Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-09/07/1982-RegularISeptember 7, 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, September 7, 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: Hone Staff Members Present: Arnold, Krajicek, Huisjen, Meitl, Denton, Lewis, Bob Lee, Hays, Waido The colors were presented by Boy Scout Troop #84 under the direction of their Troop Leader, Mr. David B. Fischer. Agenda Review: City Manager City Manager John Arnold noted there would be one item of Other Business relating to an amendment to a Section 3 Capital Grant for Transfort. Councilmember Wilmarth asked that Item #10, Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Enter Into An Agreement with Worthington Service Corporation for the Repair of the Emergency Gate at Joe Wright Reservoir, be withdrawn from the Consent Calendar.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. ' 4. Consider Approving the Minutes of the regular meeting of August 1 , 1982 and the adjourned meetings of August 10 and -396- September 7, 1982 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 90, 1982, Vacating a Utility, Public Access and Drainage Easement on Tract A, Stuart Hill PUD ubdivision. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 17. The applicant is requesting vacation of the utility, public access and drainage easement existing on Stuart Hill PUD, approval by the Planning and Zoning Board on March 25, 1980. The vacation is neces- sary 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. Second Readings of Ordinances Annexing and Zoning Vine -LaPorte -Taft First Annexation. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 91, 1982 Annexing Property Known As The Vine -Laporte -Taft Hill First Annexation. 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 proper- ties under petition have agreed to the annexation and zoning. The necessary 1/6th contiguity for annexation is achieved for all the property. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 92, 1982 Zoning Property Known As Vine -Laporte -Taft Hill First Annexation. The applicants are seeking zoning to R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential, 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. These two ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 17. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 95, 1982 Amending the Code as it Relates to the Composition of the Liquor Licensino Authority. On August 3, 1982, Council held a public hearing to receive public comment on alternatives to the present structure of the Liquor Licen- sing Authority of the City of Fort Collins. A number of alternatives were presented to Council and upon discussing those alternatives, Council requested the City Attorney's office return with an ordinance which would increase the membership of the Liquor Licensing Authority -397- L ' September 7, 1982 from five persons to seven persons. This ordinance which was unani- mously adopted on First Reading on August 17 accomplishes that direc- tive. 8. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 96, 1982, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Larimer County Community Development B oc Grant Fund. This Ordinance appropriates a total of $3,965 in the Larimer County Community Development Block Grant Fund as follows: Reimbursement from County for rehabilitation work done on the Dean Property at 241 North Sunset: $ 900.00 Loan payback from Robert Dean: 3,065.00 $3,965.00 9. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 97, 1982, for Addition of a Municipal Court Computer Interface to the Police POSSE System. This ordinance appropriates $7,570 of prior year reserves in the Revenue Sharing Fund for transfer to the General Fund for expenditure ' in 1982 to utilize the capabilities of the Police POSSE System by providing a Municipal Court Computer Interface. 10. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Enter Into An Agreement with Worthinoton Service Corporation for the Repair of the Emergency Gate at Joe Wriqht Reservoir. Quotes have been received from Ingersoll-Rand Repair Service and Worthington Service Corporation for the repair of the emergency gate at Joe Wright Reservoir. The quotes were as follows: Worthington Service Corporation $83,456.00 Ingersoll-Rand Repair Service . $90,979.00 Staff has attempted to convince Green Construction, the contractor responsible for the initial construction, that they have some res- ponsibility for the gate failures and that they should repair the emergency gate at no cost to the City. Green Construction indicated that they would not accept responsibility for the gate failures but did offer to repair the emergency gate for a price approximately equal to Worthington's quote. The City Attorney and Water Utility staff recommend that we proceed to contract with Worthington Service Corporation to repair the emergency ' gate and that we initiate legal action to recover our expenses for repairing both gates. September 7, 1982 ' 11. Resolution Authorizing the Filing of an Application for a Section 5 Operating Assistance Grant for Transfort. As a result of the 1980 census, the City of Fort Collins is classified as a newly urbanized area (50,000+ population) and qualifies for transportation subsidies under the Urban Mass Transportation Act, Section 5. This item concerns the operating funds in the amount of $204,541. The grant proposal includes a Transfort 1982 budget projection and re- quests that 50% of the operating deficit (expenses less revenues) be reimbursed from the $204,541. It also requests that any balance be carried over into 1983. Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk. Item #5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 90, 1982, Vacating a Utility, Public Access and Drainage Easement on Tract A, Stuart Hill PUD Subdivision. Item #6. Second Readings of Ordinances Annexing and Zoning Vine -LaPorte - Taft First Annexation. ' A. Second Readinq of Ordinance No. 91, 1982 Annexing Property Known As The Vine -Laporte -Taft Hill First Annexation. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 92, 1982 Zoning Property Known As Vine -Laporte -Taft Hill First Annexation. Item #7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 95, 1982 Amending the Code as it Relates to the Composition of the Liquor Licensing Authority. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk. Item #8. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 96, 1982, Appropri- ating Unanticipated Revenue in the Larimer County Community Development Block Grant Fund. Item #9. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 97, 1982, for Addition of a Municipal Court Computer Interface to the Police POSSE System. Councilmember Elliott 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 I Wilmarth. Nays: i;one. -399- ' September 7, 1982 Ordinances Relating to the Salaries of the City Attorney, City Manager, and Municipal Judge, Adopted on First Reading Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 98, 1982, Fixing the Salary of the City Attorney. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 99, 1982, Fixing the Salary of the City Manager. C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 100, 1982, Fixing the Salary of the Municipal Judge. On August 24, City Council met in Executive Session to conduct the evalua- tions of the City Attorney, City Manager, and Municipal Judge. Accordingly, these three Ordinances set the salary of the City Attorney at $40,000, the City Manager at $60,000, and the Municipal Judge at $41,200. The effective date of these Ordinances is January 1, 1983." Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Knezovich, to adopt Ordinance No. 98, 1982, Fixing the Salary of the City Attorney at $40,000. Councilmember Horak asked if there was a way these three salaries could be paid similar to the Pay Plan for other employees. City Manager Arnold replied the effective date of the Ordinance could be changed to reflect the date the Pay Plan changes go into effect. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wilmarth, to amend Section 2 of the Ordinance to make the effective date of the Ordi- nance consistent with the date the Pay Plan for 1983 goes into effect. Councilmember Knezovich noted he felt that attempting to change the Ordi- nance to substitute a different method of payment was contrary to the Executive Session discussion. He urged defeat of the amendment. Mayor Cassell agreed with Councilmember Knezovich noting he felt this group of professionals should be treated on an annual basis. The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to amend Ordinance No. 98, 1982 on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Horak, and Wilmarth. Nays: Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott, Knezovich, and Reeves. ' THE MOTION FAILED. -400- September 7, 1982 The vote on Councilmember Reeves original motion to adopt Ordinance No. 98, 1982 on First Readinq was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to adopt Ordinance No. 99, 1982, Fixing the Salary of the City Manager at $60,000. Councilmember Wilmarth pointed out that City Manager Arnold would receive fringe benefits in the way of pension, car allowance, etc. in addition to his $60,000 salary. He estimated the total package might reach $75,000. The vote on Councilmember Knezovich's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 99, 1982 on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, and Reeves. Nays: Councilmember Wilmarth. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to adopt Ordinance No. 100, 1982, Fixing the Salary of the Municipal Judge. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Hays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinances Relating to the Issuance of Sewer Revenue Bonds in the Aggregate Principal Amount of $2,200,000 and Dated October 1, 1982, Adopted as Amended on First Readinq Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 1982, Authorizing the Issuance of Sewer Revenue Bonds in the Aggregate Principal Amount of $2,200,000 and Dated October 1, 1982. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 1982, Appropriating Monies in the Sewer and Capital Projects Funds. The Sewer Revenue Bonds will be used to finance the City' s share of the Sludge Management Facilities. -401- 1 September 7, 1982 The Net Proceeds are $1,819,000; the balance of the proceeds will be used to establish a Reserve Fund in the amount of $330,000 and pay for Costs of Issuance of $51,000. Ordinance No. 76, 1982, authorized and appropriated a short-term loan from the Sewer Fund to the Capital Projects Fund for $1,775,000. The short-term loan was to provide funding for the Sludge Management Facilities prior to receipt of bond proceeds. The attached companion Ordinance appropriates the $51,000 of bond issue expenses. Any monies drawn against the short-term loan will be repaid to the Sewer Fund when bond closing occurs. The Ordinance also amends Ordinance No. 9, 1975 by expanding the revenue coverage to include tap fees and plant investment fees which were excluded in the original ordinance. The revenue coverage is used to calculate the ability of the fund to issue additional debt." Assistant City Attorney Denton read the amendments proposed by bond counsel into the record. Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to adopt Ordinance No. 101, 1982, Authorizing the Issuance of Sewer Revenue Bonds in the Aggregrate Principal Amount of $2,200,000 and Dated October 1, 1982 with the amendments indicated by Assistant City Attorney Denton. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember adopt Ordinance No. 102, 1982, Appropriating Monies in Capital Projects Fund. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Cl Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolutions and Ordinance Establishing Special Improvement District No. 77, Boardwalk and Landings Drive, Adopted Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: Knezovich, to the Sewer and arke, Elliott, "At previous work sessions, the Council has received information regarding the creation of a proposed Special Improvement District for construction of streets and other improvements to Boardwalk Drive and Landings Drive. Property owners have now submitted petitions formally requesting the City to create the District. Council is being asked to take action on three separate items. -402- September 7, 1982 ' Resolution Receiving the Petition and Calling upon the Director of Public Works to Prepare a Report Setting Forth the Estimated Costs for the District and the Estimated Assessments to the Various Properties Based upon Preliminary Plans and Specifications. Resolution Adopting the Report of the Director of Public Works and Approving the Plans, Specifications, District Map and Cost Esti- mates included therein as well as the General Concept of how the District will be Structured. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 1982, Providing for the Creation and Organization of Boardwalk Special Improvement District # 77. The petitioners have requested that all requirements for notice, publica- tion, and certain other matters be waived in order to expedite the creation of the district and construction of the improvements. This is permitted by provisions within Chapter 16 of the Code. Staff believes that all requirements of the Code have been met and if Council so chooses, all three actions proposed may be accomplished at one . meeting, taking each item in sequence. STREET OVEP.SIZING The concept of the district was presented to Council at two earlier work sessions and in previous written material. It was staff's perception that Council was most concerned with the potential impacts on the Street Over - sizing Fund of City participation in this project. Staff has prepared ar accompanying memorandum addressing alternatives that could deal with the various impacts on the Fund. We believe that Option 3 provides a methoc which would benefit both the City and the district property owners. In essence, this option proposes that when oversizing costs to the City are in substantial parity with projected oversizing fees to be collected from properties in the district, then the oversizing costs may be assessed against the district and future oversizing fees will be waived by the City provided all parties are agreeable. Option 3 has been used in preparation of the attached Ordinance and agreement. The payment from the Street Oversizing Fund for engineering services includes a proportionate share for design as well as for engineering during construction including surveying and inspection. Engineering services have been included as an eligible cost for oversizing payments in the past. The members of the proposed district have requested that the City costs for ' these services be paid up front rather than through assessment. Staff -403- September 7, 1982 concurs with this request and feels the oversizing fund would not be unduly burdened by this payment. If Council so directs, this cost could also be included in the assessment. The oversizing costs to the Water Fund are minor and will cause no diffi- culty by payment up front. SUMMARY OF COSTS TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $579,659 (including 10% Contingency) OTHER PROJECT COSTS a) Administation and legal 5,098 b) Engineering (design & construction services) 71,140 c) Repay of ROW costs to Osprey and Petersen 86,560 d) Interest during construction 67,184 e) Collection and certification 10,196 $240,178 ' TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $819,837 CITY DIRECT COSTS Water line oversizing $ 18,876 Engineering (from Street Oversizing Fund) 13,949 $ 32,825 CITY INDIRECT COSTS Street Oversizing $ 86,163 10% Contingency 8,616 $ 94,779 TOTAL CITY COSTS $1 PARITY/WAIVER CONCEPT The staff believes that where proposed fees to be collected are approxi- mately equal to the oversizing costs, then it makes sense to assess the oversizing costs to the properties in the district and waive future over - sizing fees. ' For the Boardwalk SID, the City's total oversizing obligation is estimated at: -404- September 7, 1982 Construction $ 86,163 Contingency 8,616 Engineering 13,949 $108,728 The fees that would be collected from the properties in the Boardwalk district have been recalculated to be approximately $128,081 at the current fee schedule. On first glance it would appear that the City would be waiving some $20,000 in future anticipated fees. However, under the parity/waiver concept, the district property owners would be paying these costs through the district assessment. The City saves either the interest cost to borrow the oversizing money or the lost investment income if we pay from funds on hand. Depending on what interest rate is assumed and what rate of increase in oversizing fees is projected, it appears that the property owners will pay more than the City would lose. The memo from the Deputy Finance Director supports this statement. It does appear that over the next 10 years the concept will work to the City's advantage in the Boardwalk SID. While the proposed South College Properties SID, which may come before Council in the future has no direct bearing on the Boardwalk SID, we have considered this project also and it appears that a high degree of parity will occur. The estimated City costs are $633,000 while the projected fees are $508,655. This means that the properties in South College would be paying nearly $125,000 of the City's share of oversizing costs without calculating the financing costs. This further reinforces that this concept is valid and should be used in the future. NON -PARTICIPANTS Those four property owners who have been excluded from the Boardwalk SID have been sent letters regarding the hearing on the district even though we have no obligation to do so. At the writing of this memo, we have had no response. PRE -SELECTION OF ENGINEER The property owners have retained the services of TRI-CONSULTANTS, INC. to prepare preliminary plans and reports. The property owners are re- questing that the cost of this preliminary engineering work be included in the cost of the district. The property owners further request that TRI- CONSULTANTS, INC. be retained by the City to perform final design services and services during construction since the firm is intimately familiar with the work to date. Staff concurs with this request and so recommends to Council. This action is permitted by paragraphs 16-34.1 and 16-34.2 of the City Code. -405- September 7, 1982 RECOMMENDATION Staff believes the policy proposed provides a good method for minimizing the impact on the Street Oversizing Fund. This policy will encourage development of commercial properties and will foster adequate streets to serve those developments." Mayor Cassell and Councilmember Reeves asked the record to show they did not vote or participate in the discussion of the items relating to the Boardwalk Special Improvement District #77. Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to adopt the Resolution Receiving the Petition and Calling upon the Director of Public Works to Prepare a Report Setting Forth the Estimated Costs for the District and the Estimated Assessments to the Various Properties Based upon Preliminary Plans and Specifications. Margaret Masters, 328 Muddy Road, questioned whether her property was included in the district. City Engineer Hays noted the original map was in error and that the Masters property was not in the district at their request. ' Willard Anderson, 134 Muddy Road, asked how the construction costs would be paid back to the developer. City Engineer Tom Hays replied that one member of the proposed district had agreed to pay up front the costs of installing water and sewer mains across the frontages of properties not participating in the district in return for a repay agreement if those lines are connected sometime in the future. Dennis Donovan, representing several property owners petitioning for the formation of the district, pointed out the benefits of the district to the City of Fort Collins. The vote on Councilmember Clarke's motion to adopt the Resolution was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. (Cassell and Reeves withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to adopt the Resolution Adopting the Report of the Director of Public Works and Approving the Plans, Specifications, District Map and Cost Estimates included therein as well as the General Concept of how the District will be Structured. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. (Cassell and Reeves withdrawn) I THE MOTION CARRIED. -406- September 7, 1982 ' Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to adopt Ordinance No. 103, 1982 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. (Cassell and Reeves withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution finding that the premises at 1212 Baker Street are being maintained in an offensive condition and directing the City Engineer to abate the offensive conditions. adooted Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "As a result of complaints filed with the City, staff members investigated the conditions on the premises known as 1212 Baker. Staff found various articles of furnishings, wooden pallets, carpeting remnants and various other items placed in and around the yard in such a manner as to give a generally disorderly appearance. Following this inspection by the City's Sanitation Inspector, Assistant City Attorney and a Fire Inspector, the City Engineer was notified of the condition of the premises. After personal inspection on August 17, 1982, the City Engineer issued notice to the resident at the property on that same date. A copy of that notice is attached. Paragraph 79-1 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins requires that in the event of failure to comply with the order of the City Engineer the matter may be brought before the City Council and that the Council may order the remedying of the conditions found to be a nuisance. The City staff has been previously concerned with similar complaints at these premises. The attached memorandum from Peter Barnes, Zoning Admin- istrator outlines that involvement. Resident's Actions The resident has complied to an extent by removal of some items. Staff will provide pictures of the site on the date of the Council hearing. It is suggested that Council members may want to make a personal visit to the site prior to the meeting in order to determine in their own mind whether a nuisance condition exists. Interpretation of the Code Council may determine if a nuisance condition exists based upon such I -407- ' September 7, 1982 factors as the general standards or conditions in the surrounding neighbor- hood. The resolution provides staff's recommendations to Council. Council's Options A. Council should take the following actions in the sequence listed: 1. After hearing any presentations from staff or the resident, deter- mine if a nuisance exists. 2. If Council reaches such a finding, then direct the staff to abate such nuisance, defining as specifically as possible what conditions constitute the nuisance conditions. 3. Adopt the resolution as proposed or modified. B. If no nuisance condition exists, then Council could so find and dismiss the matter from further consideration. Since it is always possible that the resident may abate the conditions at the last moment, it may be necessary to amend Staff's recommendation or the resolution at the Tuesday meeting." ' Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to adopt the Resolution. City Engineer Tom Hays showed photographs and slides of the premises that had been taken on Thursday and today (Tuesday). He noted the wooden pallets were still in the yard and if they were considered a nuisance, then a nuisance still exists even though some improvement had been made to the,. premises. The following persons spoke in support of the Resolution: 1. Mrs. Leonard Everett, who noted this situation had existed for at least 8 years. 2. Bonnie Bontempo, 1106 Baker, who spoke of the vehicles parked in front of the premises and of the many garage sales held at that address. 3. Armond Bontempo, 1106 Baker, expressed his hope the situation could be remedied. 4. John McKelvey, 1513 Pitkin, who asked why the City did not enforce the covenants governing the property. Mayor Cassell replied that covenants were not legally enforceable by the ' City since they were an agreement among landowners. He added if a City Ordinance was violated, the City can and will enforce that. September 7, 1982 ' Mr. Clyde Baker, 1212 Baker Street, gave his explanation of the objects on his premises and the vehicles parked in front of his home. He noted he. felt his neighbors had been unreasonable with their complaints to the City. Councilmember Reeves noted she remembered complaints on this property dating back to her first Council term 7 to 8 years aqo and expressed her support for the Resolution. The vote on Councilmember Knezovich's motion to adopt the Resolution was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Citizen Participation A. Proclamation Designating September 8, 1982 as National Cancer Day, delivered to the appropriate persons. B. Proclamation Naming September 27 - October 3 as "Public Power Week", delivered to the appropriate persons. Poudre Nuclear Freeze Campaiqn The following persons spoke in support of allowing the citizens of Fort Collins the right to vote on the nuclear freeze issue: 1. Marion Hirschkoff, 1516 Elm Street 2. Jim Woodward, 430 Garfield, representing Poudre Nuclear Freeze Cam- paign 3. Vivian McMullen, 307 East Myrtle 4. Joe Stern, 1221 LaPorte Avenue 5. Dan Feldman, 628 LaPorte Avenue 6. Shelley Robinson, 1409 Briarwood 7. Jack Manno, 315 East Olive 8. Randy Ross, 1409 Briarwood 9. Diane Cooper, 513 West Oak ' 'D. September 7, 1982 10. Jo Shuman, 628 LaPorte Avenue 11. Bruce Hall, 1929 Springfield 12. Margaret Vernon, 2667 Shadow Mountain Drive 13. Paul Bates, 609 Duke Lane Resolution Adopting Revisions to the Master Street Plan, Adopted Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "The purpose of this item is to provide a public hearing on the revisions to the Master Street Plan. The Master Street Plan was adopted by Council on March 17, 1981, as a transportation planning tool. The Master Street Plan defines the City's basic street system needs throughout the city and classifies them in relation to their transportation function. One of the important functions of this plan is to guide the development community in regard to the street ' needs adjacent to new development. The plan must be firm enough to make sure the functional street system needs of the city are maintained, yet flexible enough to address specific areas where it may pose an unnecessary burden on development. The adoption of Resolution 82-90 on July 6, 1982, has necessitated changes to the adopted Master Street Plan. The proposed changes meet street system needs as originally approved. The recommendations approved by Resolution 82-90 consisted of: 1. The Near Northeast Street Network was adopted as the standard guideline for development of the area bounded by Cache La Poudre River, Colorado Highway 14, .Summit View Road and Willox Lane. 2. The Middle Alignment of the Lemay Avenue Extension was adopted to be used in extending Lemay Avenue. Staff recommends approval of these revisions to the Master Street Plan as shown on the attached map." Director of Transportation Services Bob Lee reviewed what had been done in the past in relation to the Master Street Plan. He reviewed the alterna- tives to the Lemay Avenue alignment and noted the middle alignment had been incorporated into the Plan. He added the phasing of the other areas was ' not addressed ment program and that there was nothing in the budget or capital for those areas of the near northeast street network. improve- -410- September 7, 1982 Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to adopt the Resolution. Councilmember Wilmarth noted he would prefer to see the two issues ad- dressed in this Resolution split into two separate Resolutions to be considered individually. He added he was in favor of the middle alignment but had some concerns about the Near Northeast Street Network. Councilmember Clarke agreed with Councilmember Wilmarth's suggestion. Councilmember Elliott noted he had some concern about timing but not about the total development package. He added he would like to see the issue addressed as one package. Councilmember Reeves noted she felt the Near Northeast Street Network was an outline and a plan and would give the nearby residents some certainty that eventually when things happen, this is where the streets will go so they can plan accordingly. The vote on Councilmember Clarke's motion to adopt the Resolution was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, , and Reeves. Nays: Councilmember Wilmarth. THE MOTION CARRIED. Public Hearing on Proposed 1983 Budget and Proposed Uses for Revenue Sharing Monies City Manager Arnold gave a brief slide presentation on the highlights of the 1983 Proposed Budget. Bruce Lockhart, 615 Mathews, spoke on the cost and performance of the Transfort system. Councilmember Elliott asked what the proposed .7 increase in the mill levy would mean to the average property owner. City Manager Arnold replied it would mean $14.97 on the average $71,000 home. Councilmember Horak asked why funding was needed for the trails program when the program was approved in 1973 by the voters. He then asked if the problem of negotiating an agreement with CSU for completion of the trails system had been solved. I -411- September 7, 1982 City Manager Arnold replied the CSU problem had been partially resolved. He added the voters had in 1973 approved $2.35 million for the construction of 27 miles of trails. In 1980-81 it was found that the amount of money would not do that amount of trail since land was so expensive. About 14 miles have been completed. Councilmember Reeves asked for more information on the Development Center and how it works and is set up. Budget Director Phyllis Griep stated the Development Center took positions that were previously in Engineering and moved them to Planning so there were no staff increases except for a half-time clerical support position. Councilmember Elliott asked if the 3/4 cent proposed sales tax increase was a specific line item revenue for streets and if it was on -going or for one year. City Manager Arnold replied staff was proposing it be dedicated for streets and would come into the City as a General Fund revenue item, sales tax collections. He added he felt it would make sense to take 1¢ out and transfer it to street capital. Councilmember Clarke asked why the same kind of cost recovery policy that is applied to Parks and Recreation was not applied to the Lincoln Center. City Manager Arnold noted it probably could be but the fees at the Lincoln Center would have to be increased to such an extent that it would discour- age the arts. He added staff was investigating ways to increase the revenue there. Mayor Cassell declared the Public Hearing closed and added there would be another public hearing on September 21. Items Relating to the Adoption of Fiscal Year 1983 Community Development Block Grant Programs and Projects, Adopted Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "A. Resolution Approving the 1982-83 Community Development Block Grant Program for the City of Fort Collins. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 1982, Appropriating ' Unanticipated Revenue in the Community Development Block Grant Fund. -412- September 7, 1982 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. Approximately $275,000 is also available from carry-over funds from the 1981-1982 program year making a total of $975,000 available for the FY 1983 program year. Each year the City Council adopts, by resolution, which programs and pro- jects 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. Development of a Comprehensive Community Development Plan Development of a policy -planning -management capacity -413- September 7, 1982 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 Pedestrian/Bicycle Access Program Housing Production Association -Construction Supervisor AGENCY AMOUNT Housing Authority $100,000 Historic Old Town 6,400 Planning Committee HOT Planning Committee 6,000 HOT Planning Committee 12,000 City Planning Division 8,000 City Planning Division 9,000 City Planning Division 10,000 City Planning Division 23,000 Neighbor to Neighbor, Inc. 20,500 -414- 1 September 7, 1982 Housing Counselling Neighbor to Neighbor, Inc 15,500 Mid -town Parking Project City Transportation Services Unit 75,000 Grain Elevator Lease City Transportation Payments 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 City Parks and Recreation 9,517 Alta Vista Playground Fencing Riverside Park Improvements Rehabilitation of Sandsten House Coachlight Plaza Apartments 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. At the July 20, 1982 City Council meeting the City received a verbal request from the Commission on Disability for $25,000 to fund an archi- tectural barrier removal program. Including this request with the above list means the City received requests for funds totaling $862,589. Staff Recommendation The City Administration 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 -415- J September 7, 1982 Housing Production 310,000 Housing Production Association-Contruction Supervisor 20,500 Housing Counselling 15,500 Security Lock Program 5,000 Washington Park Improvements 9,517 Alta Vista Park Improvements 1,135 Riverside Park Improvements 35,000 Street Trees for Historic Old Town 12,000 Commission on Disability 24,940 Grain Elevator Lease Payments 51,147 PROJECT TOTALS $788,489 PROJECT CONTINGENCIES 18,000 CDBG ADMINISTRATION 116,425 HOUSING REHABILITATION - PROJECT MANAGEMENT 52,086 TOTALS $975,000 In formulating the above recommendation, City staff members met with an ad hoc committee to discuss housing in Fort Collins. Discussions of the committee centered on the activities of the Housing Authority, Neighbor -To -Neighbor, Inc., and the City's CDBG program. From an overview of these activities, the committee generally believed efforts in the area of the housing for low- and moderate -income people were on -tract, and coordination of the efforts was improving. The committee also believed that efforts in all areas including housing production, housing rehabili- tation, and housing counseling should continue. The committee also discussed ways that the 1982-1983 CDBG funds could be best used in support of low- and moderate -income housing. The concensus of the committee was that methods that involve leveraging of private monies to increase the number of low- and moderate -income units should be pursued with CDBG funds." -416- September 7, 1982 Chief Planner Ken Waido highlighted two of the recommended projects, the housing rehabilitation program and the housing production program. He noted that staff would bring back any specific proposals and revisions to either of the programs for Council approval. Councilmember Wilmarth expressed concern that if $310,000 was put in the Housing Production line item, other projects would not get funded. Councilmember Wilmarth made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to amend the Resolution to move the $310,000 Housing Production line item into an Undesignated Funds line item which would come back to Council for use in any options Council would choose to designate. Councilmember Elliott suggested leaving the money in the Housing Production category as it allocates the money. He added the primary amount of this dollar amount was made up of carry -forwards from prior fiscal years which should be used as soon as possible. Councilmember Wilmarth asked if there would be a problem getting funds out of the Housing Production category to be used for another purpose. He noted he would like to maintain some flexibility. The vote on Councilmember Wilmarth's amendment to the Resolution was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Horak, and Wilmarth. Nays: Councilmembers Elliott, Knezovich, and Reeves. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Elliott noted he felt uncomfortable appropriating these funds in an undesignated category. He added he couldn't support the Resolution as it had been amended. Councilmember Knezovich asked about the $15,500 allocated to the Housing Counselor position. Steve Barbier, 522 East Elizabeth, Neighbor -to -Neighbor, described the Housing Counseling position and its function noting it served any low and moderate income families and was not limited to strictly serving CDBG activities. Councilmember Reeves suggested allocating some of the $310,000 now in Contingency for Housing Production so that it could go into housing. Councilmember Reeves made a motion $200,000 of the $310,000 Contingency tion line item. The motion died for lack of a second. to amend the Resolution to allocate line item back to the Housing Produc- -417- 1. September 7, 1982 Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wilmarth, to amend the Resolution by allocating $35,000 to Housing Production with the understanding the carry -forward of $275,000 can be reallocated at some future time. This would satisfy the $700,000 entitlement. Yeas: Council - members Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: Councilmember Knezovich. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Horak noted he would like to see more detail on the programs staff will bring back for allocation of the $275,000. Councilmember Knezovich stated he would vote in opposition to the Resolu- tion since he felt the City should be doing a much better job in deter- mining the value and worth of these programs and projects before allocating the funds. The vote on Councilmember Reeves' original motion to adopt the Resolution as amended by Councilmember Elliott was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: Council - member Knezovich. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to adopt Ordinance No. 105, 1982 on First Reading. Finance Director Ron Wood noted that without this Ordinance the CDBG Funds could not legally be spent due to a Charter requirement. The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 105, 1982 on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 106, 1982, Authorizing the Issuance of Bond Anticipation Notes in the Aggregate Principal Amount of $3,300,000 for the Purpose of Acquisition and Construction of a Municipal Golf Course, Adopted as Amended on First Readin I Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: am September 7, 1982 ' "Several weeks ago the Bucain proposal was presented to City Council at Work Session. At which time City staff was directed to bring the matter to City Council for consideration of issuance of sales tax securities in order to finance the project. Generally the proposal is that the City, upon receipt of a gift of land sufficient to construct a golf course, issue sales tax anticipation notes to finance the construction of the golf course, leasing the golf course to the Bucain Corporation or another corporation for a period of 25 years. During the initial six years, the lease payments to the City would be sufficient to retire the principal and the interest of the bond proceeds. Subsequent to that time, the City would lease the golf course on a percen- tage of the gross income of the course. The sales tax anticipation notes ordinance which appears before you on First Reading is a necessary step in order to implement the proposal. Additionally, the City Attorney's Office and staff of the City have nego- tiated an agreement with the Bucain Corporation which will control the relationship between the parties for the 25-year period. Accompanying this summary is a more specific memorandum from the City Attorney's Office detailing the principles of that agreement." , Councilmember Wilmarth made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to adopt Ordinance No. 106, 1982, Authorizing the Issuance of Bond Anticipa- tion Notes in the Aggregate Principal Amount of $3,300,000 for the Purpose of Acquisition and Construction of a Municipal Golf Course. Assistant City Attorney Denton read the amendments proposed by bond counsel into the record. Councilmember Wilmarth made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Knezovich, to amend the Ordinance as recited by Assistant City Attorney Denton. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. City Manager Arnold stated he felt the City needed a new golf course and that this is a good way to get one as long as the attorneys and financial people are satisfied that the risk is minimized. Assistant City Attorney Denton spoke about the contract documents nego- tiated between Bucain and the City of Fort Collins. He pointed out the safeguards that would protect the interests of the City through the nego- tiation process. He noted there were four agreements; the guarantee ' agreement, the repurchase agreement, the agreement for construction, -419- September 7, 1982 maintenance and operation, and the lease agreement. All four fit together so the City is able to obtain the property, have a golf course constructed by Bucain, obtain lease payments for the period of 6 years necessary to pay off the note from Bucain or the corporation designated to operate the facility and extend the lease period for a total of 25 years. Arthur March, Jr., attorney representing Bucain Corporation, responded to Council's questions about the contract documents. Finance Director Ron Wood stated he felt the net effective interest rate of 9.7% was a competitive rate and one he could agree with. He added he felt it was a unique opportunity to get into a needed golf course and that the transaction was financially sound and one that the City can enter into with every confidence the developer will generate the revenues necessary to retire the debt on the bonds. The vote on Councilmember Wilmarth's original notion to adopt Ordinance No. 106, 1982 as amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. Ordinance No. 104, 1982 Making Revisions to ' Ordinance No. 44-82, Known As the Land Development Guidance System, Adopted on First Reading Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "This is a staff-initated request to amend certain portions of the Land Development Guidance System. The proposed changes are as follows: 1. "Residential Uses" (page 29), Criteria #2, to be amended to read as folDOES:THE PROJECT EARN THE MINIMUM PERCENTAGE POINTS AS CALCULATED ON THE FOLLOWING "DENSITY CHART" FOR THE PROPOSED DENSITY OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT? THE RE- QUIRED EARNED CREDIT FOR A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT SHALL BE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: 30-40 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 3-4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE; 40-50 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 4-5 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE; 50-60 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 5-6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE; 60-70 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 6-7 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE; 70-80 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 7-8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE; 80-90 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 8-9 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE; 90-100 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 9-10 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE; 100 OR MORE PERCENTAGE POINTS = 10 OR MORE DWELLING UNITS/ACRE." 1 -420- September 7, 1982 One of the major objectives of the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS) was to develop a mechanism that would provide guidance for the location of higher density residential uses, with the assumption that proper planning and location could result in lower economic costs, environmental costs, natural resource consumption, and some personal costs for present and future residents. The assumption made was that as the density of a project increases from low to high, the better the location should be in terms of employment, recreation and shopping opportunities, etc. The original "Density Chart" achieved this goal, but a problem occurred over the misinterpretation and use of the "Total Dwelling Unit" calculation. Because of this latter problem, the LOGS was revised in April 1982 to require that all residential projects score a total of 100 percentage points. In other words, a residential project, irregardless if it was 3 DU/ac or 30 DU/ac, required the same level of locational attributes. This is not consistent with the objec- tives of the system. The proposed change resolves this error by relat- ing the density of a project to a specified achievement of points. "Density Chart" (page 30), Criteria ", to be amended to read as fol- lows: "J 30% A PROJECT WHOSE BOUNDARY IS CONTIGUOUS TO ' EXISTING URBAN DEVELOPMENT. CREDIT MAY BE EARNED AS FOLLOWS: 0% - FOR PROJECTS WHOSE PROPERTY BOUNDARY HAS 0-10% CONTIGUITY; 10-15% - FOR PROJECTS WHOSE PROPERTY BOUNDARY HAS 10-20% CONTIGUITY; 15-20% - FOR PROJECTS WHOSE PROPERTY BOUNDARY HAS 20-30% CONTIGUITY; 20-25% - FOR PROJECTS WHOSE PROPERTY BOUNDARY HAS 30-40% CONTIGUITY; 25-30% - FOR PROJECTS WHOSE PROPERTY BOUNDARY HAS 40-50% CONTIGUITY." The purpose of this change is to recognize that there is a difference between properties which are located at the periphery of development and those that are "in -fill" in existing built-up areas. The existing system did not recognize this difference but rather gave the same level of credit regardless of the level of contiguity. The maximum amount of credit has also been increased from 10% to 30% to encourage the development of "in -fill" properties. "Process" section (Page 4), to be amended to read as follows: -421- September 7, 1982 (C) RESIDENTIAL DENSITY. THE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY OF A PROJECT IS DEPENDANT UPON ITS LOCATIONAL ATTRIBUTES AS INDICATED ON THE DENSITY CHART. EACH RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL MUST ACHIEVE AT LEAST THE MINIMUM REQUIRED PERCENTAGE POINTS REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED DENSITY. THE PERCENTAGES LISTED FOR EACH CRITERION] IS THE MAXIMUM CREDIT A DEVELOPMENT CAN ACHIEVE FOR A PARTICULAR LOCATIONAL ATTRIBUTE. IF ONLY A PORTION OF THE PROPOSED DWELLING UNITS ARE WITHIN THE MAXIMUM DISTANCE STATED FOR CRITERION "A" THROUGH "I," THE EARNED CREDIT WOULD BE REDUCED PROPORTIONATELY. FOR THOSE PROJECTS WHOSE LOCATIONAL ATTRIBUTES DO NOT ACHIEVE THE MINIMUM SCORE, THE DENSITY CHART ALLOWS FOR OPTIONAL EARNED CREDIT DENSITY BONUSES. This section is being amended to reflect the above two changes. Staff Recommendation ' Staff held an advertised public information session on Thursday, August 12, 1982 at which only one person attended. Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the Land Development Guidance System. Planning and Zoninq Board Recommendation At their regular meeting on August 23, 1982 the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval (6-1) of the proposed changes to the Land Development Guidance System. There were no objectors present at the meeting Case No. 113-80B . Chief Planner Ken Waido summarized the proposed amendments to the Land Development Guidance System. Councilmember Clarke asked about the minority opinion on the Planning and Zoning Board. Chief Planner Waido replied that Boardmember Georg felt that by increasing the credit for contiguity the City was not encouraging developers to look into the bonus section on the density chart to come up with additional credit. Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to ' adopt Ordinance No. 104, 1982, Making Revisions to Ordinance No. 44-82, Known as the Land Development Guidance System. Yeas: Councilmembers -422- September 7, 1982 Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Enter Into An Agreement with Worthington Service Corporation for the Repair of the Emergency Gate at Joe Wright Reservoir, Adopted Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "During 1980 the City experienced difficulty when operating the water release gate at Joe Wright Reservoir. Cause for this was unknown at the time. There are two 42-inch square gates at the bottom of the 120 ft. operation tower. One is the operation gate, the other an emergency gate. The operation gate siezed and became inoperative and at that time the operation shaft and shaft support brackets failed when trying to operate the gate. Repairs costing $92,000 were made during which time it was found that probably both the Contractor and the Design Engineer may have been partially at fault for the problem. The extent of each's responsibility is yet to be determined and will be difficult to determine. Any deficiencies in the emergency gate must now also be corrected and we have been so ordered by the State Water Engineer. On January 22, 1982, we received quotes from Ingersoll-Rand Repair Service and Worthington Service Corporation for the repair of the emergency gate. The quotes were as follows: Worthington Service Corporation $83,456.00 Ingersoll-Rand Repair Service $90,979.00 Just prior to contracting with Worthington Service Corporation, it was decided that the repair work should be delayed until September because of the potentially dangerous situation which could occur due to having the dam outlet shut-off during the spring run-off. Worthington Service Corporation was notified (March 2, 1982) of this decision and they responded (March 18, 1982) saying they would hold their quoted price firm until the end of the year. During the past few months, the staff has attempted' to convince Green Construction, the contractor responsible for the initial construction, that they have some responsibility for the gate failures and that they should -423- I September 7, 1982 repair the emergency gate at no cost to the City. At a meeting on August 18, 1982, Green Construction indicated that they would not accept respon- sibility for the gate failures but did offer to repair the emergency gate for a price approximately equal to Worthington's quote. This left us in another tight time schedule to get the work done during favorable September weather. It now is in the City's interest to use the emergency bids, with Worthington's low bid of $83,456 since new bids would most likely be higher and place us in an unfavorable climate condition. The City Attorney and Water Utility staff recommend that we proceed to contract with Worthington Service Corporation to repair the emergency gate and that we initiate legal action to recover our expenses for repairing both gates. It appears that both the contractor, Green Construction, and the engineer, McCall -Ellingson & Morrill, Inc., have a shared responsi- bility for the gate failure and that taking legal action against both parties at the same time may be in the City's best interest. As responsible owners and since the State Engineer's Office has directed us to make the necessary repairs to the emergency gate and in order to avoid the extreme weather conditions which can occur at the site in the late fall, we need to get the repair work started in early September. ' 1982 Appropriated Funds are available from the Water Fund for the repair work and a contract has been prepared by the City Attorney's Office." Councilmember Wilmarth questioned why this Resolution didn't give direction to bring action against the appropriate people. Assistant City Attorney Denton replied that at this point the City does not want to bring suit against Green because others may be involved. He added that the release that was signed by Green specifically stated that the City did not waive any rights regarding the upstream and downstream gate. Councilmember Wilmarth made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to adopt the Resolution with the specific understanding that Worthington provide the City with the information to allow the City to recover these costs. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmembers' Reports Councilmember Wilmarth reported on a "wish list" catalog initiated by the ' City of Lake Forest, Illinois and questioned whether the City of Fort Collins might have such a catalog. -424- September 7, 1982 ' Councilmember Knezovich reminded Council of the rededication of the Lincoln Center Intimate Gallery on Friday evening. Other Business Resolution Authorizing the Filing of the Amendment to the Section 3 Grant, Adopted Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "The staff has been notified by UMTA that the City has received approval of a second grant amendment to the original Capital Grant to build a bus facility. Staff has sought additional monies for the Capital Grant for various reasons: 1. The original budget for the facility as set by conceptual design was $3,536,960. This would build a facility that would meet the needs as put together by a design team. 2. The actual dollar limit for the budget as set by the UMTA Grant is ' $3,100,000. 3. In the preliminary design phase, the cost of the facility was reduced to $3,023,633 which left no contingency. The scale down of the design also required staff to put building construc- tion alternatives into the bid package that could further cut the cost. The scale down version of the transfort facility could be built if no contingency was required and if bids came in as projected. When UMTA notified the City that an additional $250,000 was available we applied for the purpose of allowing the Section Three Capital Grant to have a contingency amount. The match required as outlined on the attached table is $30,254. Since no new federal subsidies had been included in the 1983 Transfort Budget and we expect to receive approximately $35,000 (minimum) through Section #18, the general fund contribution could be reduced by $30,254 which could be transferred to the Capital Project account and used to complete the match for the $200,000 grant." Deputy City Manager Meitl noted the reason for applying for the grant was to be able to bring the budget for the Transfort facility back to an amount necessary to build at least the minimum kind of building needed plus have I a contingency fund. -425- September 7, 1982 Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt Resolution 82-120. Councilmember Clarke noted the design of the proposed facility was superior to facilities in surrounding areas. The vote on Councilmember Clarke's motion to adopt the Resolution was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: Councilmember Knezovich. Adjournment Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Mayor Cassell, to adjourn the meeting. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: None. The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. ATTEST: City Clerk �- Mayor -426-