordinance No. 84, 1980 on First Reading as amended. Yeas: Council -
members Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, and Wilkinson. Nays:
Councilmember Wilmarth.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Adopted as Amended
on First Reading Authorizing the
City Manager to Enter into an Agreement
for the Lease/Purchase of 30 Golf Carts
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"The City golf cart lease expired in May, 1980. We are currently renting '
a few golf carts on a day-to-day basis.
Twice, prior to the expiration date of the lease, the City unsuccessfully
requested bids for the rental/lease of golf carts. Both times, the bids
were rejected.
Several alternatives were subsequently explored. The attached analysis
exhibits a recommended 5-year lease/purchase of 30 new golf carts and
replacement of 10 golf carts every 2 years. This program should generate
approximately $36,000 net income with an average annual return on invest-
ment (ROI) of 17% over the next 7 years. We have received a quoted rate of
10% through Boettcher and Company."
City Attorney Liley reported that at the time the agenda was prepared, the
staff had not finalized the negotiations with Boettcher and Company. These
negotiations have now been finalized and an agreement will be signed prior
to second reading of the Ordinance.
Both the Ordinances, Ordinance No. 85, 1980, and Ordinance No. 86, 1980,
had to be amended by inserting the terms of the agreement, as follows:
Ordinance No. 85, 1980
"WHEREAS, the terms of the equipment lease agreement will provide ,
as follows:
211
June 17, 1980
The City shall lease from Boettcher and Company
thirty (30), Model No. 1980G1E, Yamaha Electric Golf
Carts.
The agreement shall be for an original term from July
11, 1980 through December 31, 1980. The agreement
shall provide for four (4) renewable one-year terms
from January 1st to December 31st of 1981, 1982, 1983
and 1984. The agreement shall provide for a six-month
renewable term from January 1, 1985 through July 1,
1985.
The City shall make equal quarterly payments for each
of the consecutive terms of such agreement, provided
that the payment for the first quarter of the original
term shall be decreased by an amount equal to ten (10)
days of interest.
If the City shall lease the equipment for the original
term and all successive renewal terms, the payment to
Boettcher and Company will total the sum of the princi-
pal, Fifty -Nine Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Dollars
' ($59,670.00), plus ten percent (10%) interest, computed
over the term of the agreement as renewed.
The City shall have an option to purchase the equipment
on any quarterly payment date of any term. The option
to purchase shall be exercised by paying the quarterly
payment due on said date and the unpaid principal due
after said date.
If the City shall renew the agreement for all the
renewal terms ending on June 30, 1985, the City shall
be deemed to have exercised the option to purchase the
equipment and have all right, title and interest to the
equipment.
This agreement shall not be a pledge of the City's
revenues."
AND:
1
212
June 17, 1980
Ordinance No. 86, 1980
"WHEREAS, the terms of the equipment lease agreement wi11-provide
as follows:
The City shall lease from Boettcher and Company
two (2) Elgin Pelican Street Sweepers.
The agreement shall be for an original term from July
11, 1980 through December 31, 1980. The agreement
shall provide for four (4) renewable one-year terms
from January 1st to December 31st of 1981, 1982, 1983
and 1984. The agreement shall provide for a six-month
renewable term from January 1, 1985 through July 1,
1985.
The City shall make equal quarterly payments for each
of the consecutive terms of such agreement, provided
that the payment for the first quarter of the original
term shall be decreased by an amount equal to ten (10)
days of interest.
If the City shall lease the equipment for the original
term and all successive renewal terms, the payment to
Boettcher and Company will total the sum of the princi-
pal, One Hundred Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Dollars and
00/100 ($100,660.00), plus ten percent (10%) interest,
computed over the term of the agreement as renewed.
The City shall have an option to purchase the equipment
on any quarterly payment date of any term. The option
to purchase shall be exercised by paying the quarterly
payment due on said date and the unpaid principal due
after said date.
If the City shall renew the agreement for all the
renewal terms ending on June 30, 1985, the City shall
be deemed to have exercised the option to purchase the
equipment and have all right, title and interest to the
equipment.
This agreement shall not be a pledge of the City's
revenues.
213
June 17, 1980
Director of Finance Ronald Wood then presented a financial analysis of the
lease purchases and responded to Council inquiries regarding the possible
conflict of interest of the fiscal advisor to the City, making a commission
on items such as this.
Councilwoman Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bowling, to amend
Ordinance No. 85, 1980, as recited by the City Attorney. Yeas: Council -
members Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson, and Wilmarth.
Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Reeves, to adopt
Ordinance No. 85, 1980, as amended on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson, and Wilmarth. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Adopted as Amended
on First Reading Authorizing the
City Manager to Enter into an Agreement for the
Lease/Purchase of Two Street Sweepers
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"The 1980 Budget includes funds to replace two street sweepers. We have
compared two alternatives for acquiring this equipment.
1. Normal - Purchase
2. Lease - Purchase
The analysis included a present value method and a cash flow method. The
present value method shows that the lease purchase is about $1,500 less
expensive over the five-year life of one sweeper. The cash flow analysis
shows that the lease/purchase method will require about $60,000 less in
cash needs over the five-year life.
In addition, we are exploring the possibility of contracting with the
private sector for the street sweeping function. We should be able to
do some contracting on a small scale this summer, and will have a recom-
mendation on a larger program before next spring.
We contacted a local institution about handling the lease/purchase on the
street sweepers and received a quote of 10.75%. We did not feel that the
quoted rate was indicative of the market, so we asked Boettcher and Company
' to find a buyer. Subsequently, we have negotiated a rate through Boettcher
and Company of 10%."
214
June 17, 1980
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman Wilkinson, to
amend Ordinance No. 86, 1980, by inserting the terms of agreement as
recited by the City Attorney. Yeas: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Kross,
Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson, and Wilmarth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman Kross, to adopt
Ordinance No. 86 as amended on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson, Wilmarth. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
A. Annual Audit Agreement Approved.
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"We received this information after the Council agenda had been I
prepared and sent to the printer.
Clifton, Gunderson & Company is prepared to conduct the 1980 audit for
a fee of $41,250. This is consistent with their proposal of October
12, 1979 which is also attached.
Council needs to approve by motion this proposal."
Councilman St. Croix presented the recommendations of the Finance
Committee which is to approve the Annual Audit Agreement.
Councilman St. Croix made a motion, seconded by Councilman Wilkinson,
to approve the Agreement with Clifton, Gunderson & Company to prepare
the annual audit. Yeas: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves,
St. Croix, Wilkinson, and Wilmarth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
215
7-
Adjournment
Mayor Gray declared the meeting be adjou
9:20 p.m.
ATTEST:
V
June 17, 1980
. The meeting was adjourned at
216