Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-02/19/1980-RegularFebruary 19, 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, February 19, 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 Councilmembers: Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson and Wilmarth. Absent: None Staff Members Present: Arnold, Liley, Lewis, O'Neill, C. Smith, R. Smith, Wood, Mabry, Deagle, Krempel, Lee, Ruggiero, Mills, Waido, Frazier and Bingman. ' Agenda Review: City Manager City Manager John Arnold stated Item #18, R.C.D. Phase I, Final, has been requested to be pulled from the agenda, or tabled to March 4, 1980. Consent Calendar: These are items of a routine or non -controversial nature, on which a unanimous vote of approval is expected. Anyone may request an item on this calendar be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately (The purpose of this calendar is to allow Council to spend its time and energy on more important items.) The Consent Calendar presented was as follows: 4. Consider approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meetings of January 22 and February 5 and the Adjourned Meeting of January 29, 1980. 5. Second Reading of Ordinance No, 177 Staff recommends this Ordinance be tabled indefinitely on Second Reading. 6. Second Readinq of Ordinance No. 19. 1980, Creatinq and organizi Staff recommends this item be tabled on Second Reading to March 4th. alf-a n 7. F 10 11 12. 13. February 19, 1980 This Ordinance passed unanimously on First Reading on February 5th and would appropriate $1,317,460 from accumulated reserves in the Light & Power utility for the Construction of the Harmony Substation. Report of Emergency Purchases. a. Snow Removal b. Transmission These purchases are being reported to Council because of the Charter provision requiring that such purchases in excess of $1.500 must be so reported. Routine Dedication Deed. This is a routine dedication deed from the Co,llindale South II partnership for roadway and right-of-way for utility lines in the Landings area. There is no cost to the City for this deed. , Adoption of Specifications for Sanitary Sewer Design and Installation. Staff has updated the Standard Specifications for the design and installation of Sanitary Sewers. The revised specifications have been reviewed with local design consultants and utility contractors. Appointment of Additional member to the Storm Drainage Board. Council, by motion, should authorize staff to advertise for an additional member to the Storm Drainage Board. f Ordinance No. 22. 1 This is a request to vacate a 6' utility easement located on the west side of Banyan Drive. Citv to enter into a This Resolution would authorize the Light and Power Department to lease a garage facility adjacent to the former equipment garage. 14. Amendment to the College Motors P.U.D. This is a final proposal to amend the College Motors P.U.D. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the existing College Motors P.U.D. to allow for a '4,222 sq. ft. addition. -19- ' February 19, 1980 15. The Villa P.U.D., Final. This is a proposal for a final P.U.D. on 3.95 acres consisting of a 54,000 square foot shopping center and requisite parking located south of Foothills Parkway, east of Mason Street and West of College Avenue. 16. Replat Stonehenge 6th Filing P.U.D. This is a request to replat the 6th filing of the Stonehenge P.U.D. The primary purpose of the applicant's request is to correct some technical notations on the original plat, speci- fically the numbering of lots. 17. Approval of the By-laws of the Lincoln Community Center Guild. The Cultural Resource's Board unanimously approved the revised by-laws for the Lincoln Community Center Guild at its January 23rd meeting and recommends Council approval. The following items were withdrawn from the Consent Calendar: 5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 177 1979 relating to Handicapped Parking. ' 11. Appointment of Additional member to the Storm Drainage Board. 13. Resolution authorizing the City to enter into a Lease Aqreement for Property adjacent to the Equipment Repair Facility. 17. Approval of the By-laws of the Lincoln Community Center Guild. Ordinances on Second Reading were read by Title by City Clerk, Verna Lewis: 7. Second 1, 1980, Appropriatinq Funds from & Power Utility for Construction of Councilman Kross made a motion, seconded by Councilman St. Croix 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. — 20- February 19, 1980 ' Second Reading of Ordinance Relating to Handicapped Parking Tabled Indefinitely. Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "Currently there is a bill pending in the State legislature that would enact a new definition of the term "handicapped". Staff requests that this Ordinance be tabled indefinitely on Second Reading until this pending bill is acted upon." Councilman Wilmarth inquired if the pending State legislation would affect any other of the City's Ordinances relating to the handicapped. City Attorney Lucia Liley stated the pending legislation would broaden the definition of "handicapped" significantly. The Handicapped Committee is willing to await this broader definition. The City will not change the definition for other purposes. Councilwoman Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilman St. Croix to Table Ordinance No. 177,:1979 indefinitely. t YEAS: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson and Wilmarth. NAYS: None 1 THE MOTION CARRIED. Appointment of Additional Member to Storm Drainage Board Approved. i Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: It is requested that the City Council appoint one additional member to the Storm Drainage Board. Section 93-3 of the City Code allows the Board to have from fiveito seven members. There are currently six members assigned. During the January 30 meeting, the Board voted to request an additional member. The Storm Drainage Board has been especially busy this past year because of several major activities in the program. The creation of the storm drainage utility with the proposed fees necessitated several evening meetings with developers as well as presentations to the Council and the Water Board; an on -site trip was made to each proposed drainage improve- ment site; and special meetings with consultants on the proposed drainage specifications manual were held throughout the year. An additional member is needed to help with the workload as well as to provide another area of expertise. Adoption of the Consent Calendar would authorize staff to advertise and accept applications for the sevent,i member of the board. , We will return with a Resolution making the appointment of the additional member after applications have been closed." -21- February 19, 1980 ' Councilman Wilmarth stated he had noticed the (City also had a vacancy on the Parking Commission and whether these two applications were being handled differently. City Manager Arnold responded that this is a request for an additional member rather than filling a vacancy. Councilman Wilmarth made a motion, seconded by Councilman St. Croix to authorize the staff to advertise for an additional member to the Storm Drainage Board. YEAS: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson and Wilmarth. NAYS: None THE MOTION CARRIED. Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "This Resolution would authorize the Light and Power Department to lease a garage facility adjacent to the former equipment garage (Service Center ' on North Wood St.). Light and Power will be using this facility for storage of some of their equipment and rental payments will come from their Operations and Maintenance budget." Councilman Wilkinson inquired into the permanent solution to this problem and further requested the administration investigate the possible purchase or option on this property. Councilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilman Wilmarth to adopt the Resolution. YEAS: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson and Wilmarth. NAYS: None THE MOTION CARRIED. By-laws of the Lincoln Community Center Guild Approved. Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: -22- February 19, 1980 ' "The Lincoln Community Center Guild is an organization that is advisory on matters concerning the Lincoln Community Center. As a body, it has designed the by-laws defining its role, responsibilities and authority. These by-laws have been drafted and reworked over the last 12 months and were approved by the Cultural Resources Board on January 23, 1980." Mayor Bowling requested this item be pulled to report on a meeting with the Guild held on Thursday and the satisfactory conclusion to that meeting. Councilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Reeves to. approve the by-laws of the Lincoln Community Center Guild. YEAS: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson and Wilmarth. NAYS: None THE MOTION CARRIED. R.C.D. Phase I, Final. i City Manager John Arnold stated the request is to table this item to March 4, 1980. , Councilman 'Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Reeves to Table this item to March 4, 1980. YEAS: Councilmembers Gray, Kross, Reeves, Wilkinson and Wilmarth. NAYS: NONE Mayor Bowling did not vote. THE MOTION CARRIED. Report on Air Quality Legislation. Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "Attached is a copy of a memo from Don Deagle; Assistant City Attorney, concerning the lawsuit presently pending against the EPA in the tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. By way of summary, the purpose of the lawsuit is to block an EPA threat to cut off most Federal funding to the State on March 1, 1980, if the State Legislature should fail to adopt a motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program by that date. Copies of the pending legislation which is now in the Transportation and Appropriation Committees of the House, are available for inspection in the City Attorney's office. This Bill must be reported out of committee no later than Friday, February 15th. At the Council meeting, we will have a brief report for Council as to the status of the Bill and its prospects for passage prior to the March 1st deadline." ' -23- February 19, 1980 ' Following is Assistant City Attorney Don Deagle's memorandum on this item: "On October 5, 1979, the Regional Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency issued an order to the State of Colorado to the effect that the State must adopt a motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program no later than March 1, 1990, or face the immediate cutoff of all non -transportation and safety related Federal funding. As you know, many areas of the State are "non -attainment areas" which means that the State will not have achieved compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards by the required date of December 31, 1982. Federal law permits an extension of that compliance date to December 31, 1987, so long as a State is implementing "all reasonably available measures" to achieve compliance. The State Implementation Plan submitted by the Governor's Office was rejected by the Environmental Protection Agency on the basis that it was not likely to achieve the required clean air standards because it contains no provisions for automobile inspection and required maintenance prograurs. It is generally co:iceded by State authorities an I and M Program will be required to bring about meaningful reductions in automobile generated air pollution. Thus, on October 5th, the EPA took the position that the State's f.ai.lure to adopt an inspection maintenance program demonstrated that. the State was not, in fact, utilizing all reasonably available control measures. The Mountain States Legal Foundation, on behalf of 27 State ' Legislators and in the capacity of a private attorney general, sued the Environmental Protection Agency seeking a restraining order and a determination that the Environmental Protection Agency was exceeding its authority and violating the Federal/ State relationship. That lawsuit is now in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on an expedited basis and briefs are due by all parties on February 8th. The Statelof Colorado was granted leave to intervene and has indicated to us that they will be filing a brief. The Court has indicated it will issue a ruling prior to the March lst deadline. I spoke with Jim Kurtz -Phalan in the Governor's Office and he informed me that he is not overly concerned about the pendency of the lawsuit. While he acknowledges that there is some uncertainty as to whether or not the State: would prevail in the suit, he feels there is a strong probability that the legislature will adopt an inspection and maintenance program which meets the approval of the EPA. Attached please find a copy of a bill which is patterned after the Las Vegas approach which has already received EPA approval. The question remains as to whether the legislature will adopt the bill prior to the March 1st deadline. Kurtz-Phalen acknowledges that this may,not, in fact, occur but feels, nontheles$, that the EPA will not immediately jeapordize our Federal funding. Jim Watt, the Director of Mountain States Legal Foundation, is more concerned and feels that the State has been dilatory in challenging the proposed EPA action. No matter ' what happens, it is totally apparent that this matter is in the hands of the State and that we can do little more than keep tabs on the pending litigation. Please contact me if you have an), questions." -24- February 19, 1980 City Attorney Lucia Liley reported the legal staff had talked with the Colorado Municipal League and the two bills are still locked up in Committee. In order to be reported out of Committee, the bills will have to be assigned late status. The League is not optimistic about passage of the bills. Public Works Director Roger Krempel 'stated about $2 million is in jeopardy in the sludge project. No action was taken, but to receive the report. Ordinance Adopted on First Readi o the Code as it Relates r 106 Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: This memo deals with agenda items 20 and 21. The purpose of the proposed Ordinance changes is to amend the income and eligibility criteria for participation in the City's Property Tax/Utility Refund Program. Adjustments to the oresent program were discussed with the Council during budget work sessions but no definite guideline changes were approved. The existing City program is structured upon the following eligibility criteria and rebate levels: Eligibility Requirements Age 65 and older Resident of the City during preceding year Paid property taxes or rent Maximum taxable income - $4,000 'single, $4,500 married Rebate Levels Property owner - full reimbursement of City property taxes paid Renter - 1.44% of total rental payments Utility rebate - $30.00 (equivalent to one month's average utility bills - $15.00, Light and Power, $10.00, Water and $5.00, Sewer). For 1979, the City will refund $61,659 in property tax and utility rebates. The 1979 refunds were calculated on an individual's 1978 property taxes paid and one month's cost for utilities in 1978. Similarly, 1980 rebates would be calculated upon 1979 property taxes paid and 1979 utility rate schedules. A more detailed analysis of the 1979 program is found below: Partici2q!ts Property Owners Renters ' Mobile Homes 519 302 130 TOTAL 951 1 -25- February 19, 1980 Payments ' Property tax refunds $33,602 Utility refund $28,057 ° TOTAL $611659 Average Payment $ 64.83 The. City Council has received four Board and'Commission recommendations on proposed changes to the present program. These recommendations are attached. In general, all the recommendations deal with expanding the program to include the handicapped, broaden the income eligibility requirements or increase the rebate levels. It is our recommendation that Council approve the recommendation of the, Citizen Tax Committee. This would: 1. Amend the income criteria of the program to coincide with the State's eligibility levels for gross income- $7,300 single, $10,800 married 2. Allow handicapped individuals who meet the income and residency criteria to participate in the program. There are two specificirecommendations that are not recommended; ' they are: 1. To utilize the Colorado State adjusted gross income criteria for determining eligibility as recommended by the Senior Citizen's Commission. This would exclude social security and pension payments froiii e.:,nsiderdtion as an income. We are opposed to this change because individuals with incomes well above $10,800 would qualify for the rebate program.' Further, the City's pilot "prope,rty tax/work off" project will offer an avenue for higher incomed individuals to obtain property tax relief (if they so desire). 2. The Electrical Rate Form Committee recommended that the electric utility rebate be doubled from $15.00 to $30.00. We would recommend that Council continue the concept of reimbursing the equivalent of one month's average utility charge (adjusted annually for rate increases). Since there were no rate increases in 1979, the $30.00 rebate would remain in effect. The 1980 budget contains $108,520 for the property tax and utility rebate program. The recommended eligibility amendments can be well accomodated within this budget allotment." -26- February 19, 1980 Councilwoman Reeves made.a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Gray to adopt Ordinance No. 17, 1980 on First Reading. YEAS: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson and Wilmarth. NAYS: None THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance Adopted on First Readinq Amendinq Chapter Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "Please refer to previous item for background information." Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilman Wilmarth to adopt Ordinance No. 18, 1980 on First Reading. YEAS: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson and Wilmarth. NAYS: None THE MOTION CARRIED. Followinq is the City Manager's.. -memorandum on this item: This agreement culminates a multi -year effort on the part of the City and the County to deal with current and future growth in the Urban Growth Area rationally. The policies agreed to and provided for herein include: -- The City and County would agree upon the Urban Growth Area encompassing the City of Fort Collins; -- That no urban level development would be permitted to take place outside the Urban Growth Area; -- That the City would agree to annex all property within the unincorporated area of the Urban Growth Area as soon as said property became eligible for annexation; -- That the County would approve only urban level development within the Urban Growth Area and that said development would conform to all City development standards. This agreement has been,prepared as our best effort to reflect the understandings reached by the City and.Countyi. It has been submitted to the County Attorney for review but not yet commented upon. Such review should be received by Tuesday. -27- February 19, 1980 Formal public hearings before the County Commissioners and Planning Commission have tentatively been set for March 27 at which time the ' County Could formally adopt the agreements." City Attorney Lucia Liley recommended Council approve the agreement in concept with the understanding that there might be some revisions to address County concerns. Council requested a renewal provision of the agreement. This agreement will come back to the Council at a later date. Councilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Gray to adopt the Resolution. YEAS: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, KrOSs, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson and Wilmarth. NAYS: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution Adopted Authorizing the City to Enter into a Lease and Agreement with Larimer County for Use of the municipal Jail. Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: i This Resolution would authorize the City to enter into a 2-year lease agreement with Larimer County for utilization of the old Municipal Jail. A memo from the City Attorney is included to provide additional background information." Following is the City Attorney's memorandum on this item: "In accordance with what we preceived the consensus of the Council to be, an agreement has been drafted which would lease the City jail facility to the County. The term of the lease is three years with the latter two years contingent on appropriation of County funds to operate the facility. The agreement recognizes that State law places the obligation to have and operate a jail on the County Commissioners and the County Sheriff. Therefore, we have left out all references to "City prisoners" and instead provided that the Sheriff will accept all prisoners taken into custody by City police officers and pay for costs associated with such prisoners, including food and post -arraignment medical examinations. The only exception to this would be with regard to those prisoners taken into custody for violation of City ordinances, the City Charter or by order of the City's Municipal Judge and, in the event that jail facilities were filled to capacity, the City and County would then cooperate to make suitable provision for such prisoners. The legal consideration for the lease is the acceptance and care of this category of prisoners by the County in lieu of a per diem being paid by the City. 1 -28- February 19, 1980 With regard to the u,e of tho facility, the Agreement simply allows the County to use the facility fur any detention purpose not inconsistent with or contrary to existing local/state and federal law. The rationale for this provision is that legally the operation of the jail is a County responsibility and the County should have full control and authority over that operation; the City is the lessor of the facility only and does not in any way Trish to particip;tte in the actual operation. Severe:l Council Ir.ewbers did have sore concerns about City liability under the lease agreement, particularly in cases involving County employees making decisions indicated above. "City prisoner" is an inappropriate term if it implies that the City has responsibility for the care and custody of persons arrested by the Fort Collins Police Department. State law places the responsibility, control and expense for jails on the County and it should be irrelevant who the arresting entity is. The one possible excep- tion to this plight be those prisoners arrested for Municipal Code or Charter violations, but, even here, the City's responsibility should at the most be a per diem payment to the County for the expense of care in the County facility (as, for example, it is with prisoners sent from other counties). Because the County is responsible for all prisoners in its custody at the County jail, there should be no City exposure to liability for treat- ment of prisoners once custody has been given to the Sheriff. It should also be noted that the City has for many years turned persons arrested by City officers over to the Sheriff and these prisoners have been under the sole care and Custody of the Sheriff thereafter. The agreement does nothing to change this procedure except perhaps to recognize that the City is no longer performing arty jail function for any category of prisoners. The only other potential exposure might arise out of the County op:,ration of the City jail facility. Here, however, the City is in the position only of lessor- of a building and the fact that the County is now co,ldC'.'ing a part of its jail oier,.Lion out of a Li'. -ov,,i2o facili y should in no way alter the legal responsibility of the County for that operation. The City will not he responsible for nor involved in the use or operation of the facility except as a lessor and lessors generally arc liable to third parties only for defective conditions of the premises e:hich are known or should have been known to the lessor. Home Insurance Cor-parry will prepare a rider to our standard insurance policy which will provide protection from that risk. We have discussed the proposed agreement with out, insurance carrier's r;nderlrriter and their attorneys and their conclusion was the same as ours, i.e. that there should be no exposure to the City as a result of the ;.-ool-:ement ..hich is not alreculy insured or insurable with a rider at little cnst to the City. They did, however, request that a copy of the agreement he sent to tl!em for review with both the County and City liability poli- cies. Recoc.irendations fur any appropriate adjustments to those policies as a result of tine agreement r•.oulrl then be made. iJ . -29- February 19, 1980 Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilman Kress to adopt ' the Resolution. YEAS: Councilmembers Buwliny, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson and Wilmarth. NAYS: None THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance Adopted on First reading Re -appropriating Funds for 1979 Capital Projects. Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "The City Charter states that all appropriations unexpended or unencumbered at the end of the budget year shall lapse. As a result, capital projects that were budgeted and not completed in 1979 require an appropriation. That's a somewhat unusual requirement on capital projects. Legal and financial opinions differ with my experience and with what we're trying, to do with capital projects. Nevertheless, the Charter appears clear. And it dictates. ' As a result we have to re -appropriate 1979 appropriations that were not encumbered by a purchase order before the end of 1979. ' Memos and reports are attached that explain what's being done and necessary amounts. In brief, there is no change contemplated inany project but a provision of the Charter causes this paperwork. Attacheu is a proposed Ordinance for re -appropriating 1979 appropriations that have lapsed, and a'report explaining the purpose of the original budget for each project. The majority of projects were delayed due to weather, time constraints for Project Managers, or changes to the project that occurred late in 1979.' Councilwoman Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilman Kross to adopt Ordinance No. 25, 1980 on First Reading. YEAS: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson and Wilmarth. NAYS: None THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution Adopted Authorizing a Short Term Loan from the Water Fund to the Equipment Fund. Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "Unfortunately, we are still playing "catch up" for projects that began ' before the Project Management/Control System was implemented. The Equipment Repair Facility is a prime example of how the lack of advanced planning can create problems throughout the life of a project. -30- February 19, 1980 Currently, the Equipment Repair Facility is not over budget, however, in order to complete the project, we need an additional $187,400. We looked at cut backs in the project scope and/or a delay in completing the project and concluded that there wasn't any real savings in delays or cutbacks. As mentioned in our Quarterly Capital Project Report, we recommend that a short term loan of $187,400 be approved from the Water Fund to the Equipment Fund at an interest rate of 12.5% for the completion of this project. The loan will -be repaid in 1981 from anticipated Equipment Fund Revenues." Councilmembers inquired'into the concept of charging interest between funds, the alternatives,on funding, the budget for this project and the need to also have a south side service center. Councilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Reeves to adopt the Resolution. YEAS: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson and Wilmarth. NAYS: None THE MOTION CARRIED. i Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "This Ordinance appropriates the short term loan from the Water Fund to the Equipment Fund for the completion of the Equipment Repair Facility." Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilman Wilkinson to adopt Ordinance No. 26, 1980., YEAS: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson and Wilmarth. NAYS: None THE MOTION CARRIED. Following is the City Manager's memorandum on'this item: The Quarterly Report for the Residential Fire Station identified an inadequate budget for this project. At that time, the Project Manager estimated that an additional $38,630'would be required to complete the project. 1 -31- February 19, 1980 Since the Quarterly Reports were presented, we have received bids ' for the construction of the garage. The lowest bid is less than the amount originally estimated. Therefore, this ordinance is for an appropriation of $32,380 which will make the total project budget $210,625.' Funds are available for this appropriation from Seven Year Capital Fund Balance. If you recall, the original Seven Year Capital Program included $355,000 for two fire stations and did not include the cost of fire equipment or furnishings. For $210,625, we will have a permanent fire station, a pumperj and fire fighting equipment for that station." Councilwoman Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilman Kross to adopt Ordinance No. 27, 1980 on First Reading. YEAS: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson and Wilmarth. NAYS: None THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance Adopted as Amended Creatin a Capital Projects Fund. Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: ' With the completion of ',the Seven Year Capital Program and the implementation of the Project Management/Control System, it is necessary to establish a fund for the purpose of planning, designing, and constructing capital projects. Revenues for the proposed fund would corne from transfers from other funds, contributions -in -aid of construction, proceeds from bond issues, and other sources as may be determined. The advantages of budgeting and accounting for all construction projects in one fund are: - All projects in the Project Management/Control System are in one set of funds. - Capital budgets are separate from operation and maintenance hrdgets. - Generally Accepted Accounting Principles recommend that Capital projects be accounted for in a Capital fund. The only disadvantage is that we need to appropriate the transfer to the Capital Projects Fund in the fund financing the project and then appropriate the project expenditure in the Capital Projects Fund (i.e. two approoriationsY This process will be reviewed to see if it can'be simplified. - 32- February 19, 1980 However, in the meantime, we have to start 1980 capital projects and would like to use the Capital Project Fund concept now. The attached Ordinance establishes the Capital Projects Fund and , authorizes the amount to be transferred from each fund for construc- tion of 1980 projects in the Project Management/Control System." City Attorney Lucia Liley recommended the following amendment: On Page 1' of the Ordinance, Section 4 in the second sentence, delete the words "the implementation of the Project Management Control System" and substitute the words "designated capital projects approved by the City Council". Councilman Wilkinson made a motion seconded by Councilwoman Beeves to amend the Ordinance (as above) as recommended by the City Attorney. YEAS: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson and Wilmarth. NAYS: None THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilman Kross to adopt Ordinance No. 28, 1980, as amended, on First Reading. YEAS: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson and Wilmarth. NAYS: None THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance Adopted on First Reading,Appropriating —mounds in the Capital Projects Fund. Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "This appropriation ordinance is for 1980 projects that are in the Project Management/Control System. Each project has already been appropriated in the fund which is financing the project (i.e. Streets and Traffic in the General Fund, Water in the Water Fund, Sewer in the Sewer Fund, etc.) The fund financing the project will transfer the amount budgeted for the project to the Capital Projects Fund. Storm Drainage and Parkland capital projects have not been included due to revisions to the 1980 programs. These projects will need to be incorporated into the Capital Projects Fund once a revised program has been approved by Council." Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Reeves to adopt Ordinance No. 29, 1980 on First Reading. YEAS: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson and Wilmarth. ' NAYS: None THE MOTION CARRIED -33- February 19, 1980 Citizen Participation IA. Tom Frazier, Facilities Supervisor, presented a Certificate of Appreciation to David Dobler, for his work on the design of the North City Hall Parking Lot. B. Ellen Thexton, Assistant for Cultural Programming, presented a Plaque honoring the Lincoln Community Center for their efforts in Operation � Standby which is responsible for transporting the handicappe ad nd dis- advantaged to performances at the Lincoln Community Center. C. Ms. Alison Mathews, representing the Colorado State Chamber Orchestra, requested Council assistance in their fund raising projects for their tour of Europe. Mayor Bowling referred this request to City Attorney Lucia Liley to assist the students. Election Statement on Referendum Approved. Following is Mayor Bowling's memorandum on this item: "The following is an analysis of the pros and ,cons on the Pool and Rink issue I asked the staff to prepare. It represents a fair, statement of the advantages and disadvantages of supporting or opposing the issue. FOR BUILDING THE POOL. AND ICE RINK ' The arguments for the pool and ice rink being constructed now include: ® The original commitment of the Seven Year Capital Program was to build a pool and ice rink. That the original com- mitment was for a $750,000 ice rink and none can be built for that amount now is no longer operative, proponents say. That. S:h':. or'g':,,l rownitment nas `nr in ootd,)Gx faol is no longer a Factor dither. Keeping faith with '(:he voters of the time is most important. C Construction costs are never going to be any less. Infla- tion is continuing upward. IF wL are to save any money over the long term, then we need to build facilities at the cheap- est possible cost. That means we should build now. 0 We need the pool facility for our overall recreation needs. 0 Some pools and ice rinks around the country have been self- supporting. A-GIAINST BUILDING ThIE 1'0(1L Ai'i0 ICE RIMY. 9 lde have to analyze our present financial situation and make I judgments -- howevcr hard they may be. -- ab;rut programs we need and about programs we rant. -34- February 19, 1980 The original com,ritme:it of the S:-:en Year Capital Program was inadequnt.a. It did nc]l: ilc-:I t ;itIi thy: question of op- oration and u;aintenr:nr.e coc;t',. (:;rrviitly the. Seven Year Programs are costing the City .:boat $1.2 million annually -- an amount that was not foreseen and was riot budgeted in 1973. It does riot make sense, and therefore does not add to the credibility of government to add another bad decision to an earlier bad decision. Elected officials heed to use good judgment, no matter the commitments made earlier. We have a number of higher priority needs -- not desires -- that must come before a luxury such as the pool and ice rink. Police personnel, growth impact weasures, street maintenance costs, street developments, and improved transit are just a few of the basic city services that need total addressing be- fore the pool/rink. The economy is such aL the mrn:;r_nt that to er:bark on a $h million project at this time would be foolhardy. Besiues that fact, we. need to knor: where the operating and mainte- nance costs would come frnin. It arould not be sensible to build a pool and rink and then find that we had to lay off or• do without police officers or some other basic service because of the op! rating subsidy to the pool/rink. While debt financing vrould appatir to be the way to go, should we decide to build the facility, we probably should wait until the interest rates -go down in the money markets. l:e can count on ait interest ral:2 of roughly one-half tho "prim rate". 17 r''sentl)' that l-al 'I I !!;0u:,t 'tn akout 7.5n. CONCLUSION The City Council voted not to build the pool/rink at this time after con- sidering and balancing all of the abode factors. Then attached is a statement draft I think Council should adopt on Tuesday.�� STATEMENT ON THE REFERENDUM The City Council would like the public to know Council's thinking on the ballot issue of the pool and ice rink. This statement was prepared to illustrate that group thinking. The individual Councilmembers. may differ with the statement, but the group position is represented here. The City Council does not endorse the pool/ice rink. Council feels it would be nice to have a pool/rink, that it would com- plete the original program, and would be an asset. But looking at the problems of the world and the community -- including streets, financing of basic services like police and fire, the Council's responsibility to ensure fiscal soundness, and the energy crisis -- in balance, the pool/rink has to take a back seat. -35- 1 February 19, 1980 Council authorized ballot issue #2 to clarify what was initiated as issue #1. Issue #1 would authorize a third cent of sales tax. ' Even though it was unintended by the petition circulators, it would have that effect. Council cannot support a third cent of sales tax, so authorized ballot issue #2 to allow people who want to vote for a pool/rink to be able to do so without in- creasing the sales tax. F Mayor Bowling called for Council discussion on the February 26, 1980 Special Election. After the discussion: Councilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Reeves to adopt Paragraph Number 2 as follows, as the Councils' statement: "Council authorized ballot issue #2 to clarif wnat was initiated as Issue #1. Issue #1 would authorize a third cent of sales tax. Even though it was un- intended by the petition circulators, it would have that effect. Council felt there was a question of fairness, so authorized ballot issue #2 to allow people who want to vote for a pool/rink to be able to do so without increasing the sales tax. YEAS: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson and Wilmarth. NAYS: Kross THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmembers then discussed methods of advertising the election. Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Reeves to authorize the administration to advertise the election, to emphasize getting out the vote and the housekeeping items, with an amount not to exceed $1,000.00. YEAS: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson and Wilmarth. NAYS: None THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance. Adopted on First Reading Changing the Zoning Classification for Certain Property known as the Wagon Wheel Rezoning. Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "I Land Use Data The petitioners are requesting a rezoning of a 20.037 acre parcel of land from its existing RLP, Low Density Planned Residential Zoning District, to RP, Planned Residential Zoning District. The siteis located in the Wagon Wheel Subdivision, and is located immediately west of Shields Street, approximately 800 feet north of Horsetooth Road and 1400 feet south of Swallow Road. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: -36- I February 19, 1980 N: RLP; Vacant (proposed single family residences in the Wagon Wheel Subdivision, 1st Filing) S: RPf; Existing residences with the remaining property vacant W: RLP; Vacant (proposed single family residences in the Wagon Wheel Subdivision, 2nd Filing) E: RP; Vacant (proposed townhouse and garden home units in Cunningham Corners P.U.D.) Area - - - - - - - - - Total Units ' Existing RLP Zoning ":-:nosed RP ZoM ng Increase in Units - II. Recommendation - - - - - - - - 20.037 acres (maximum 6 DU/AC) (maximum 19 0'J/AC); - - - - 120 units - - - 940 units - - 120 units At their regular business meeting on January 7, 1980, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended denial of the rezoning petition. The Board felt the rezoning was premature at this time." Curt Smith identified the area in question and stated the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board and the Staff. Mr. Dave Oyler of Melody,Homes spoke in favor of the rezoning request. Councilmembers inquired into the density of the area, the location of proposed parks and the rezoning versus a P.U.D. concept. Councilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilman Kross to adopt Ordinance No. 23, 1980. YEAS: Councilmembers Bowling, Kross, Wilkinson and Wilmarth. NAYS: Councilmembers Gray, Reeves and St. Croix. THE MOTION CARRIED. Five Resolutions Adopted Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedinas of Certain Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: We have problems with the Phase I (.Intersection of Mulberry and Taft Will) right-of-way negotiations on this project. Husky Oil'Company is the only property owner who .has agreed to settle on our appraised value. The other four owners want either more money or other concessions. Mr. Ryan wants more money to equal his assessment. Mr. Price (formerly Fultz property) and Ms. Wilson just grant more money. Ms. Hamilton wants a zone change. At this time, we are not willing to offer more than appraised value plus minor work during construction. The appraisals are very fair. Copies of the contact log sheets along r!ith the appraised value for each parcel are attached. This being the beginning of our right-of-way negotiation, we believe it is important to take a "fair but firm" position. Settlements made now set a precedent, for the rest of the project. As it is, rushing this pro- ject to construction without right-of-way acquired compromises our bargain- ing position. Based on the appraisals for Phase I and the estimate for Phase II acquisition, We right-of-way budget is very tight. 7 -37- February 19, 1980 We believe it imperative that we have agreements for all of the Phase I parcels before starting construction. These parcels are critical for the street, and curb and ',gutter construction. However, in maintaining a "firm" bargaining position, the construction start date could be delayed' one to two months. we never like to condos-im property, but some public projects have such significant public interest that condemnation is justified. Then too, sometimes people hold out for unreasonable, even unrelated demands. Such shouldn't be allowed to delay needed projects.'? Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Reeves to adopt the five Resolutions. YEAS: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson and Wilmarth. NAYS: None THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance Adopted on First Reading Relating to Permit Fees. Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "This is a proposal to increase building permit fees and to use the income generated therefrom to add building inspection staff. Historically, Council has adopted the fee schedule published in the Uniform Building Code. The Code and, therefore, the fee schedule that is currently in effect is the 1976 version. The new version of the Code is presently under review by the Code Committee and Building Board of Appeals and should come forth to Council in June -or July, 1980. Included with that new Code is a new fee `cal. d!ulp", which would be adopted concurrently with the new code. In our communications with building contractors over the past few months, it has become abundantly clear that service levels within Building Inspec- tion have to be improved. That need was identified and analyzed at the time the 1980 budget was being prepared, but economic predictors and the resultant slow -down in construction activity led to the recommendation to maintain the present level of Building Inspection staffing for the year. The expected slow -down in construction activity has not materialized. Contractors are forecasting a slight short-term downtrend during the first quarter of 1980 with an upswing beginning in the second quarter. 'Consequently, staff has extracted the new fee schedule from the new Code and is proposing the adoption now of that new,schedule to support the addi- tion of new Building Inspection staff. The new staff would include two additional field inspectors, one additional Plans Examiner and a Deputy Chief Building Official., The proposed schedule would generate enough additional revenue to cover 100% of the cost of this added staff. The attachments outline the present schedule, the'new schedule included within ' the new building code and the proposed schedule which is a scaled -down version of the schedule proposed in the new Code. No February 19, 1980 Two examples of the effect of this proposed change are as follows: 1. Single family; Permit value $41,500. Permit Fees - Present Schedule 301.55 Permit Fees - New Schedule 494.00 Permit Fees - Proposed Schedule 424.46 2. Commercial Facility; Permit value 400,000. Permit Fees - Present Schedule 1,476.00 Permit Fees - New Schedule 2,,366.00 Permit Fees - Proposed Schedule 2 007 20 Although the proposed increase is substantial, it is a step down from that recommended in the new Code, yet covers 100% of the cost of providing, the higher level'of building inspection service. All Fort Collins licensed contractors were invited to attend a meeting on Thursday evening, January 24, 1980 to go over the details of the proposed staff and fee increases. Approximately 45 attended. All of those attending supported the fee increase given the higher level of service, the added staff would provide. The Building Inspection' Division's 1980 budget is adequate to cover the costs of.the staff additions through the third quarter of 1980. We will supplement the budget in the fourth quarter either through interdepartmental transfers or a supplemental appropriation, whichever is appropriate. Staff recommends approval. Councilman Wilkinson spoke on the need to have developers pay the cost of growth, rather than the,contractors. Director of Planning and Development, Chuck Mabry, reported the cost of Growth Study should be completed, and presented, at an April or May Work Session. Councilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by councilwoman Gray to adopt Ordinance No. 24, 1980, on First Reading. YEAS: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, Wilkinson and Wilmarth NAYS: Councilman St. Croix. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance Adopted as Amended'Relating to Conversions from Residential to Non -Residential Uses in the R-H Zone. Following is the City Manager's memorandum on, this item: "The proposed ordinance change would establish a procedure for the review of any conversion of a residential to a non-residential land use and for the demolition of any residential land use located in the R-H Zone. This ordinance change is requested to enable full 'evaluation of land use conver- sions in the R-H Zone and to assure such conversions are consistent with adopted goals, objectives and policies of the City. -39- February 19, 1980 The staff and the Planning -and Zoning Board recommend adoption of this ' ordinance. The motion of the Planning and Zoning Board recognized that this change is not the ultimate solution to the problem and should be con- sidered only as a measure ;to give time to develop the long-range solution by requesting a review of the ordinance within one year. During the year the staff is directed to develop permanent solutions. This item was tabled at the December 4th Council meeting and was discussed at the January 29th Council Work Session. The following persons spoke in regard to this Ordinance: 1. Mr. Reid Mitchell, 604 Garfield. 2. Mr. David Luplow, representing Promar Properties Services. 3. Mr. Dan Jackson, Realtor. They had questions regarding conversions, variance requirements and the timing to accomplish a conversion. Councilman Kross made a motion, seconded by Councilman Wilmarth to deny Ordinance No. 174, 1979 on First Reading. i YEAS: Councilmembers Kross and Wilmarth. NAYS: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Reeves, St. Croix and Wilkinson. THE MOTION FAILED. Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Reeves to amend Ordinance No. 174, 1979, by deleting the underlining in Section "J". YEAS: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson and Wilmarth. NAYS: None. Councilwoman Gray made a potion, seconded by Councilman St. Croix to adopt Ordinance No. 174, 1979 as amended. YEAS: Councilmembers Bowling, Reeves, Gray, St. Croix and Wilkinson. NAYS: Councilmembers Kross and Wilmarth. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance Adopted as amended on First Reading Relating to Zoning and Concerning off-street Parking Requirements. Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "The proposed parking ordinance has been revised in light of discussion by the ' Council at its January 29th Work Session. -40- February 19, iydu As before, the primary parking ordinance would: 1. Standardize off-street parking supply requirements for residential use in all zones and for institutional uses permitted in residential , zones; 2. Eliminate off-street parking supply requirements for commercial uses, except for an employee parking requirement; 3. Establish design and performance standards for all off-street parking areas. The addendum to the Ordinance would simply add a provision for conventional parking supply requirements for the R-H Zone to'the primary Ordinance, as the Planning and Zoning Board,has recommended. The proposed parking ordinance simplifies and reduces government reg—uTations per aim ng to development while assuring improvement in the quality of development. The Council has previously received background material on the ordinance including a memo from Paul Deibel to the Planning and Zoning Board presenting the rational for the proposal and the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board's hearings on the proposal. The following is a brief listing of anticipated benefits and potential problems with the proposed parking ordinance: AnticiDated Benefits: - The proposed ordinance allows provision of an "optimal" supply of off-street customer parking, i.e., neither "too much",nor "too little" given variable demand and cost constraints. (For a discussion of what is "optimal" and how it is deter- mined, refer to Paul Deibel's memo of October 4, 1979 to Planning and Zoning Board included in your January 29, 1980 work session packet.) - It is consistent with adopted city policies to encourage alternate modes of transportation, reduce traffic congestion, reduce air pollution, conserve energy, by not requiring an oversupply of off-street commercial parking. (See Land Use Policies Plan, policies H48, #51, etc.) - It greatly simplifies city regulations of off-street parking supply. - It establishes design standards to improve the visual impact and functional quality of all new parking areas on a consistent basis (not just P.U.D.'s). It does not preclude or conflict with a comprehensive parking management program for the downtown. Possible Problems - The proposed ordinance might reduce amenity in some older fragile mixed use residential neighborhoods if more intensive use of on street parking occurs as use conversions occur. The proposed R-H use review or R-H parking supply requirements would counteract this possible 'effect. - Administration of the proposed ordinance relies to some extent on the good faith and truthfulness of development applicants (e.g. specifying expected number of employees). iThe staff recognizes this and feels that it will not be a problem. This will be evaluated after a year's experience. - The ordinance also depends on knowledge by commercial applicants of their actual customer parking demands. The Planning staff has, however, prepared an extensive 30 page compendium of research on parking supply standards for all commercial and industrial uses. ' - . There may be some tendency in the short run for a new commercial use to rely on existing adjacent use's customer parking where an oversupply already exists. While this may actually be desirable from a long range overall parking efficiency standpoint, it could lead to some disputes between neighboring commercial uses. The staff does not expect this to be a significant problem. -41- Y February 19, 1980 Recommendation ' Council has requested that the impacts of this ordinance be evaluated at the end of a twelve month period. The City Clerk will record this review requirement and schedule it for the appropriate future Council meeting. The Planning and Zoning Board supports the proposed ordinance (with parking supply requirements for the R-H zone.) The City Parking Commission also supports.the proposed ordinance, with the recognition that the Commission will be bringing forth specific measures and possible ordinance changes aimed at the downtown parking area:' City Attorney Lucia Liley requested an amendment to Page 5, Section (2) Subsection (a) "setbacks"'to delete the phrase "any street right-of-way or lot line" and substitute "the back of any curb or sidewalk improvement, and side and rear lot line"; additionally to add "feet" to the chart. Councilman Wilkinson also recommended deletion of Paragraph "C" on page 3. Councilmember Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Reeves to amend the Ordinance (as above) as recommended by the City attorney and himself. YEAS: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson and Wilmarth. NAYS: None ' Councilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Gray to adopt ' Ordinance No. 175, 1979 as amended on First Reading. YEAS: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson and Wilmarth. NAYS: Kross THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution adopted Authorizing the City to Grant a License to PRPA for the Purpose of Operating, Maintaining, Repairing and Replacing Certain Transmission Facilities. Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: This is a proposal for the City to grant PRPA a revocable license to operate and maintain all 115 Kv transmission facilities now existing in the city system. In addition, PRPA becomes the owner, operator and maintainer of all lines subsequently built. A'resolution from PRPA, a resolution of the City authorizing the agreement, and the Transmission Facilities Agreement are attached. These documents provide for the granting of a revocable license to PRPA to operate and maintain the existing 115 Kv transmission and delivery facilities. The result is that all responsibility for existing facilities ' and those constructed in the future will be handled by PRPA. -42- s February 19, 1980 The advantages and disadvantages Sa•n dre: Pros: Advantages exist for ea:h of the four cities. Expansions will be paid for by PRPA. PRPA will handle the long -porn financ- ing an necessary of tho transmission and delivery system. Better finarcinq arrangements are likely by joint funding. Maintenance costs will be spread over <a larger base. Maintenance and construction standards and quality will be more uniform. Lower 10 ynar costs of maintenance to Fort Ccllins, an average of 2.3M lower. Equity of treatment is huiit into the formulas as well as possible. Eliminates some complexities between PRPA, and neighboring utilities. Any inequities in transmission cost should balance out over the years. Con Pnuit.y is bared on growth rates dud future scenarios may not be anticipated; it may prove out that one city doesn't pay,its full sharp of heal transmission costs. The systems are being "pooled" and the quality built into our svntem over the years may or may not he, fairly treated. The action is irreversible and flexibility t.h.at may be needed lator will be lost, Credit for past quality of construction is not built into the system -- mainly because it's impossible to evaluate without e4vessive cost. Transmission costs are not directly related to energy costs, and equity is based on that relationship. One of the confusing pieces of information is that there's an indication that Estes Park may not approve the agreement. The impact of that decision upon the agreement is unknown. Councilman Wilkinson and Stan Case, General Manager of Light & Power, responded to Council inquiries regarding the agreement. City Attorney Lucia Liley called Councils' attention to an addition of Article 30, which responds to the concerns of Estes Park and would be included in the agreement. Councilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilman Kross to adopt the Resolution, with the addition of Article 3.b. YEAS: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson and Wilmarth. NAYS: None THE MOTION CARRIED. 1 -43- February 19, 1980 City Manager's Report. (a) City Manager John Arnold called Councils' attention to the March 18 ' regular scheduled Council meeting that will be in session at the same time the Congressional Congress is in session. He suggested that no meeting be held on this day. Mayor Bowling recommended that the March 4 meeting be adjourned to March 25. (b) Assistant City Manager Paul Lanspery reported on this years' legislation at the State level. (c) City Manager Arnold reported on the meeting he attended regarding the Future of the Front Range. He also indicated there would probably not be a product at the end of the meetings, but rather a better way of working together amongst the various entities as a process. (d) City Manager Arnold then reported that the City of Greeley has sponsored some legislation, which would use transit in conjunction with the schools and others. (e) The City Manager then reported on the amounts spent on snow removal to date. (f) City Manager Arnold then distributed two letters regarding the bus system which is being used to capacity. (g) City Manager Arnold also called Council's attention to the Mayor of Timnath regarding the Urban Services Area. Councilmember's Report ' (a) Mayor Bowling requested the Staff continue working on the primaries question. 1 (b) Councilwoman Reeves reported on the COG meeting. (c) Councilman St. Croix reported on the meeting of the ad hoc Airport Committee and the review of the Master Plan. (d) Councilwoman Gray called upon City Clerk Verna Lewis to see if she had anything to add from the Policy Committee meeting. The City Clerk stated the only issue not covered by Assistant City Manager Paul Lanspery was pending legislation on deregulation of trash haulers. Other Business (a) Councilman St. Croix requested the staff prepare a report on what we are doing regarding the placement of trash receptables at curb line. (b) Councilman Wilkinson requested that Council should emphasize the zoning in areas, rather than having areas, such as, the Wagon Wheel, come back and ask for rezoning. -44- February 19, 1980 Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 9:,50 p.m. �27 i Mayor J ATTEST: