HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-03/22/1977-AdjournedMarch 22, 1977
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council - Manager Form of Government
Adjourned Meeting - 1:30 P.M.
An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins
was held on Tuesday, March 22,.1977 at 1:30 p.m.'in the Council
Chambers in the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was
answered by Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell
and Wilkinson.
Absent.: Councilman Suinn.
Staff Members Present: Brunton, Ferluga, Steadman, Liley and Lewis.
Also: City Attorney Arthur March, Jr.
Proclamation Presented
A proclamation for Week of Concern for Prisoners of Conscience
was presented for March 27 through April 3, 1977.
Easements from the Larimer County Canal No. 2 Irrigating Company
and the New Mercer Ditch Company for Water Line to City Park Nine
Golf Course,.Accepted
City Manager Brunton stated there were two easements; one with
the Larimer County Canal No. 2 Irrigating Company, and one with
the New Mercer Ditch Company; both were needed .for water lines
to City Park Nine Golf Course. The total consideration .for both
easements is $350.00.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bloom
to accept the two easements. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling,
Gray, Reeves, Russell and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
Bids.on Downtown Redevelopment Project
Director of the Downtown Redevelopment, Bob Ferluga, first gave
an oral report on the project; specifically the steps being taken
to provide for parking. �-
440
Councilman Russell reported he had opened up his parking area
for downtown use.
Director of the Downtown Redevelopment, Bob Ferluga, then recom-
mended that the first item (Mechanical Bid) be rebid. This has
been scheduled for March 28, 1977 at 10:00 a.m.
On the second item, (Electrical) the recommendation is to award
to Burch Electric Company of Greeley at $31,107.00.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Reeves
to award the low bid on the Central Area Beautification Electrical
bid to Burch Electric Company of Greeley, Colorado at $31,107.00.
Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell and
Wilkinson. Nays: None.
The second item is for irrigation; the low bidder is Loveland
Turf Farm at $19,800.00.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bloom
to award the low bid on the Central Area Beautification Irrigation
bid to Loveland Turf Farm at $19,800.00. Yeas: Councilmembers
Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
Director of the Downtown Redevelopment, Bob Ferluga, then spoke
to the Concrete bids; the low bidder is Gene Maycroft Masonry at
a lump sum of $375.00. This item is to provide for 12 inch '
blocks in the vaults, where basements extend under the sidewalks.
City Attorney March clarified further that these vaults used to
be coal shoots which have converted into storage space, which
are located underneath the sidewalks. The administration is
advising those persons having these vaults that any permit they
may have had in the past is revoked; if someone says this is a
problem, the administration is working out a pay -out situation
to keep the vault at the excess cost.
Councilwoman Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Gray
to accept the low bid of Gene Maycroft Masonry for a lump sum of
$375.00. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves,
Russell and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
Councilman Russell stated that while there is a parking crunch
he would like discussion relative to the "Employee Parking Only"
sign at the Community Center; adding "I think at this time the
sign should be taken out and I'm not real sure it should ever be
put back."
City Attorney March cautioned that time will be lost if all
employees are prohibited from parking in the lot, especially
those who have need to be in and out of the building during the
day.
441
Mayor Wilkinson stated after discussion on this item by each
member of the Council, that "the general feeling of the Council,
as I read it here now, is to take the sign down and monitor the
lot."
City Manager Brunton stated the sign would be taken down and he
would report on parking.
Other Business
a. City Attorney March stated he had made a report at the
previous portion of the work session regarding storm drainage.
A copy of his memorandum is as follows:
For some time the City Administration has.been*concerned
with the issue of storm drainage in connection with newly
established subdivisions. In many cases these new subdivisions
are above existing irrigation laterals and the natural
drainage from the lands being subdivided is to the irrigation
.canals. In many cases the storm drainage system for new
subdivisions has been a system which empties into the
irrigation laterals. In recent years the City has been -
requiring subdividers to provide storm detention ponds in
order to gain some control over storm runoff. Recently,
irrigation companies have expressed more and more concern
over this issue and in some cases have refused to allow
storm drainage facilities which empty into the irrigation
laterals. As City Attorney I recently attended a meeting at
which attorneys representing most of the ditch companies in
the area, the Cache la Poudre Water Users' Association,.and
.the County were present. This meeting was called to discuss
the interrelationship between the ditch companies, subdividers
and the governmental units having jurisdiction over the
subdivision procedure.
•
The concerns expressed by the ditch companies consisted.
primarily of the following:
1. When lands are subdivided and covered with
roads, parking lots, driveways and building improvements,
the ability of.the land to absorb storm waters is diminished
and, therefore, the runoff during a storm is substantially
increased. If no steps are taken to slow down the rate of
runoff, the ditches may not be able to handle the amount of
water which will be discharged into them.
442
2. Although the subdivider initially installs the
storm detention and discharge facilities, after the subdivision
is completed he is no longer involved in the area and the
continual maintenance of the storm facilities may not be
adequately provided for.
3. The quality of the water which is developed
from a urban subdivision may be substantially worse than
that which would run off of a property devoted to agricultural
uses. This is because of the various tires from automobiles
using the roads and chemicals which may have been applied to
lawns in the urban subdivision.
After considering the above factors and other allied
factors, it was the conclusion of the attorneys present that
it should be possible to arrive at a uniform agreement
providing for the conditions under which drainage would be
permitted to go into the irrigation ditches. It was felt
that this agreement should have the following provisions..
A. There should be adequate facilities provided
so that the rate of flow of storm water into the irrigation
ditch will not be greater than the historical rate of flow.
B. Assuming the rate of flow is not increased, I
the total volume of flow should not be a'concern (i.e., the
flow can continue over a longer period of time).
C. The criteria to be used for designing the
facilities should be established and agreed upon. (This
could be a ten-year storm, a fifty-year storm, a hundred -
year storm or any other standard.)
D. The City should assume responsibility for
maintenance of the storm drainage facilities. (This does
not necessarily mean the City would actually performance the
maintenance. In some cases this might be done by a homeowners'
association or other means, but the City would be the respon-
sible party.)
E. The agreement would recognize the problem of
quality of water only to the extent that there would be a
provision if quality requirements are imposed on the ditch
company allowing them to refuse to continue to accept the
water if further agreement relating to the quality question
could not.be reached.
443
F. To the extent that drainage easements can be
obtained, there should be provisions for spillways from the
ditches. (In the case of the ditches commonly referred to
as the Southside Ditches, this is probably not possible
until the Spring Creek channel is reached because of excessive
urban development along the ditch. In the case of ditches
where development is not yet intense, such as the.Fossil
Creek inlet or the Larimer and Weld ditches, it may be
possible to acquire easements for spillways at this time.)
G. The issue of general City use of the irrigation
ditches as part of the storm drainage system.of the City
.should not be addressed in this agreement but should be
studied by the parties and made the subject of a further
agreement when studies are completed.
In order to arrive at standards to implement any such
agreement, it will be necessary to perform some additional
engineering work. In many cases .the City may have the basis
for this work because of its past studies. The Poudre River
Water Users' Association agreed that they would employ an
engineer to pursue these questions in order to provide the
information for the agreement to be worked out. It would be
intended that any engineer employed would receive full
cooperation from the City Engineering Department, including
access to all previous studies the City has conducted.
Before proceeding further on this matter, the water
users' association and the interested ditch companies asked
that I advise the Council of our general intentions and -
obtain an endorsement of the procedure planned by the City.
Council. Therefore, I am requesting that the Council consider
this matter and by motion indicate its acceptance o4f the
general proposal and its intention of going forward with the
proposal. This.contemplates that when the engineering is
completed and the agreement drawn, the City would become a
party to the agreement and would enforce the agreement.
through its subdivision procedures.
He then requested Council's endorsement of the proposal to work
with ditch companies in connection with storm drainage.
Councilwoman Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bloom
to endorse the proposal to work with the ditch companies in
connection with storm drainage. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom,
Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
444
b. City Attorney March then requested Council action on the
Charter provision, requiring a minimum age of 25 years for
running for Council.
His specific request was that :he be authorized to accept service
on behalf of the City on the complaint challenging this require-
ment and to enter an appearance on behalf of the City or any
personnel named in the action defending the present Charter
requirements.
Councilman Russell made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bloom
that the City Attorney be authorized to accept service of the
complaint and enter an appearance on behalf of the City to
defend the Charter. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray,
Reeves, Russell and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
C. Councilwoman Reeves reported to the Council on a request
she has received from Mr. Dan Hillman who had previously worked
on a film on the Poudre River; his specific request was to
submit a proposal to do something in Larimer County that would
be a video tape that would relate to the general area. Further,
what he would like to have is a general statement of support
from the City on the video tape medium.
Councilmembers indicated they would like to see the proposal
prior to approval.
Computer Report
Mayor Wilkinson read a portion of the memorandum from County
Commissioner Nona Thayer to the County Commissioners (memorandum
is inserted herein and made part hereof).
Recommendation:
Mayor Wilkinson has asked for a response from the Commissioners prior to the March
22 Council meeting to the question:
"Is the County interested enough in the concept of a 50-50 computer center -to
warrant more thorough evaluation by the County and the City?"
My recommendation is that the County respond affirmatively to this question.. From
the information I have accumulated in reviewing this question, I am convinced
that the computer needs of both the City and the County could most likely be
accommodated if management of the center included setting of priorities; analy-
sis of present applications to determine their value or nonvalue; new requests
were evaluated in terms of their individual and integrated importance to the
County and scheduling were done to utilize the full capability of the center
with more attention given realistically to the costs of immediate response -vet-
sus the benefits gained from fast turn around.
445
Recommendation on County Only Operation:
If the City does not elect to pursue this matter further, I strongly recommend
that steps be taken to advertise for an experienced manager for the computer cen-
ter. This present quick study of the center points up the need for managerial
talent to begin to prioritize uses of the center, accumulate data on Departmen-
tal needs for service, including benefits to be obtained and the cost which will
be incurred. The County Commissioners or their administrative staff may want Lo
make final decisions on this prioritizing but a center manager should be given
the responsibility of developing data, procedures, systems analysis and so. forth.
An advisory committee made up of knowledgeable community people needs.to be ap-
pointed to make recommendations on:
1. Job description for manager
2. Experience and educational requirements
3. Assist' with interview process
Other questions that need.to be addressed by the staff after hiring a center
manager are:
1. Present practices of charging users to determine changes so full costs are
reflected in the charges
2. Leasing rather than purchase of additional hardware
3. A re-evaluation of the proper role of the County center in serving the pres-
ent diverse clientele.
Background:.
Two meetings were held with Mayor Wilkinson, Robert Brunton, Rick Steadman,
George Jones, Bill Westbrook and myself.
George Jones compiled s brief report under considerable time pressures. He sum-
marized without prioritizing or having any time to make cost -benefit analyses
requests from current users. He also itemized current central processor usage;
hardware summary; related costs for outfitting and maintaining the computer cen-
ter and projected equipment acquisitions to consider City/County joint operation.
You have been provided copies of this report.
Rick Steadman also prepared a report making assumptions on costs to the City of
Fort Collins of contributing a fair share to one-time charges and recurring
charges and buying one half share in hardware (valued at original cost).. Cop-
ies of this report have been made available.to you.
Discussion on joint management has been very preliminary. The most discussed
possibility is to establish a steering committee with equal representation from
the County and City and with one additional member who is mutually acceptable.
One of the first duties of the steering committee would be to hire a computer
center manager who would be responsible to the Steering Committee. .
446
Councilman Bowling expressed his disappointment at not being able
to reach an agreement on City/County cooperation on the use of
the computer, but felt that the City must proceed with its plans.
Other Councilmembers expressed their views relative to the City's
computer needs.
Councilman Bloom made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Gray
that the Council direct the administration to proceed with the
goal of an independent data processing operation, that the
administration notify the County of its intent to terminate the
Egreement, that the City Attorney be instructed to negotiate
termination of the agreement and that any new equipment be
considered on the basis of rental, lease, lease -purchase, out-
right purchase, or any combination thereof. Yeas: Councilmembers
Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
City Manager Brunton then read the following memorandum and
recommendation into the record:
On Monday, March 21, 1977, we received a telephone call from Commissioner
Nona Thayer, who indicated that the Commissioners have discussed the computer
and are interested enough to proceed with further joint cooperation and study.
The Monday Coloradoan carried the enclosed article on the subject. This was
the first indication we had on the subject since our original joint City
Council -County Commissioner meeting on February 17, 1977, and the three.
committee meetings on February 21, February 28, and March 10, 1977.
This leaves the status of the computer undecided. The present computer,
arrangement has always been questioned. Initially, the.present computer was
selected without much input from most of the policy makers or administrative
personnel from either the City or the County. Although virtually any computer
can be made to work depending on the size, many of us believe the wrong:computer
was selected. Without pinpointing the fault, the.present computer contract
took from 1971 until 1975 to negotiate and sign. During that time approximately
$300,000 of additional hardware was purchased without any consultation from the
City. Also, during our negotiations to terminate the contract for the last
six to eight months, there have been differences of interpretation by the
City and County Attorneys.
Last summer the staff recommended and the City Council authorized us to.proceed
with the acquisition of a new computer. Because of a pressing office space
problem and the need for space for our new computer, a modular building was
purchased with a."buy-back" provision. Also, space was allocated in our new
City Hall, planning for the new computer. A committee was appointed consisting
of Robyn Carrol, Vice President/Secretary, Home Federal Savings and Loan
Association of the Rockies; Bob Knott, Data Processing Manager, Woodward
Governor Company; and Dr. Bernard Marschner,'.Chairman, Computer Science
Department, Colorado State University. Also, two staff members -± Mike
DiTullio, Director of General Administrative Services, and Rick Steadman,
Manager of Management Information Services -- served on the committee, with
Stanley R. Case, Director of Light and Power, and Ronald R. Wood, Finance Director,
447
participating extensively in the computer requirements and specifications. -The
committee started meeting .in August, 1976. After five or six, meetings and a
great deal of joint input, bids were sent out on October 8, 1976, and received
on November 10, 1976. After several months of considerable evaluation and
analysis, the committee unanimously recommended that the City purchase the
ONIVAC,90/30 computer.
Late in 1976, members of the City Council requested that we again consider
the rationale justifying the City acquiring its own computer. Since we were
so far in the process, we felt that this should and would be done at the time
we bring the computer recommendation to the City Council for consideration.
There have been many reports and information given to the Council. The Council
initially received the memorandum from Mike DiTullio and Rick Steadman dated
December 1, 1976, and revised January 24, 1977. On March 1, 1977, the Council
received the report from George C. Jones and Bill Westbrook of the County
Computer Department on their computer evaluation and projected needs. On
March 15, 1977, considerable cost analysis and miscellaneous information was
submitted. Finally, on March 17 the latest memo from Rick Steadman, "Summary.
of the Negative Aspects of DEC PDP/10 as Opposed to a UNIVAC 90/30," was
submitted to the Council.
Several members of the Council indicated that the only way they would consider
continuing with the present computer would be to have a fifty percent ownership
in the computer, equal participation in the operation of the computer, and a
guaranteed price for miscellaneous costs (excluding inflation) for.five years.
Finally, on March 21, 1977, we _received the indefinite decision that the .County
wanted to explore the joint ownership matter further. In the meantime we are
losing time and money including (1) an under -used modular building, (2) the
finalization of the new City Hall plans, (3) the present computer bid which
will be voided if not awarded soon, and (4) possibly most important, the lack
of moving on a positive program toward our goal of greater computer utilization.
It is obvious from the aforementioned paragraph that, although very worthwhile,
cooperation between. the City and the County is difficult because of different
needs and priorities. Any proposed joint project.should be worked on long
enough in advance so both parties can make the studies and analysis. Such is
not the case with the computer. The County decision does not help the City.
At one of our meetings, Nona Thayer indicated it would take six months for
the County to make a study and possibly a decision.. It should be remembered
that it took two to three years to draft and approve the original contract.
The Colorado Springs Facilities Management firm felt it would take approximately
twelve months to reorganize the County computer. In the memo.of March 1, 19778
from George C. Jones, head of the Larimer County Computer Department, and Bill
Westbrook of his staff, it was stated, "Consequently, in ouropinion, the
proposal of 50/50, City/County ownership semis very impractical and may even
be considered a step backwards for Larimer County." Also, we unde*rstand that
several of the other elected County officials who are users of the computer
would just as soon see the City of Fort Collins with its own computer. .Hence,
with these negative feelings and built=in delays, the continuance of a joint
City/County computer is not advantageous.
448
The studies, evaluation, and analysis have caused delays but have been good
'to reassess our position. I and the City staff firmly believe that, even if
we could work out an acceptable agreement with the County immediately, it would
still be in the best interest of the City to purchase our own computer. The
various aforementioned reports, cost analysis, and other data supports this
position. We would be pleased to again review the major points of our position.
The specifications for the City's computer were carefully planned, studied,
and analyzed. of all the proposals received, the committee was unanimous in
recommending the UNIVAC 90/30. This computer is used by many Cities including
Greeley and Pueblo, Colorado. If we don't act on the UNIVAC proposal soon,
we will lose our present bid figures. Without committing the City Council, I
sent a "letter of intent" to UNIVAC to hold our present quote. We would propose
to acquire the computer on a lease basis (using the Six Year State and Local
Government Lease) with an option to purchase. We will discuss the various
types of agreements at the Council meeting.
Recommendation: The Administration recommends that the City Council authorize
the Administration to terminate the presents arrangement with the County in an
orderly and equitable fashion, and further authorize the City to enter into
an agreement to acquire a UNIVAC 90/30 computer as per their proposal.
Councilwoman Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Gray
to authorize the administration to enter into an agreement to
acquire a UNIVAC 90/30 computer as per their proposal. Council -
members Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell and Wilkinson.
Nays: None.
Mayor Wilkinson then declared the meeting adjourned to March 29,
1977.
ATTEST:
449