Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-07/20/1982-RegularJuly 20, 1982 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, July 20, 1982, 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: Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Absent: None Staff Members Present: Arnold, Krajicek, Denton, Lewis, Bob Lee, Hays Agenda Review: City Manager City Manager Arnold recommended Item #23, Resolution Adopting Fiscal Year 1983 Community Development Block Grant Programs and Projects, be tabled to August 17 to allow time to get some additional information. He added the City Attorney would be requesting an Executive Session to discuss legal matters. Councilmember Knezovich requested Items #12 b, c and e, Resolutions Re- lating to Transfort Issues, be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Wilmarth asked that Item #8, Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 84, 1982, Appropriating Money from the 1982 Revenue Sharing to the Community Services Fund for Administration of Human Service Pro- grams, be removed from the Consent Calendar. Consent Calendar This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this calendar be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be considered separately under Agenda Item #28, Pulled Consent Items, except items pulled by anyone in the audience or items that any member of the audience is present to discuss that were pulled by staff or Council. These items will be dis- cussed immediately following the Consent Calendar. -325- July 20, 1982 ' 4. Consider Approving the Minutes of the regular meeting of July 6, 1982. 5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 81, 1982, Vacating Easements and Streets in Lots 23 through 38 of Kensington South Second Filing. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 6 and is a request for the vacation of streets and easements in Lots 23 through 38 inclusive of Kensington South Second Filing. This site was originally approved by City Council on February 21, 1978. The Lot 23 through 38 area was replatted as The Square At Kensington South and approved by City Council on March 27, 1979. This vacation would solve the problem of duplicate or conflicting easements and streets. The staff has reviewed the request and is recommending approval. 6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 82, 1982, Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement for the Lease and Option of Equipment for the Pot -ice POSSE Computer System. The City of Fort Collins MIS and Police Department staff spent nearly 2 years of research and analysis in order to determine the best solution to the Police Department's data processing needs. The results ' of that work and the recommended solution were presented to the Fort Collins and Loveland City Councils at June 8 worksessions. 7 The ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 6, authorizes the lease/purchase financing for a period of 5 years for the Police POSSE computer and software. Hearin lO-fooW and First Reading of Ordinance No. 83 eT ey Adjacent To Lot--TS—In�ian Hills 1982, Vacating A Tff�_ub-division. The applicant is requesting the vacation of a 10-foot alley at the rear of her property (Lot 85 Indian Hills Fifth, 1909 Stover). The alley which is actually one-half of an unimproved alley, was orig- inally dedicated as part of the Indian Hills Fifth Filing. The property to the west did not dedicate the west one-half of the alley, and the 10-feet remains undeveloped. The alley along the rear of the lots south of Lot 85 had been vacated previously by Ordinance 1-81. The applicant is requesting the vacation of the alley and has agreed to reserve the 10-feet as an easement to cover existing utilities in the alley. The staff has reviewed the request and recommends approval subject to the reservation of the 10-feet as an easement. 8. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 84, 1982, Appropriating Money from the 1982 Revenue Sharing to -the Community Services Fund For I Administration of Human Service Programs. -326- ' July 20, 1982 In 1981, the Department of Human Development of Larimer County took over the administration of the Human Services contract for the entire County. This included administering approximately $105,000 worth of contracts distributed to 16 different Human Service agencies in the City of Fort Collins. In 1981, the City of Loveland contributed $18,749 to this program and Larimer County contributed $66,455. To administer the Fort Collins portion of this program, a contract was initiated with Larimer County for the last nine months of 1981. As a result of this contract, the City paid the County a total of $7,500 to administer the program. In 1982, the City of Fort Collins has allo- cated $114,068 to the various Human Service agencies. Loveland has contributed $19,000 and Larimer County has contributed $64,020. The entire share of the Fort Collins' money has been specifically desig- nated to individual Human Service agencies. At this time, no money has been allocated to the Human Services Fund for administrative costs. The Director of Human Development in Larimer County has submitted a request for $12,793 to cover administrative expenses of the Human Services program. Staff has reviewed the request and is recommending approval. The Ordinance appropriates $3,941 in the Revenue Sharing Fund for transfer to the Community Services Fund. The balance of ' $8,852 is available in the Community Services Fund. 9. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 85, 1982, Authorizing Transfers Between Cap ti a Projects. From time to time it is necessary to shift funds from one capital project to another. Frequently this is done to cover minor changes that were not foreseen in the original scope of the project or to more accurately reflect the actual costs of a project. Various unspecified contingencies have been established to cover some of these extra expenses. Other transfers are from surplus funds in projects or from projects which have been delayed or canceled. The amendment to the City Charter in April, 1981, dealing with capital projects requires that these transfers be brought to the .City Council for approval by passage of an ordinance. The items below are of'a routine nature and are brought together in one ordinance. 1. FROM: Overland Trail & Drake Road Waterline $40,891 TO: N. Lemay Ave. Waterline -Phase 8 16,000 Water Capital Projects Contingency 24,891 $40,891 2. FROM: Unspecified Drainage $3,000 ' TO: Greenbriar Basin Improvements $3,600 -327- July 20, 1982 ' 10. Resolution Authorizing the City to Enter into an Agreement with the Poudre Valley Ambulance Service to supply fuel for their vehicles. The Ambulance Service approached the City's Equipment Division to find out what the costs would be to fuel their four vehicles at the City's fueling and service facilities. The City staff reviewed their pro- posal and an agreement has been negotiated. Under the terms of the agreement, service would begin in August. Fuel would be provided to the Ambulance Service at the City's cost plus an administrative charge of $30 per month. The Ambulance would receive the same priority as the City's emergency vehicles during time of fuel shortage. The agreement will run for one year but will automatically be renewed for an additional year unless terminated. 11. Resolution Authorizing the Sale of Unit 6, Corner Church Condominiums. Staff recommends adoption of this Resolution which would authorize the sale of Unit 6, Corner Church Condominiums to Gary Dale and Lori Ann Newcomb. 12. Five Resolutions Relating to Transfort Issues. 1 A. Resolution Authorizing an Amendment to the Transit Development Program to Include the Expansion to a Nine -Bus System. B. Resolution Approving the Transfer of Specific Items from Section 3 to Section 5 and Authorizing the Application for a Section 5 Grant. C. Resolution Authorizing the Filing of an Amendment to the Existing Section 3 Capital Assistance Grant. D. Resolution Authorizing the Filing of an Application for a Section 18 Administrative and Operating Assistance Grant for TRANSFORT. E. Resolution Authorizing the Filing of an Application for an Adden- dum to the 1982 Technical Studies Grant. 13. Consider Waiver of the 1/6th Contiguity Requirement For Development Within The Urban Growth Area. This is a request to waive the 1/6th contiguity requirement for development in the Urban Growth Area for property located north of West Mulberry Street between Overland Trail and Taft Hill Road. The applicant proposes to subdivide the 1.8-ac property into three lots. ' Staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have recommended approval. -328- u 14. Consider Authorizi July 20, 1982 an Out -Of -City Sewer Tap for an Existing Single - Located at 2508 East Drake Road. This is a request for a single out -of -City sewer service tap for an existing single-family farm dwelling located at 2508 East Drake Road, approximately 1/2-mile east of Timberline Road. The subject property is adjacent to a major City sewer trunk line facility which runs down Drake Road to Sewer Treatment Plant #2. Staff, the Planning and Zoning Board, and the Water Board have recommended approval. 15. Routine Powerline Easements. a) A 10-foot wide permanent powerline easement from Osprey, Inc., located at 3750 South Mason in the Second Replat of reg� er-PTaza, which is needed to provide future electric service to the area. Powerline construction is scheduled for this month. Considera- tion: $1. b) A 6-foot wide permanent powerline easement from Anne Gentry, Nancy ' Bailey, and George Betz, located at 2628 Redwing Road, for con- struction of a backup electrical feed to the Drake Park/Meadowlark area. Consideration: $1. c) A 6-foot wide permanent powerline easement from Redwing Condo- minium Association, located at the same address and for the same project as b above. Consideration: $1. Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City Cl erk. Item #5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 81, 1982, Vacating Easements and Streets iri Lots 23 through 38 of Kensington South Second Filing. Item #6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 82, 1982, Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement for the Lease and Option of Equipment for the Police POSSE ComDuter Svstem. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk. Item #7. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 83, 1982, Vacating A 10-Foot Alley Adjacent To Lot 85 Indian Hills Fifth Subdivision. Item #8. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 84, 1982, Appropri- ' ating Money rom the 1182 Revenue S aring to the Community Services Fund For Administration of Human Service Programs. -329- July 20, 1982 Item #9. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 85, 1982, Authorizing Transfers Between Capital Projects. Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance Appropriating Money from the 1982 Revenue Sharing to the Community Services Fund For Administration of Human Service Programs Adopted on First Reading Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "In 1981, the Department of Human Development of Larimer County took over the administration of the Human Services contract for the entire County. This included administering approximately $105,000 worth of contracts distributed to 16 different Human Service agencies in the City of 1 Fort Collins. In 1981, the City of Loveland contributed $18,749 to this program and Larimer County contributed $66,455. To administer the Fort Collins portion of this program, a contract was initiated with Larimer County for the last nine months of 1981. As a result of this contract, the City paid the County a total of $7,500 to administer the program. In 1982, the City of Fort Collins has allocated $114,068 to the various Human Service agencies. Loveland has contributed $19,000 and Larimer County has contributed $64,020. The entire share of the Fort Collins' money has been specifically designated to individual Human Service agencies. At this time, no money has been allocated to the Human Services Fund for admini- strative costs. Request The Director of Human Development in Larimer County has submitted the attached request for $12,793 to cover administrative expenses of the Human Services program. Relating to the Fort Collins' contribution, this amount represents a little more than 11% of the money the City allocated to Human Resource agencies in the 1982 budget. The breakdown of the expenses we are being requested to pay is attached. Recommendation Staff has reviewed the request and is recommending approval of the Ordi- nance to allocate $12,793 to the Human Development Department in Larimer -330- I July 20, 1982 county. Staff feels that the request is reasonable in light of the amount of money Fort Collins has allocated to the Human Service agencies and the fact that we do not incur any administrative costs with distributing this money. As part of the 1982 budget process, $8,852 was appropriated in the Com- munity Services Fund to pay for equipment rental expenses incurred by Recycle Something. However, during the latter part of 1981, it was deter- mined that the City of Fort Collins would no longer make this contribution to Recycle Something. These funds, therefore, are availabe to use for the administration of human service programs. The total amount needed for the administration is $12,793. Utilizing the $8,852 available appropriations, the balance of $3,941 required to pay for the charges is available in the Revenue Sharing fund balance. Total Administrative Charges $ 12,793 Total Available Appropriation 8,852 Total Required from Revenue Sharing $ 3,941 The attached ordinance appropriates $3,941 in the Revenue Sharing Fund for transfer to the Community Services Fund to pay for expenses incurred ' for the administration of Human Service Programs. As an additional recommendation, staff proposes that in 1983 Council consider providing a lump -sum payment to the Human Development Department for use by Human Service agencies and that the Human Development Department be responsible for allocating this money among the appropriate Human Services agencies and related administrative costs. In this way, the Department of Human Development would have full responsibility for con- tracting with the Human Service agencies and administering the Human Service program. This would reduce some duplicative review that presently occurs of the various requests submitted by the Human Service agencies." Councilmember Wilmarth asked why the City's share for administration in 1981 was $7,500 while the 1982 figure is $12,793. Lyn Boyer, Larimer County Department of Human Development, pointed out the 1981 program was administered for only 9 months while the 1982 program was for a full year. Councilmember Wilmarth stated that almost $13,000 in administrative costs seemed to him to be a disproportionate ratio of a $105,000 program. Ms. Boyer replied that program monitoring had been increased, therefore additional staff time is required. Additionally, 1/4 of her own time, a ' portion of the bookkeeper's time and a portion of a Human Resources pro- grammer's time are included in this figure. -331- July 20, 1982 Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to adopt Ordinance No. 84, 1982, on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinances Relating to the Issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, Adopted on First Reading Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 86, 1982, Authorizing the Issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for the Tulakes Associates Project in the Principal Amount of $800,000. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 87, 1982, Authorizing the Issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for the Neenan Company Project in the Principal Amount of $750,000. The ordinances to which this summary applies have been prepared as a result of the inducement resolutions heretofore passed by Council authorizing the issuance of Industrial Development Bonds to finance the building of facili- ties by Tulakes Associates and the Neenan Building Partnership. It has been determined by Council that the projects would benefit the community in accordance with Colorado State law which enables municipalities to issue such bonds. A synopsis of the general provisions of the ordinances prepared by bond counsel is included herein in order to allow Council to familiarize itself with the substance of the ordinances." Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to adopt Ordinance No. 86, 1982, on First Reading. Assistant City Attorney Greg Denton read in full the suggested amendments to the ordinance: Amend §1.3(d) of Article I by inserting the clause "or the Charter of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado" following the words "constitution or statutes of the State of Colorado". Amend 52.1 of Article II by inserting in paragraph 11 of the Form of Bond, the clause "or the Charter of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado'r following the words "State Constitution or Statutes" found therein. -332- July 20, 1982 Amend 54.4 of Article IV by inserting the clause "or the Charter of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado" following the works "constitution or statutes of the State of Colorado". 2. Amend §2.1 of Article II by changing last paragraph of the Form of Bond to read as follows: "IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this Bond to be duly executed in its name by the manual signature of the Mayor of the City, to be sealed with the Seal of the City, to be signed and attested with the manual signature of the City Clerk and to be countersigned with the manual signature of the Finance Director of the City and has caused this Bond to be dated September 8, 1982." Amend 52.3 of Article II to read as follows: "The Bonds shall be executed on behalf of the City by the manual signature of the Mayor of the City, shall bear the seal of the City, shall be signed and attested with the manual signature of the City Clerk, and shall be countersigned with the manual signature of the ' Finance Director of the City. In case any officer whose signature shall appear on the Bonds ceases to be an officer before delivery of the Bonds to the lender, such signature shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if he had remained in office until delivery." 3. Amend §5.1 of Article V by inserting the clause "except §4.4 of Article IV," after the words "If any provision of this Ordinance..." 4. Amend §1.3(e)(ii) of Article I by substituting the word "establishment" for the word "established". 5. Amend §1.3 of Article I by changing the first sentence to read: "The City Council, based upon the representations of the Company, has heretofore determined and found, and does hereby determine and find, as follows: 6. Amend §2.1 of Article II by changing paragraph 6 of Form of Bond to read: "The Lender may waive an event of default hereunder caused by non- payment of interest and/or principal without notice or consent of any party liable hereon and without releasing any such party. However, in no event shall the Final Maturity Date be beyond forty (40) years from the date hereof." -333- July 20, 1982 7. Amend 52.1 of Article II by adding the following sentence to the end of the first paragraph of paragraph l(b): "In the event of a Determination of Taxability, the net effective interest rate on this Bond shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) per annum." He noted the amendments to both ordinances would be identical except the date in Section 2.1 of Article II on Ordinance No. 86, 1982, should be September 10, 1982 and on Ordinance No 87, 1982, should be September 8, 1982. Councilmember Wilmarth made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves to amend Ordinance No. 86, 1982, on First Reading as described by Assistant City Attorney Denton.• Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Dave Dwyer, Bond Counsel, discussed the ordinances and their provisions including the provisions of the loan agreement. The vote on Councilmember Elliott's original motion to adopt Ordinance No. 86, 1982, as amended on First Reading was as follows. Yeas: Council - members Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to adopt Ordinance No. 87, 1982 on First Reading with the amendments as described by Assistant City Attorney Denton. Councilmember Knezovich noted he would vote against this ordinance since he was opposed to using Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for this purpose as he felt it was an interference in the normal way day-to-day trade takes place in this community. The vote on Councilmember Reeves motion to adopt Ordinance No. 87, 1982, as amended on First Reading was as follows. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: Councilmember Knezovich. THE MOTION CARRIED. -334- ' Resolution Exercising an Option for Renewal July 20, 1982 with Erickson, Hunt & Spillman, P.C., for the Performance of the City's 1982 Independent Annual Audit, Adopted Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "Ordinance No. 130, 1981, engaged Erickson, Hunt & Spillman, P.C. to conduct the City's 1981 Independent Annual Audit and included the option to renew our agreement for two additional terms, being the 1982 and 1983 audits at the mid -year point of those respective years. The 1981 audit was performed for a fee of $36,000. The fee presented for the 1982 audit at the time of engagement for the 1981 audit was $39,500. Subsequent to the time the auditors made their fee proposal, the City added to its activities the Downtown Development Authority. The fee that is presented in this Resolution is $41,000 to include the Downtown De- velopment Authority's 1982 audit in addition to the other activities of the City. The Finance Department staff has enjoyed a good working relationship with Erickson, Hunt & Spillman, and recommend the extension of their engagement ' for the 1982 Independent Annual Audit. This item and the fee involved for the 1982 audit has been discussed with the City's Finance Committee and the Downtown Development Authority Board." Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Knezovich, to adopt the Resolution. Councilmember Horak questioned why the fee for the Downtown Development Authority audit was $1,500 or 3% of the total audit fee. Controller Jim Harmon noted Dick Spillman of the auditing firm was present. He added staff did not feel $1,500 was unreasonable. Richard Spillman of Erickson, Hunt & Spillman, P.C., pointed out there was no way to estimate the level of activity of the Downtown Development Authority by the end of 1982. He added that since it was a first year engagement for- the organization, there is a certain amount of organiza- tional detail to be reviewed. He noted the City would only be billed for costs and separate accounts are maintained for each fund audited. These accounts will be available for Council or staff review at any time. The vote on Councilmember Clarke's original motion to adopt the Resolution was as follows. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. ' THE MOTION CARRIED. -335- July 20, 1982 Resolution Adopted Awarding the Contract for Construction of Street Improvement District #76, Horsetooth Road, to Flatiron Pavi Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "Bids for this work will be received on July 16. Since this is an improve- ment district, the City Council must award the bid formally. There is not enough time between July 16 and the scheduled City Council meeting on July 20 to review the bids and prepare a recommendation for publication and inclusion in the regular council information package. For this reason, staff will prepare the needed information and distribute it to Council on July 20th immediately prior to the meeting. A revised resolution incor- porating the low bidder and the proposed contract amount will be in- cluded. Delaying award of the bids until the first meeting in August would cause a 2 week delay in the start of construction. If no errors or irregularities are found during the staff review of the bids, the staff will recommend that the bid be awarded to the low bidder. If irregularities are found, staff will pull the item from the agenda and resubmit this item when difficulties have been resolved. The engineer's estimate for this portion of the construction phase is $454,647. The total construction phase budget is $959,500. This amount will cover construction of the street improvements, storm drains, bridges, railroad crossings and relocation of utilities." Councilmember Wilmarth asked that the record show he did not participate in the discussion or vote on this item. Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt the Resolution awarding the contract to Flatiron Paving for $268,770.74. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, and Reeves. Nays: None. (Wilmarth withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED Authorization of City Contribution of $3,200 to Colorado Municipal League for Their Efforts in Opposing Proposed Mountain Bell Rate Increase, Approved Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "On May 18, Council voted 5-2 against the Colorado Municipal League request for the City of Fort Collins to contribute approximately $3,200 to the CML effort to oppose the proposed Mountain Bell rate increase. -336- I July 20, 1982 Since that action, data has been collected which would indicate this rate increase will impact the City to a greater degree than earlier anticipated. The increase would amount to a 2000% increase over present costs. The schedule for the hearings on the requested rate increase has been set in two phases as indicated on attachments A. The first phase is to deal with revenue requirement issues and the second deals with the "spread of the rates." The League has, in the past, only concerned itself with Phase I issues. After learning of the implications of Phase II issues for municipalities, they will also pursue Phase II proceedings. The City's present situation falls under Phase II considerations. The operation of the City's computerized signalization system is contingent upon a tie-in to telephone lines. If the rate increase is granted, the cost of continued operation of the present system will increase by $5,595.68 (attachment B). This figure does not take into account any plans for expansion of the signal system nor other areas of City operation affected by such an increase. The League has the support of other municipalities in this effort and has retained a Denver attorney, Leonard Campbell, to represent the interests of these municipalities through the League. ' Upon review of all available information, staff recommends Council recon- sider their earlier position and choose between two options: first, to reconsider their previous position and contribute the $3,231.60 requested by the CML or; second, have the City Attorney's Office represent the City's interests before the Public Utilities Commission. It is the City Attorney's opinion that it would be far more cost-effective, if the City chooses to formally oppose the proposed rate increase, to contribute to the League efforts and be made a party of record in the proceedings since the City does not have the legal staff or the resources to participate in rate hearings. The first option would allow the City Attorney's Office to monitor the proceedings before the P.U.C. and devote time and attention to problems which are more situation specific. The League has also expressed an interest in utilizing the expertise of certain Fort Collins City employees in the presentation of its Phase II case. Additionally, since there is a need for coordination among City departments for efficient monitoring of the situation, Deputy City Manager Jim Meitl will head the coordination effort." Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to ' contribute $3,231.60 to the Colorado Municipal League to aid in their efforts to oppose the proposed Mountain Bell rate increase. -337- July 20, 1982 ' Councilmember Wilmarth stated he would like to hear the Mountain Bell justification for this rate increase before voting on this issue. Councilmember Wilmarth made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to table the request until August 3 to allow Mountain Bell to provide their justification. Yeas: Councilmembers Horak and Wilmarth. Nays: Council - members Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Knezovich, and Reeves. THE MOTION FAILED. Councilmember Horak asked how much the City contributes to CML in member- ship dues. Assistant City Manager Jim Meitl replied $15,853. Councilmember Horak questioned why CML did not budget monies for legal fees and stated he felt this was not a very good way to run their organization. He suggested a letter be sent to the CML suggesting these fees be budgeted in the future. The vote on Councilmember Knezovich's original motion to contribute $3,231.60 to CML was as follows. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: Councilmember Horak. I THE MOTION CARRIED. Appeal of Zoning Board of Appeals Decision (ZBA #1331). Tabled to August 3 Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "On June 10, 1982, the Zoning Board of Appeals considered a variance request for the property at 600 Remington. This request, heard as Appeal #1331, was denied by a vote of four to zero. Jack Hale, the owner of the pro- perty, is appealing this decision. The appeal appears on this agenda since notices were sent to parties in interest, as required by the Uniform Appeal Procedure, advising them that the matter would be heard by Council at this meeting. The appellant has now requested that the hearing on the appeal be tabled, and staff recommends that the appeal be tabled to the August 3rd meeting." Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to table this item to the August 3 meeting. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. I -338- IJuly 20, 1982 Public Hearing Held and Resolution Adopting Fiscal Year 1983 Community Development Block Grant Programs and Projects, Tabled to September 7 Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program is an ongoing grant administration program funded from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The City of Fort Collins is an Entitlement recipient in HUD's CDBG program and will secure $700,000 for FY 1983. Each year the City Council adopts, by resolution, which programs and projects will be funded during the coming Federal fiscal year. The following is a summary of basic eligible activities: 1. Land acquisition 2. Land disposition 3. Public facilities and improvements 4. Clearance activities 5. Public services for residents of neighborhood strategy areas 6. Interim assistance to alleviate harmful conditions 7. Payment of non -Federal share of a grant-in-aid 8. Urban renewal completion 9. Relocation payments 10. Sum of rental income payments 11. Removal of architectural barriers 12. Privately owned utilities for neighborhood revitalization The following is a list of eligible rehabilitation and presentation activ- ities: 1. Rehabilitation of public residential structures 2. Public housing modernization 3. Rehabilitation of private property 4. Temporary relocation assistance 5. Code enforcement 6. Historic presentation The following economic development activities are eligible for funding: 1. Acquisition of land 2. Public facilities and improvements 3. Commercial and individual facilities 4. Community economic development or neighborhood revitalization activities carried out by a private non-profit entity ' The following is a list of eligible planning and urban environmental design costs. -339- 1 July 20, 1982 1. Development of a Comprehensive Community Development Plan 2. Development of a policy -planning -management capacity The following administrative costs are eligible for funding: 1. Program administration 2. The provision of information and other resources to residents 3. The provision of fair housing counselling services 4. Provision of assistance to facilitate performance and payment bonding for contractors 5. Property management 6. Applications for Federal programs 7. Activities to facilitate the implementation of a housing assis- tance plan 8. Environmental strides The City Grants Administration office placed legal advertisements in local newspapers during the week of May 19, 1982, to solicit requests for CDBG funded programs and projects. The City received the following requests for funds totaling $837,589: PROJECT Land Acquisition Mountain Ave. Crossing Historic Old Town History Program Street Trees for Historic Old Town Neighborhood History and Historic Neighborhood Inventories Poudre River Trail Improvements Program Poudre River Clean -Up and Buffering Program AGENCY Housing Authority Historic Old Town Planning Committee HOT Planning Committee HOT Planning Committee City Planning Division City Planning Division City Planning Division AMOUNT $100,000 6,400 6,000 12,000 F111TIE6 9,000 10,000 Pedestrian/Bicycle Access Program City Planning Division 23,000 -340- 1 Housing Production Association -Construction Supervisor Housing Counselling Mid -town Parking Project Grain Elevator Lease Payments July 20, 1982 Neighbor to Neighbor, Inc. 20,500 Neighbor to Neighbor, Inc 15,500 City Transportation Services Unit 75.000 City Transportation Services Unit 136,837 Security Lock Program City Police Department 40,000 Northside Community Center Expansion City Parks and Recreation 212,000 Washington Park Improvements Alta Vista Playground Fencing Riverside Park Improvements Rehabilitation of Sandsten House Coachlight Plaza Apartments City Parks and Recreation 9,517 City Parks and Recreation 1,135 City Parks and Recreation 90,200 Community Crisis and Information Center 50,000 Coachlight Plaza Apartments, Inc. 12,500 TOTAL $837,589 Copies of the above applications are included for City Council review. CDBG Committee Recommendation On Thursday, June 10, the Community Development Block Grant Steering Committee met to review the project and program proposals and to formulate a recommendation to the City Council as to which projects to fund. Listed below is the Steering Committee's recommendations and funding amounts. PROJECT AMOUNT Housing Rehabilitation - Lump Sum Draw Down Match $300,000 -341- July 20, 1982 , Housing Production Association -Construction Supervisor 20,500 Housing Counselling 15,500 Security Lock Program 5,000 Washington Park Improvements 9,517 Alta Vista Park Improvements 1,135 Land Acquisition Housing Authority 65,000 Riverside Park Improvements 35,000 PROJECT TOTALS $451,652 PROJECT CONTINGENCIES (11.7%) 52.965 CDBG Administration 135,383 Housing Rehabilitation Project Management 60,000 ' TOTALS $700,000 The above listed projects and programs were determined by the CDBG Steering Committee to have the most benefit to the City's three neighborhood strate- gy areas. The projects best fit the needs which were identified by survey results presented in "Community Profiles" of each of the three neighborhood strategy areas. Members of the CDBG Steering Committee will be present to address any Council concerns. Staff Recommendation The City Administration has also reviewed the projects and program pro- posals and presents the following recommendation to the City Council as to which projects to fund: PROJECT AMOUNT Housing Rehabilitation - Lump Sum Draw,Down Match $300,000 Housing Production Association-Contruction Supervisor 20,500 , -342- Housing Counselling Security Lock Program Washington Park Improvements Alta Vista Park Improvements Riverside Park Improvements Street Trees for Historic Old Town Grain Elevator Lease Payments PROJECT TOTALS PROJECT CONTINGENCIES (12.2%) CDBG ADMINISTRATION HOUSING REHABILITATION - PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOTALS July 20, 1982 15,500 5,000 9,517 1,135 35,000 12,000 51,147 $449,799 54,818 135,383 60,000 $700,000 The Administration recommendations differ from the CDBG Steering Committee recommendations in three projects as follows: 1) elimination of the Land Acquisition request from the Housing Authority at $65,000; 2) addition of the Street Trees for Historic Old Town at $12,000; and 3) addition of the Grain Elevator Lease Payments at $51,147. Of the two projects added, the Grain Elevator Lease Payment was determined by the Administration to be the most important project left off the CDBG Steering Committee recommendtions. CDBG funds were used to cover the down -payment and the lease payments for the years 1981 and 1982. The site is being used to provide free parking in the downtown area for employees and merchants. Two alternative Resolutions, A, outlining the recommendations of the CDBG Steering Committee, and B, outlining the recommendations of the Administra- tion, have been included for Council consideration when determining which programs and projects to fund." The following persons spoke at the public hearing: -343 July 20, 1982 ' 1. Bobbi Guye, 221 West Douglas Road, who presented a proposal to receive CDBG monies to be used for the removal of architectural barriers for disabled citizens. She noted their proposal had not been submitted at the proper time or through the proper channels because of an oversight and a communication problem. 2. Hersh McGraw, 820 East County Road #58, developer of a low-income Section 8 project in Evergreen Park, requested funds (approximately $12,500) for construction of tot lots and playground equipment and furnishings for the community room at his project. 3. Jim Woods, 307 South Sherwood, representing the Housing Authority and its request for land acquisition funds. 4. Steve Barbier, Neighbor - to -Neighbor, requested continuation of funds for two positions -- a construction supervisor and the housing coun- seling position. 5. Jessie Hernandez, housing counselor for Neighbor -to -Neighbor, commented on the decrease in volunteerism. Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to table this Resolution until August 17. ' Councilmember Wilmarth asked for more information on the Community Crisis Center, the Poudre Trails and the Poudre River clean-up before the August 17th meeting. Councilmember Knezovich noted more formal guidelines for awarding CDBG funds were needed and asked for figures on the actual needs and how many rehabs have been completed. He added he would like to know what projects have been funded with the Commission on Disability portion of the CDBG funds over the last 3 years. He noted he felt the 36% set aside for contingencies and administration was too high and that more of the money should be spent on direct programs that help people. Councilmember Reeves and Clarke suggested more information be presented at a work session prior to presentation of the Resolution. City Manager Arnold suggested the Resolution be tabled to September 7 instead of August 17 so staff has more opportunity to prepare the work session presentation. Councilmember Clarke withdrew his original motion. Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott to table the Resolution to September 7. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, ' Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. -344- July 20, 1982 THE MOTION CARRIED. Report on South Lemay Pedestrian -Bike Trail, Motion Made that the Trail not be Built Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "Council directed staff to research the possibility of building a pedes- trian - bike trail. This was in response to a request from the residents of the South Lemay area for a safe route to the Warren Lake Park which would serve as an interim route until South Lemay is constructed. Staff has identified two possible alternate routes for the Pedestrian -Bike Trail between the Golden Meadows Subdivision and Warren Park. Below is a description, cost estimate and discussion of each alternative. A meeting was held Wednesday, June 23, 1982 at 7:00 P.M. at the Collindale Golf Course Club House, with residents of the Golden Meadows Subdivision. Staff asked a volunteer resident of.the neighborhood to notify the resi- dents of the meeting. Both alternatives described below were discussed. ' The general consensus of the 15 residents in attendance was that neither alternative was any safer than the null alternative; why spend 20-30 thousand dollars on a trail that isn't any safer than the existing condi- tion; and it's too much to spend for a trial that would only be used for 2 years. Staff is not sure whether the consensus is representative of the entire neighborhood. One resident who was not able to attend the meeting called in support of the bike trail. Both alternate trail routes would be paved with a minimal thickness of asphalt, 8' wide. A paved trail will encourage use; whereas, a gravel or dirt trail will discourage, if not prohibit, use. OPTIONS NULL ALTERNATIVE Pedestrians and bicyclists would continue to use the road across the dam as access to Warren Park. It would be up to the individual to.decide on the safety of crossing the dam on foot or bike. 11 1. There would be no cost to the City. 2. The time and money which would have been spent on the trail can be ' spent completing the design and construction (if budgeted) of South Lemay as early in 1984 as possible. -345- July 20, 1982 3. There would be no cost involved in removing the trail and fences when South Lemay is built. 4. The property owners adjacent to the proposed trail and the golf course will not be bothered. CONS 1. The people who feel that crossing the dam on foot or bike is too dangerous will have to find alternate routes or methods of access to Warren Park. ALTERNATE 1 The trail would begin at the north-east corner of the Golden Meadows subdivision where it would tie into the sidewalk on the east side of Lemay at the end of the finished portion of Lemay. From there the trail would run east across the south end of Mr. Ronald Bockman's property and adjacent to the back of residential lots, to the golf course. From there the trail would run across the western edge of the golf course and adjacent to the Bockman property, to the south side of the irrigation ditch which would be the end of the trail. From here the bicyclist or pedestrian would have to cross Lemay and at the same time cross the irrigation ditch to Warren Park. (See attached map) COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATE NO.1 Item Quantity Unit Cost Total 8' Asphalt Trail 2100 L.F. $ 7.00 $14,700 6' Fence (Bockman) 550 L.F. 10.00 5,500 6' Fence (Homeowners) 250 L.F. 10.00 2,500 Golf Ball Proof Fence 700 L.F. 10.00 7,000 4-Strand Wire Fence 750 L.F. 4.00 3,000 Lease for Easement per year 1,000.00 2,000 Total Estimated Cost $34,700 1. Trail would be away from all hazards connected with the unimproved road. 2. A preliminary agreement has been made with Mr. Bockman for the ease- ment. 3. The portion of the trail on the golf course property could remain as an access road. -346- FJ July 20, 1982 4. The trail would provide a detour for bikes and pedestrians during construction of Lemay. CONS 1. The bike trail would be adjacent to fairway No.7 which could be a hazard due to the golf balls 2. This alternative is the most expensive of the two alternatives. 3. The three homeowners adjacent to the trail object to the trail being so close to their backyards and thus loss of privacy and possible danger to their children. 4. The trail may cause problems for the golf course and golfers. 5. The trail along the south side of Bockman's property would have a 6' tall solid fence on both sides of the trail creating a tunnel effect. The people in the area feel that this could be a dangerous situation for children and adults, especially at night. 6. The trail is not a direct route and therefore, it is questionable as to how well it would be used. 7. Joggers like to jog on the dam, so that they can enjoy the view of the lake. It is questionable whether the joggers would use the trail. ALTERNATE NO. 2 The trail would begin at the north-east corner of the Golden Meadows Subdivision where it would tie into the sidewalk on the east side of Lemay at the end of the finished portion of Lemay. From there the trail would run north along the west edge of Mr. Ronald Bockman's property adjacent to and below the Warren Lake Dam, to the north end of the Bockman property. From there the trail would run north across the golf course to the south side of the irrigation ditch and the end of the trail. From here the bicyclist or pedestrian would have to cross Lemay and at the same time cross the irrigation ditch to Warren Park. (See attached map) COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATE NO. 2 Item Quantity Unit Cost Total 8' Asphalt Trail 1550 L.F. $ 8.00 $12,400 6' Fence (Bockman) 1200 L.F. 10.00 12,000 Lease for Easement per year 2000.00 4,000 Total Estimated Cost $28,400 PROS I. Less cost then Alternative No. 1. ' 2. A more direct path to the park. 3. No chance of being hit by golf balls. -347- ' July 20, 1982 CONS I. Mr. Bockman has not agreed to this route, he thinks it would be dan- gerous. 2. Mr. Bockman has an irrigation ditch that he doesn't want removed which would be required to build Alternative No. 2. 3. There would be the safety hazard of being next to and below the road. 4. A person could get hit with flying gravel. 5. The dust generated by the vehicle traffic on the road would make the trail very dusty. 6. The trail may have to be completely removed in order to construct the road. The bike and pedestrian traffic could then be moved back on to the road since it would be closed due to construction. 7. Joggers like to jog on the dam, so that they can enjoy the view of the lake. It is questionable, then, whether they would use the trail. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Pedestrian -Bike Trail not be built and that the issue be closed for the following reasons: 1. The cost of building the trail which may only serve two years is too ' high. 2. Safety was the main concern for building the trail. The trail should not be built since it can not be built completely safe, economically. 3. The actual use of the trail is doubtful, therefore the benefit -cost ratio would probably be very low. 4. The location of the roadway has not been determined yet. It may conflict with all or part of any trail. 5. The residents who attended the meeting felt that, with everything considered, the trail should not be built. This group's feelings may not be representative of the entire neighborhood." City Engineer Tom Hays gave the staff presentation noting it was the staff opinion that the advantages of either of the alternatives are not signifi- cant enough to be worth the costs involved. He added that people staff has spoken with are opposed to the bike path and prefer to have that money directed to the design of South Lemay. The final design is expected to begin the middle of August and continuing through the end of the year. Approximately $550,000 for right of way acquisition has been proposed for the draft 1983 budget. Staff proposes construction in 1984; however, that budget cycle has not yet begun. Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wilmarth, that the Pedestrian -Bike Trail not be build and the monies used for pre- ' liminary engineering and design for South Lemay. Yeas: Councilmembers -348- J July 20, 1982 Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. City Manager's Report City Manager Arnold reported on the $150,000 of capital improvements for bikeways. He noted the three major areas were to interconnect the City bicycle facilities to the Poudre Trail System, to prioritize collector streets for use as bicycle facilities, and to eliminate as many dead-end bicycle facilities as possible. He gave an update on the striping, signing, etc., that is now underway. City Manager Arnold then reported on the City's involvement with the Estes Park clean-up effort. He stated several City employees had worked a total of 115 hours. ' Mayor Cassell asked that these employees be recognized with some type of thank -you letter. Councilmembers' Reports Councilmember Horak reported on the North District Advisory Committee meeting. He pointed out the letter written by Ira Miller relating to District/City cooperation on the Anheuser-Busch negotiations. Councilmember Knezovich reported on the meeting of the Finance Committee. He noted the Airport Ad Hoc Committee had met to discuss the recent air show which raised $35,000 for the Loveland Sertoma Club's community chari- ties fund. He reminded Council they would be meeting with the Loveland City Council. at 4:00 p.m. on July 27 to discuss the concept of an airport authority. Pulled Consent Items Five Resolutions Relating to Transfort Issues. Ad Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "A. Resolution Authorizing an Amendment to the Transit Development Program ' to Include the Expansion to a Nine -Bus System. -349- July 20, 1982 ' B. Resolution Approving the Transfer of Specific Items from Section 3 to Section 5 and Authorizing the Application for a Section 5 Grant. C. Resolution Authorizing the Filing of an Amendment to the Existing Section 3 Capital Assistance Grant. D. Resolution Authorizing the Filing of an Application for a Section 18 Administrative and Operating Assistance Grant for TRANSFORT. E. Resolution Authorizing the Filing of an Application for an Addendum to the 1982.Technical Studies Grant. Because there are several Transfort issues requiring Council action, a review of the categories may be helpful. TDP (Item A) Transit Development Program. Any project requesting federal transportation funds must be consistent with the authorized TDP for the area. TDP's may be amended periodically by the policy board (City Council) as directions changes. When the Council directed a four -route system, the TDP was amended to reflect that. Now, the Council needs to amend the TDP to show the new direction, a nine -bus system. Council has already authorized the change: this formalizes it in the plan. No funds are required. Section 3 (Items B & C) Capital Grants. The original grant award was for 4 buses, related equip- ment, and the transit facility. The amendment adds 5 buses to bring the total to 9. Council has already authorized the matching funds ($125,000); this formalizes the request. Section 5 (Item B) Capital and Operating Assistance for Cities over 50,000. Since the 1980 census, Fort Collins qualifies for Section 5. The current allocation provides $77,696 for capital equipment. UMTA regulations say that Section 5 must be used before UMTA can award Section 3. Therefore, some items which were once in Section 3 have been transfered to Section 5. The only change is to add 5 fareboxes and 5 radios for the additional 5 buses. No additional match is required; it will come from the $125,000. Requests simply require Council approval. Section 18 (Item D) Administrative and Operating Assistance for Non -Urbanized Areas. Assis- tance grants criteria for 1983 is based upon half year segments. One-half -350- July 20, 1982 year is based on Section 18 for non -urbanized areas and the other half based on Section 5 for urbanized areas. The operating assistance grant will assist in offsetting the projected 1983 operating budget. Section 8 (Item E) Technical Studies Grants. When UMTA funds a system for buses, facilities, etc., UMTA encourages certain studies/plans to ensure proper use and maintenance. UMTA also encourages a formal marketing plan. (A financial resource analysis and a route structure analysis are already in progress.) City staff manage these studies using consultants chosen by competitive bid. No cash match is required. The City 20% share is in "in -kind", including staff time, space, office supplies, etc. All proposals have been prepared with the cooperation and direction of the Region VIII UMTA staff." Mayor Cassell noted Items A and D had been approved during the Consent portion of the meeting. Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to adopt Resolution "B" Approving the Transfer of Specific Items from Section 3 to Section 5 and Authorizing the Application for a Section 5 Grant. Councilmember Knezovich noted Items B and C were related and his comments related to both. He stated he was opposed to Resolution "B" because it authorized the purchase and installation of 11 new two-way radios, one base station, one new tower and one new antenna to serve the City's expanded bus fleet. He questioned the need for these two-way radios and for the one new spare power plant assembly. Executive Director of Care -A -Van and Transfort Marj Walsh noted radios in transit systems are customarily used for safety factors and transfer factors. She added the new system would put Transfort and Care -A -Van on the same public transit channel. The spare power plant assembly is a spare engine and parts for the air compressor. It is customary to have those spares available so that when a breakdown occurs the spare may be installed while the regular is being repaired. The vote on Councilmember Reeves' original motion to adopt the Resolution was as follows. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: Councilmember Knezovich. THE MOTION CARRIED. I Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt Resolution "C" Authorizing the Filing of an Amendment to the Existing -351- July 20, 1982 ' Section 3 Capital Assistance Grant. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: Councilmember Knezovich. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to adopt Resolution "E" Authorizing the Filing of an Application for an Addendum to the 1982 Technical Studies Grant. Councilmember Knezovich expressed his concern about the concept of when federal dollars are spent things go better. He spoke about the tasks this technical study grant would fund noting he felt none of the programs would be seriously considered without the 80% federal funding. He recommended defeat of the Resolution. Councilmember Wilmarth noted he felt the City did not need the marketing study and analysis, adding he thought Transfort staff should know better than anyone what the system requirements are. The vote on Councilmember Horak's original motion to adopt the Resolution was as follows. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, and 1 Reeves. Nays: Councilmembers Knezovich and Wilmarth. THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Carolyn Haase, 2307 Sheffield Drive, addressed Council about the new library policy to be effective September 1, 1982 that would not allow magazines to be checked out. She asked that additional comparative re- search of this policy be done prior to its implementation, that "magazines" be defined, and that copy machines be maintained so they are available and in good working condition at all times. Mayor Cassell spoke of the North District letter Councilmember Horak had called Council's attention to earlier. He noted the letter basically said E.L.C.O. is in a cooperative frame of mind relative to the City's relation- ship with the districts and the Anheuser-Busch Company if they decide to locate here. He added he felt it was appropriate and important that the City express its intent to cooperate with the E.L.C.O. Water District and the Boxelder Sanitation District relative to this matter. Councilmember Wilmarth made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to , authorize the Mayor to sign the letter of cooperation subject to review and -352- July 20, 1982 opinion by the City Attorney. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Executive Session Authorized Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adjourn into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing land acquisi- tion and legal matters. Councilmember Wilmarth stated that, after looking at the materials provided to Council relative to this request for an Executive Session, he felt there was no necessity for an Executive Session and would vote in opposition to the request. The vote on Councilmember Clarke's motion was as follows. Yeas: Council - members Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, and Reeves. Nays: Councilmember Wilmarth. THE MOTION CARRIED. Adjournment At the conclusion of the Executive Session, Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wilmarth, to adjourn the meeting. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: None. The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. ATTEST: 4C�� ity Clerk Mayor __(;�---- -353-