Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-08/17/1982-RegularAugust 17, 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, August 17, 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, Meitl, Lewis, Bob Lee, Hays Agenda Review: City Manager Mayor Cassell announced that a group of young European IBG volunteer students who are participating in the restoration of the park at the site ' of the historic Camp Collins were in the audience. Their spokesman Reimann Oscamp introduced the students and spoke about the project. 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. 4. Consider Approving the Minutes of the regular meeting of August 3, 9 . 5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 88, 1982, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue from the City of Loveland Relating_ to the Acquisition of a Police Computer System. At the August 3rd meeting, Council approved two agreements with the City of Loveland for joint participation in the lease/purchase ac- quisition of the equipment, and for the joint use, maintenance and operation of the Police POSSE Computer System. -371- 9. August 17, 1982 ' This ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 3rd, and appropriates the maximum amount estimated to be Loveland's share in 1982. The $4,805 includes Loveland's lease -purchase payment commitment from August 31 to December 31 ($3,649) and four months of maintenance costs ($1156). Second Reading of Ordinance No. 89, 1982, Authorizing the Issuance of Sales and Use Tax Revenue Bonds in the Aggregate Principal Amount of $3,360,000 and Dated October 1, 1982. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 3rd. The Sales and Use Tax Bonds will be used to finance street rehabilitation expenditures of $900,000 and to retire $2,000,000 of Bond Anticipation Notes issued October 1, 1981, for the Fort Collins - Loveland Airport. The remaining $460,000 of bond proceeds will be used to establish a Reserve Account in the amount of $430,000 to provide security to the purchasers of the bonds and $30,000 for bond issuance expenditures. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 90, 1982, Vacating a Utility, Public Access and Drainage Easement on Tract A, Stuart Hill PUD Subdivision. The applicant is requesting vacation of the utility, public access and drainage easement existing on Stuart Hill PUD, approval by the Plan- ning and Zoning Board on March 25, 1980. The vacation is necessary as a result of re -platting the building lots, approved by the Board on June 26, 1982. A new easement has been defined on the approved replat drawings. Staff is recommending approval of the vacation request. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 95, 1982 Amending the Code as it Relates to the Composition of the Liquor Licensing Au- t ority. On August 3, 1982, Council held a public hearing to receive public comment on alternatives to the present structure of the Liquor Li- censing Authority of the City of Fort Collins. A number of alterna- tives were presented to Council and upon discussing those alterna- tives, Council requested the City Attorney's office return with an ordinance which would increase the membership of the Liquor Licensing Authority from five persons to seven persons. The ordinance which appears in the agenda accomplishes that directive. Resolution Approving Renewal of Intergovernmental Agreement with the Town of Wellinqton Providinq Buildinq Insoection Services. On September 15, 1981, the City of Fort Collins and Town of Wellington I entered into a one-year agreement which specified that the City -372- I August 17, 1982 provide certain building inspection services for Wellington in return for compensation. Rather than renew the agreement for an additional year, it is recommended that the term be extended to December 31, 1983 and be renegotiated on a yearly basis thereafter. The calendar year term is consistent with other City contracts. The new document is changed slightly only in format and language with the terms and substance remaining as stated in the original agreement. 10. Routine Easements. a) Resolution granting a relocation easement to the City of Greeley, which is necessary to move existing Greeley water lines crossing the sludge farm property. This relocation is needed because of improvements being made at the sludge farm, and the new location for the water lines is part of the approved plan for the project. Consideration: $1. b) Power line easement from Betty C. Hiller and Barbara Thiele, located at the rear of 141 South College Avenue, needed for the installation of an additional transformer to provide electric service to this area. Consideration: $1. c) Power line easement from Martha Scott Trimble, located at 114 ' North College Avenue, for the installation o underground ductline to provide electrical service to the Trimble Court area. Con- sideration: $1. Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk. Item #5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 88, 1982, Appropriating Unanti- cipated Revenue from the City of Loveland Relating to the Acquisition of a Police Computer Svstem. Item #6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 89, 1982, Authorizing the Issu- ance of Sales and Use Tax Revenue Bonds in the Aggregate Princi- pal Amount of $3.360.000 and Dated October 1. 1982. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk. Item #7 Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 90, 1982, Vacating a Utility, Public Access and Drainage Easement on Tract A, Stuart Hill PUD Subdivision. Item #8. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 95, 1982 Amendin Code as it Relates to the Composition of the Liquor Licensin thority. the -373- August 17, 1982 Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, 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 Annexing Property Known As The Vine -Laporte -Taft Hill First Annexation, Adopted on First Reading Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "General Description The applicants are seeking annexation of a 27.5567-ac parcel located south of Vine Drive, north of Laporte Avenue, and west of Taft Hill Road. One hundred percent of the owners of the properties under petition have agreed to the annexation and zoning. The necessary 1/6th contiguity for annexation is achieved for all the property. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: North: FA-1; existing single-family residences; South: R-L and R-M; existing multiple -family residences, single-family residences, and Poudre High School; East: FA-1; existing single-family residences; West: FA-1; existing single-family residences. Background The subject property was part of a larger 86.7-ac petition for annexation and zoning that was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board on January 26, 1981. The annexation petition was not voluntary and an election was held on December 15, 1981. The annexation election was de- feated and therefore the annexation proceedings were terminated. The state statutes do not allow consideration of a parcel which is "substantially the same" within one year of a previous election. The City's legal staff advised the Board that this was not "substantially the same" property that was considered in the December election. Other The annexation is being requested in two phases in order to achieve 1/6th contiguity to existing City limit requirements.- The first annexation achieves contiguity to existing City limits along LaPorte Avenue. The second annexation achieves contiguity from the first annexation. -374 August 17, 1982 Staff Recommendation The necessary 1/6th contiguity requirement has been achieved for this property. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the annexation of the Vine -Laporte -Taft Hill First Annexation. Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation At their regular business meeting on July 26, 1982 the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval (6-1) of the Vine -Laporte -Taft Hill First Annexation. The Board felt that the annexation was not substantially the same as the previous annexation that was defeated in the election of December 15, 1981. Only one objector was present at the hearing (Case No. 39-82). Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to adopt Ordinance No. 91, Annexing Property Known as the Vine -Laporte -Taft Hill First Annexation on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. I Ordinance Zoning Property Known As Vine -Laporte -Taft Hill First Annexation, Adopted on First Reading Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "General Description The applicants are seeking zoning to R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residen- tial, of a 27.5567-ac parcel (First Annexation), located west of Taft Hill Road, north of LaPorte Avenue and south of Vine Drive. One hundred percent of the owners of the properties under petition have agreed to the zoning. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: North: FA-1; existing single-family residences; South: R-L and R-M; existing multiole-family residences, single-family residences, and Poudre High School; East: FA-1; existing single-family residences; 'Jest: FA-1; existing single-family residences. Background The subject property was part of a larger 86.7-ac petition for annexation and zoning that was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board on January 26, 1981. The annexation petition was not voluntary and an ' election was held on December 15, 1981. The annexation election was de- feated and therefore the annexation proceedings were terminated. -375- August 17,.1982 ' Staff Recommendation The zoning as requested is in conformance with the City's adopted policies and adopted elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the zoning to R-L-P of the Vine -Laporte -Taft Hill First Annex- ation. Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation At their regular business meeting on July 26, 1982, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval (6-1) of the zoning to R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential zoning district, of the Vine -Laporte -Taft Hill First Annexation. Only one objector was present at the hearing (Case No. 39-82A). Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to adopt Ordinance No. 92, Zoning Property Known as the Vine -Laporte -Taft Hill First Annexation on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance Annexing Property Known As ' Vine -Laporte -Taft Bill Second Annexation, Adopted on First Reading Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "General Description The applicants are seeking annexation of a 22.7465-ac parcel located south of Vine Drive, north of Laporte Avenue, and west of Taft Hill Road. One hundred percent of the owners of the properties under petition have agreed to the annexation and zoning. The necessary 1/6th contiguity for annexation is achieved for the property. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: North: FA-1; existing single-family residences; South: R-L and R-M; existing multiple -family residences, single-family residences, and Poudre High School; East: FA-1; existing single-family residences; West: FA-1; existing single-family residences. Background The subject property was part of a larger 86.7-ac petition for annexation and zoning that was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning , Board on January 26, 1981. The annexation petition was not voluntary and an -376- August 17, 1982 election was held on December 15, 1981. The annexation was defeated and therefore the annexation proceedings were terminated. The state statutes do not allow consideration of a parcel which is "substantially the same" within one year of a previous election. The City's legal staff advised the Board that this was not "substantially the same" property that was con- sidered in the December election. Other The annexation is being requested in two phases in order to achieve 1/6th contiguity to existing City limit requirements. The first annexation achieves contiguity to existing City limits along LaPorte Avenue. The second annexation achieves contiguity from the first annexation. Staff Recommendation The necessary 1/6th contiguity requirement has been achieved for the annexation. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Vine -Laporte -Taft Hill Second Annexation." ' Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to adopt Ordinance No. 93, Annexing Property Known as the Vine -Laporte -Taft Hill Second Annexation on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance Zoning Property Known As the Vine -Laporte -Taft Hill Second Annexation, Adopted on First Reading Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "General Description The applicants are seeking zoning to R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residen- tial, of a 22.7465-ac parcel located south of Vine Drive, north of Laporte Avenue, and west of Taft Hill Road. One hundred percent of the owners of the properties under petition have agreed to the zoning. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: North: FA-1; existing single-family residences; South: R-L and R-M; existing multiple -family residences, ' East: FA-1; existing single-family residences. West: FA-1; existing single-family residences. -377- August 17, 1982 ' Background The subject property was part of a larger 86.7'ac petition for annexation and zoning that was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board on January 26, 1981. The annexation petition was not voluntary and an election was held on December 15, 1981. The annexation was defeated and therefore the annexation proceedings were terminated. Staff Recommendation The zoning as requested is in conformance with the City's adopted policies and adopted elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the zoning to R-L-P of the Vine -Laporte -Taft Hill Second Annexation. Planninq and Zoninq Board At their regular business meeting on July 26, 1982, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval (6-1) of the zoning to R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential zoning district, of the Vine -Laporte -Taft Hill Second Annexation. Only one objector was present at the hearing (Case No. 39-82C)." Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to adopt Ordinance No. 94, Zoning Property Known as the Vine -Laporte -Taft Hill Second Annexation on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution Amending the Urban Growth Area Boundary, Adopted as Amended Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "This is a request to amend the Urban Growth Area boundary to include approximately 80-ac located 1/2-mile west of Taft Hill Road on the south side of Horsetooth Road. Consistent with the Urban Growth Area agreement, both the City Council and the County Commissioners must approve this amendment. This site is located within the rural non -farm area, as re- cently designated in the Larimer County Land Use Plan Amendment adopted July 21, 1982 by the Larimer County Planning Commission. The rural non -farm designation would permit development at one DU/5 ac, unless the development is done as a PUD, where density can be increased to one DU/ 2.29-ac. The zoning and land uses surrounding this area are as follows: -378- I August 17, 1982 North: FA-1, Farming (Urban Growth Area); vacant. South: FA-1, Farming; existing residences on parcels of varying sizes. East: M-1, Multiple -Family (Urban Growth Area); vacant; Springfield Subdivision (3.8 DU/ac). West: FA-1, Farming; Pineridge Open Space. Discussion The amendment to Larimer County's Land Use Plan changes the designation of the area lying between Horsetooth and Harmony Roads (Area 5) to "rural non -farm," of which this site comprises approximately 1/4 of the area (see attached "Foothills Study" map). The Larimer County Planning staff prepared a "Foothills Study" which resulted in the Land Use Plan Amendment. In this study, the area lying between Horsetooth and Harmony Roads was designated rural non -farm, but was also highlighted as having "urban potential" if and when it is included in the Urban Growth Area (see attached Map 1, Fort Collins Foothills Area). The urban potential was considered primarily due to the results of the inventory and analysis of the area conducted by County staff which included such elements as physical natural constraints, service availability, ownership/parcel sizes, and air quality/visual impacts. The County staff identified Area 5 as suitable for single-family ' residential land uses at a density of 4 DU/ac based on service potential. Much of the area lies within the Overland Trail/ Harmony Road major arter- ial street as designated on the City's Master Street Plan. Water service is generally available below the 5,200-ft elevation, approximately the eastern half of the site. Sewer service would also become available with the extension of lines into the area. There is no sewer capacity problem at a density of 4 D'J/ac. The primary criteria for evaluating an UGA boundary amendment request is compliance with elements of the Larimer County and the City of Fort Col- lins' Comprehensive Plans, specifically, but not limited to, adopted land use plans and policies. The County's Land Use Plan amendment did change the designation to rural non -farm of several areas west of the Urban Growth Area and indicated the "urban potential" of Area 5, between Horsetooth and Harmony Roads. Much of the County Planning Commission's deliberations and subsequent decision regarding the Land Use Plan amendment focused on incorporation of areas west of Overland Trail into the UGA'. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Nix Urban Growth Area amendment request. At the July 26, 1982 Planning and Zoning Board meeting, the Board voted 4-3 to recommend approval of the Nix UGA amendment request subject to the following development guidelines (these development guidelines were speci- fically written for development of the rural non -farm areas west of Over- land Trail): -379- August 17, 1982 1. Public water and sewer will be required. 2. Structures should be located below ridgelines. These occur approxi- mately at the 5,200-ft elevation line. 3. Underground utilities will be required. 4. Development should be designed to conform to the terrain. Structure sites should be identified by building envelopes, and located so that grading and filling are kept to a minimum. Natural features such as drainage swales, rock outcroppings and slopes should be retained. 5. Design should demonstrate a concern for the view of the hills as well as from the hills. o. Desion should take into account the unique micro -climate of the foot- hills. Building envelopes should be selected, landscape plans designed and individual structures built for protection from high winds and to function with maximum conservation of energy. 7. Development design should consider wildlife habitat. Leaving open space in a single block is encouraged. 8. Development design should address compatibility with existing and planned uses on adjacent public and private land. This might include buffering incompatible uses or providing access through the development to public recreation areas. City Manager Arnold pointed out the Resolution would need to be amended to change the acreage from 77.5 to 80 in two places in the Resolution. The 2.5 acre "island" which was originally excluded would create future diffi- culties in administration of development regulations. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Mayor Cassell, to adopt the Resolution as amended to reflect City Manager Arnold's comments. Jerry Nix, Mountain States Properties, 2105 South Shields, noted they planned to ask for annexation of the property once it is inside the growth area boundary. Councilmembers expressed concern with the route that Overland Trail might take when extended to the south. The terrain might not permit the exten- sion to run straight south from the current alignment. Councilmember Knezovich noted he felt the location of highways played an important part in separating urban growth densities and less dense areas. He noted he would vote against the Resolution since it might encourage the area's growth to an urban density. ' August 17, 1982 Councilmember Clarke stated he felt it was important to include this area in the Urban Growth Area and ultimately annex it in order to be able to exercise some control over the way the property develops. The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to adopt the Resolution as amended was as follows. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: Councilmember Knezovich. THE MOTION CARRIED. City Manager's Report City Manager Arnold called Council's attention to a hearing to be held 'Nednesday, august 25 at the Harmony Road fire station. The hearing is for residents near the southside service center project and is being held in accordance with the P.U.D. process. Councilmembers' Reports Councilmember Horak reported on the Colorado Water Conservation Board hearing held on the Poudre project, noting the Board had recommended three ' alternatives for further study. Councilmember Wilmarth reported on the Parks and Recreation "free day" at City Park Pool on Sunday, August 15th. Councilmember Knezovich reported on the first meeting of the Colorado Municipal League Finance Committee and noted they were in the process of developing CML policy guidelines in the finance area. Councilmember Reeves announced an Airport Ad -Hoc meeting to be held Tues- day, August 24, in Loveland and a Poudre Fire Authority meeting to be held that same evening. Councilmember Clarke noted he had reviewed the plans for the new bus facility on the Fuqua property and had been impressed by them. Citizen Participation A. Proclamation Designating September 7, 1982 as Peace Day, to be de- livered to appropriate parties. Nuclear Freeze Initiative ' Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: -381- August 17, 1982 "On August 6, 1982, proponents of the Nuclear Freeze Initiative submittec petitions to the Clerk of the City of Fort Collins pursuant to the ini- tiative procedure in Article XVII of the Charter of the City of Fort Collins. Since that date, the Clerk's office has verified that the re- quisite number of signatures are contained on the petitions and, thus, the initiative may be properly submitted to the Council for consideration. Section 1 of Article XVII of the Charter states that "any proposed ordi- nance may be submitted to the Council by petition signed by qualified electors of the City equal in number to the percentage hereinafter re- quired." Though this section provides that any proposed ordinance may be submitted, Colorado case law holds that not every issue submitted in ordinance form is proper for the initiative procedure. Ordinances pro- posed pursuant to initiative provisions should be evaluated to determine whether the proposed initiative is legislative or administrative in nature. Initiated ordinances which are not legislative in nature are not subject to the initiative process and cannot compel action pursuant to said process. Only the Council has the power to pass administrative ordinances or refer those ordinances for consideration by election. Legislative action normally relates to subjects of a permanent nature or issues that are general in character. Administrative actions are temporary in effect, concern daily affairs and relate to executive or a ministerial action. Ministerial actions have been defined as requiring compliance with instructions without requiring the use of any discretion, judgment or skill. Furthermore, the legislative status of an initiative is not deter- mined by the form and title under which it is submitted. In evaluating whether a proposed initiative is legislative or administrative it is essential that the Council restrict its consideration to the effect of the initiative and not consider, at this initial stage, the substantive merits of the initiative. In accordance with the Charter and applicable case law, the Council has the following options in considering the initiative: Find that the initiated ordinance is not legislative and, there- fore, not subject to the initiative process and take no further action. Pass the initiated ordinance as proposed without amendment; a. because of its legislative character; or b. because of its merit as an administrative act. Refer the initiated ordinance to the ballot. -382- I August 17, 1982 The following is a recommended procedure for the consideration of the initiative in accordance with the aforementioned options: 1. Determine the legislative status of the initiative. In making this determination it is necessary that Council not address the merits of the issue, but rather consider the effect of the initiative. 2. If the initiative is determined to be legislative, then Council may proceed to discuss the merits of the initiative and pass the ordinance as proposed or refer the ordinance to the ballot. 3. If the initiative is determined to be administrative and not legislative, the Council may pass the ordinance, refer the ordinance to the ballot for enactment as an administrative act, or to take no further action." City Attorney Huisjen gave a presentation on the considerations for adop- tion of this matter as set out in the Charter and referred to a case he felt helpful in determining whether the matter is legislative or admini- strative. He then summarized the four options he had prepared and dis- tributed to Council for their consideration. Option 1 - a Resolution making a finding whether the petition submitted is administrative or legislative in character. Option 2 - an Ordinance, once the administrative or legislative question has been determined, wherein Council would adopt the proposed language of the initiative as an ordinance, which Council has the discretion to do whether it is legislative or administrative in character. Option 3 - a Resolution that refers the matter to the ballot as presented in the petition, to be presented at a Special City Election to be held in conjunction with the November 2, 1982, General Election. The Resolution would adopt language that summarizes the issue as it would appear on the ballot. Option 4 - a Resolution wherein Council has considered the matter to be legislative or administrative in character and that Council chooses to take no further action. Councilmember Wilmarth made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to adopt Resolution 82-110 labeled by the City Attorney as Option No. 4, which would determine the issue as being administrative only and taking no further action. ' The following persons spoke in favor of placing the nuclear freeze question on the November 2, 1982 ballot: -383- August 17, 1982 1. Don Deagle, 315 Canyon Avenue, attorney representing the Poudre Nuclear Freeze Campaign, who presented the position of the group. 2. Ann Pryor, 2420 West Mulberry, representing the Poudre Nuclear Freeze Campaign, who reviewed the local activities undertaken by the group to end the nuclear arms race. 3. David Hartley, 511 West Oak 4. Randy Ross, 1409 Briarwood 5. Jo Shuman, 628 LaPorte Avenue 6. Paul Gurski, 131 Hillcrest Drive 7. Joe Stern, 1221 LaPorte Avenue 8. Dan Feldman, 628 LaPorte Avenue 9. Brad Edwards, 1209 Remington 10. John Payne, 1115 West Magnolia 1 11. Ken Bonetti, 627 Whedbee 12. Bill Timpson, 2431 Farghee Court 13. Bob Lucas, 2828 Silverplume Drive 14. Mike Fangman, 3207 Wedgewood Court 15. Ronald Wempel, 1204 Green 16. John Spiers, 517 West Drake Road 17. Annette Claycomb, 522 South College 18. Thomas S. Chrisman, 721 East Mulberry 19. Cindy Bonetti, 627 Whedbee 20. Jack Hanno, 315 West Olive The following persons spoke in opposition to placing the nuclear freeze measure on the November 2, 1982 ballot: ' -384- August 17, 1982 1. Richard E. Kutz, P.O. Box 1972, Fort Collins 2. Carl Oesterle, 1525 1/2 Arapahoe, Boulder, Fort Collins voter 3. Fran Waugh, 1304 Emigh Councilmember Knezovich stated he felt it was the responsibility of the City Council to uphold the City Charter and not to allow items that don't deal with legislative intent to be placed on a City ballot. He urged Council to support his position. Councilmember Horak noted he felt the City Attorney's direction had been to consider Option No. 1 first which is to determine whether the matter is legislative or administrative and then proceed to the other options. He added he felt since approximately 2,500 persons had asked that the measure be placed on the ballot, the Council was obligated to do just that. Councilmember Elliott stated he felt the Resolution on the floor was entirely appropriate since Council was elected to maintain policies and procedures that directly impact Fort Collins. He noted he supported the concept of a nuclear freeze but not this methodology to get the job done. Councilmember Reeves encouraged Councilmembers to vote against Option No. 4 and to consider Option No. 3, crossing out the word legislative and leaving the word administrative. Councilmember Clarke stated he felt the City of Fort Collins needs to concentrate on City problems and issues. He then stated his position on the issue and concluded by noting he felt the real safety against nuclear attack is in reductions in nuclear force and not in freezes. The vote on Councilmember Wilmarth's motion to adopt Resolution 82-110 (Option No. 4) was as follows. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Knezovich, and Wilmarth. Nays: Councilmembers Horak and Reeves. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution Expressing the Intent of the City to Issue IDRB's on Behalf of John Q. Hammons Industries, Inc., Denied Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "The City has received an application from John Q. Hammons Industries, Inc. for Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (IDRB's) in the amount of $10,000,000 for the purpose of constructing a Hotel and Convention Center to be located at South College Avenue and Harmony Road. -385- 1I 1 August 17, 1982 The application is consistent with the City's policies and guidelines concerning the issuance of IDRB's and staff is recommending approval of the inducement resolution. Background Resolution 82-25 identifies the policies and guidelines adopted by City Council concerning the issuance of IDRB's. A copy of that resolution is attached along with the staff's findings. Section I - Policy Paragraph A The project as described is eligible for IDRB financing as prescribed by state statute. Paragraph B The passage of the inducement resolution constitutes positive local govern- ment action to stimulate balanced economic development in concert with the private sector. ' Paragraph C The passage of the inducement resolution for this specific project does not provide economically competitive advantage to any existing local entity given its unique characteristic of combining a hotel with a convention center. In addition the project will have a minimal competitive impact upon a downtown hotel and convention center, if and when it may be built, antici- pating that the two facilities would draw from different markets. Section II - Guidelines Paragraph A The ap cation has been considered based upon its individual merits. Paragraph B The benefits to the City of the project are identified in the application as follows: Annual Revenue Sales Tax Revenue s 90,000 Property Tax Revenue 205,000 $295,000 -386 August 17, 1982 One Time Revenue Fees & Permits, Plant Investment Fees, Taps - $ 94,000 Electrical Fee 20,000 Sales Tax on Materials - 83,500 19 0 Indirect Benefits 0 Sales Tax Revenue generated from employment during construction - $32,000 0 Over 200 full-time and part-time jobs after construction is complete. 0 Community revenue generated from hotel/conference guest. Paragraph C The application specifically identifies how the project is consistent with the Land Use Policy Plan and the Land Development Guidance System. Staff concurs with this ana ysis. However, the ultimate decision upon the consistency of the project with the policies and guidelines will be deter- mined through the processes of the Planning and Zoning Board. The Planning and Zoning Board understands that Council's action on this item is not a definite approval of the PUD which is scheduled for the August 23rd Planning and Zoning meeting. Paragraph D TheThe project is eligible for IDRB financing under Colorado statute and the competitive impact has been addressed in an earlier portion of this memorandum. Section III - Financial Responsibili Paragraph A The IDRBs will be privately placed, therefore, Section III, Paragraph A is not applicable. Paragraph B The applicants anticipate that the bonds will be purchased by the First National Bank of Oklahoma City at par with an interest rate equal to 65% of the "prime rate" calculated on a periodic basis. The bonds will be repaid upon a 30 year amortization rate, with all bonds maturing in ten years. The bonds will be secured by a first mortgage or deed of trust upon the project land and improvements, and by an irrevocable letter of credit in an amount equal to the aggregate amount of the bonds issued. -387- August 17, 1982 A proforma operating statement for the first seven years of operations of the project and a personal financial statement for Mr. Hammons was included in the application. Both statements indicate a positive ability to retire the debt on the bonds. The estimated project cost is $12,415,560 while the application for IDRBs is $10,000,000 or 80% of the estimated project cost. Paragraph C The asset life span is estimated at 40 years and the term of the debt is 10 years. The management strength of the applicant is evidenced by the fact that the applicant's company presently owns and operates 27 Holiday Inns in various states. Paragraph D The applicant has deposited a check in the amount of $1,000 with the City to reimburse the City for all expenses associated with the review of the application, and understands that after the review is complete additional amounts may be due or partial refunds on the deposit may be made based upon ' actual cost. Paragraph E The applicant has received the IDRB policy and guidelines statement and his representatives have additionally been verbally informed concerning the fees to be paid to the City in the event IDRBs are approved by the City. Paragraph F Not applicable to a review of the application." Councilmember Knezovich asked the record to show he did not vote or parti- cipate in the discussion of this item. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to adopt the Resolution. Art March, Jr., attorney representing E.E. Mitchell & Company, expressed his client's concern about the application now before Council and the consistency of Council's action and the effectiveness of Council's action with regard to the Inducement Resolution which already exists. He noted he felt there were 3 areas which strongly suggest this Resolution is not appropriate at this time. He stated part of the requirements imposed by the City were (1) that the planning authority be in place, (2) that the applicability of the IDRB and IRS laws be determined and that bond counsel ' issue an advisory opinion that the issue would qualify as a tax free ' August 17, 1982 issue, and (3) that the organization consisting of the landowner, devel- oper, etc., had to be together. He questioned whether those three things had been accomplished and suggested tabling the Resolution because it was premature. David Wood, attorney representing John Q. Hammons Industries, Inc., noted he felt the most appropriate place for the process to start was before the City Council on the issue of the IDRB's. He pointed out that Mr. March's concerns had been made conditions of the Inducement Resolution. He sug- gested the applicant proceed first and went on to give a background summary of the proposed project. John Q. Hammons, developer, gave his reasons for selecting the Harmony and College site which he felt to be ideal as Harmony in the future will be a main thoroughfare and a southern entrance to the City from the Interstate. Dan Dean, attorney representing a group of residents of the Pioneer Mobile Home Park, presented information regarding the problems the location of a hotel/convention center would cause at that site. He sited relocation costs and asked that the developer deal fairly with the residents as far as compensation. He suggested the creation of a new City -owned park be included in the project funding and then presented petitions containing the signatures of 500+ residents of the area who were opposed to the complex. ' Gene Mitchell, chief executive officer of Mitchell & Company, detailed the previous Inducement Resolution passed by the Council for his Arena complex approximately one year ago. He urged Council to deny this Resolution on the basis of their previous action in adopting the Inducement Resolution for the Arena site. Mr. Mitchell stated he would have an IDRB request for a Marriott Inn franchise before Council within 10 days and hoped to substitute the Marriott chain for the Hammons/Holiday Inn franchise in the original Resolution. Chuck Mabry, 3555 Stanford Road, Mitchell & Company employee, addressed the land use policies the applicant feels they meet and added he felt there were major policy deficiencies with the application. The following area residents spoke in opposition to this application: 1. Michael Pullman, Pioneer Mobile Home Park, 64 2. Jocelyn Brewer, Pioneer Mobile Home Park 3. Elbert Roller, Harmony Mobile Home Park, 158 4. Carol Ballain, 3805 Crescent Drive, whose mother resides in Pioneer Mobile Home Park. -389- August 17, 1982 Tim Hasler, attorney representing Fort Collins Assemblage Ltd., the pro- perty owner, spoke in support of the IDRB request and spoke of petitions circulated in favor of the project containing 567 signatures. He spoke of Mr. Strickfadden's offer to relocate the affected homeowners to other areas of the park entirely at his expense. Dave Wood spoke of the adverse effects any delay would have on Mr. Hammons' project and responded to several concerns mentioned. He asked that the application be approved because the site is appropriate, it meets the City's criteria, has received staff recommendation, the applicant is qualified to develop the project, and the project has a high probability of success. Councilmember Reeves noted she was opposed to using IDRB's for a project in the southern part of the City and would promote growth to the south. She added she would prefer something in the downtown or that would promote growth to the north. Councilmember Elliott questioned the order of this process. He asked if P.U.D. approval has previously come before the consideration of the Induce- ment Resolution. ' City Manager Arnold replied that the previous IDRB Resolutions have been handled both ways. Councilmember Elliott stated he felt some of the concerns might be resolved if the policy of working through the P.U.D. process was followed. Councilmember Clarke voiced his concern that the Planning & Zoning Board might interpret this Resolution as pressure and resent this action as undue influence prior to the P.U.D. approval. He suggested tabling the matter until after Planning & Zoning board consideration. Councilmember Wilmarth expressed his concern to the residents of the mobile home park that they not interpret Council's vote, if it is against the issuance of IDRB's, as encouragement to the effect that they are safe in their location. The relocation problem will still exist regardless of Council's vote on this issue. He added he would oppose this Resolution. Councilmember Clarke made a motion to table this Resolution until the Planning & Zoning Board has looked at the Master Plan and the first phase preliminary plan and also until the bond counsel opinion is received and the relocation plans addressed. The motion died for lack of a second. I -390- August 17, 1982 Mayor Cassell spoke of the newly formed Blue Ribbon Panel that will be looking at the whole hotel/convention center question. Their responsi- bilities will be to give recommendations on where and what kind of facility is needed and then to consider the present projects that are being proposed to see if they fit the needs and additionally to look at how the project might be financed. The vote on Councilmember Horak's original motion to adopt the Resolution was as follows. Yeas: None. Nays: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. (Knezovich withdrawn) THE MOTION FAILED. Other Business Councilmember Wilmarth noted there had been considerable concern in the community about the elimination of selected street lights as part of the City's austerity program. He added he had been contacted by a person with an innovative idea that he asked staff to investigate. The concept was, in ' areas where the lights have been turned off, to have citizens band together and pay the costs associated with having the light turned back on. Staff will come back with a report. Adjournment Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to adjourn the meeting to 2:00 p.m. on August 24 for the purpose of con- sidering evaluations of the City Manager, City Attorney, and Municipal Judge. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: None. The meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m. ATTEST: y" City Clerk MayorQu2n�=- -391-