HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/31/2019 - Building Review Board - Agenda - Regular MeetingBuilding Review Board Page 1 October 31, 2019
Alan Cram, Chair City Council Chambers
Tim Johnson, Vice Chair City Hall West
Brad Massey 300 Laporte Avenue
Bernie Marzonie Fort Collins, Colorado
Katharine Penning
Eric Richards Staff Liaison:
Justin Robinson Russ Hovland
Chief Building Official
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will
make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance.
Agenda
October 31, 2019
1:00 PM
• CALL TO ORDER
• ROLL CALL
• AGENDA REVIEW
• PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
• DISCUSSION AGENDA
1. MINUTES OF JUNE 27, 2019
The purpose of this item is to consider approval of the minutes from the June 27, 2019 regular
meeting of the Building Review Board.
2. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND BUILDING PERMIT FEES STUDY
DESCRIPTION: As part of the City’s coordinated fee update process, City Staff along with MGT
Consulting Group (MGT) conducted an in-depth analysis of the City’s development
review and building permit fees. This study evaluated whether these fees are set
at appropriate levels, inclusive for all costs, consistent with the City’s goals for cost
recovery, and how fees compare to other communities regionally. The purpose of
this item is to update the Board about the fee study and outreach efforts, answer
questions, and obtain feedback from the Board.
STAFF: Tom Leeson, Director, Community Development and Neighborhood Services
Noelle Currell, PDT Finance Manager
Building Review Board
Packet Pg. 1
Building Review Board Page 2 October 31, 2019
3. BUILDING PERMIT FEE CHANGE UPDATE
DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to inform the Board about a recent change
regarding building permit fees for roofing that was made effective 10/7/19. No
action is required from the Board.
STAFF: Russ Hovland, Chief Building Official
4. PROPOSED WORK PLAN FOR THE BUILDING REVIEW BOARD
DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to review and approve the 2020 Work Plan.
STAFF: Russ Hovland, Chief Building Official
5. SCHEDULING AND BYLAWS CHANGES
DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to review, discuss and approve proposed changes
to the Board’s regular meeting schedule and bylaws.
STAFF: Russ Hovland, Chief Building Official
• OTHER BUSINESS
o CBO position update
• ADJOURNMENT
Packet Pg. 2
Agenda Item 1
Item 1, Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 31, 2019
Building Review Board
STAFF
Gretchen Schiager, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 27, 2019 BRB MEETING
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes of the June 27, 2019 meeting of the Building Review
Board.
ATTACHMENTS
1. BRB June 27, 2019 Minutes - DRAFT
Packet Pg. 3
DRAFT
City of Fort Collins Page 1 June 27, 2019
Alan Cram, Chair City Council Chambers
Tim Johnson, Vice Chair City Hall West
Brad Massey 300 Laporte Avenue
Bernie Marzonie Fort Collins, Colorado
Katharine Penning
Eric Richards Staff Liaison:
Justin Robinson Russ Hovland
Chief Building Official
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and
will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for
assistance.
Regular Meeting Minutes
June 27, 2019
A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, June 27, 2019, at
1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort
Collins, Colorado.
• CALL TO ORDER
Chair Cram called the meeting to order at 1:03 p.m.
• ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Cram, Massey, Marzonie, Penning, Richards
ABSENT: Johnson, Robinson
STAFF: Hovland, Van Hall, Schiager
• AGENDA REVIEW
There are no changes to the posted agenda.
• PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
Building Review Board
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 4
DRAFT
City of Fort Collins Page 2 June 27, 2019
• DISCUSSION AGENDA
1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 28, 2019 MEETING.
Mr. Richards noted that he would abstain having not been officially on the Board at the time of that meeting.
Mr. Marzonie moved to approve the minutes of the February 28, 2019 meeting. Ms. Penning
seconded. The motion passed 4-0, Richards abstaining.
2. 2019 CAPITAL EXPANSION FEE & UTILITY FEE UPDATE
DESCRIPTION: This purpose of this item is to provide information about the 2019 Capital
Expansion Fee & Utility Fee Update. Staff is seeking thoughts and feedback
from the board that can be shared with Council Finance Committee in August.
STAFF: Jennifer Poznanovic, Senior Manager of Sales Tax & Revenue
Lance Smith, Utility Strategic Finance Director
Staff Presentation
Ms. Poznanovic provided an overview of the utility and expansion fees. She explained the purpose of
the fee review. She reviewed the fee timeline. She explained that the development review fees may
or may not make it into this update.
Mr. Smith discussed the various utility fees, highlighting the changes and explaining the reasoning
behind them.
Ms. Poznanovic talked about how inflation impacts the fees. She provided fee comparisons to
demonstrate that Fort Collins’ fees are in line with other jurisdictions.
Ms. Poznanovic talked about the outreach plan and roadmap for the fees.
Public Input
None
Board Questions and Discussion
Chair Cram asked about the City’s budget and its relationship to the increased fees. He commented
that fees seem to continually increase.
Mr. Smith explained that Staff cannot spend more than is budgeted. He said these are the impact fees
needed to maintain current levels of service.
Chair Cram stated he could not as a Board member justify supporting these increases without a lot
more evidence of the expenses. He further commented that he didn’t think comparison to Boulder’s
fees was appropriate. Mr. Smith explained that some of the increases are to support expansion. Ms.
Poznanovic mentioned the parks waiting to be built. Chair Cram would like further detail and
clarification on the expenses in comparison to the fees. He stated he had requested that information
the last two times they presented about fees and has never received anything.
Ms. Poznanovic said they could quickly provide detail on the Parks fees, which was discussed and
researched extensively during the 2017 fee working group.
Mr. Massey asked if the fees included any of the Connexion expenses. Mr. Smith the start-up debt
incurred should be recovered from customer fees over time.
Mr. Massey pointed out that several other jurisdictions in addition to Boulder were included in the
comparisons. He stated that the fees did not seem out of line. He commented that when you visit other
municipalities, you really appreciate what we have in Fort Collins, and understand there are costs
associated with the amenities here.
Mr. Richards asked about the 24% increase in water fees. Mr. Smith noted that fee hadn’t been
increased in a decade, which accounted for the 24% increase effective 2018. He stated they are
narrowing the gap to where the fees need to be. He also mentioned the addition of the Halligan
Reservoir.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 5
DRAFT
City of Fort Collins Page 3 June 27, 2019
Mr. Marzonie asked if Fort Collins was facing a shortage of water. Mr. Smith said that could be
addressed in the next item.
Ms. Poznanovic clarified that Staff is seeking feedback or a position statement from the Board, but not
a formal motion at this time.
Ms. Penning stated that she also would like to see more detail, which Ms. Poznanovic said would be
provided.
3. HALLIGAN WATER SUPPLY PROJECT
DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to update the Building Review Board on the current
status of the Halligan Water Supply Project (Project), including a project
summary, key milestones, and activities planned for 2019.
STAFF: Donnie Dustin, City Manager, Water Engineering
Staff Presentation
Mr. Dustin addressed Mr. Marzonie’s earlier question about water supply. He explained that the City
is prepared to withstand a 50-year drought event. He stated the water supply is currently sufficient, but
climate change and other factors could impact that down the road.
Mr. Dustin showed a film about the project (https://www.fcgov.com/halligan/). He described the Fort
Collins water districts. He provided additional detail about the project, including discussion about
planning for future needs and Environmental Impact Study (EIS) alternatives. He outlined the impacts
of the project and its benefits to the river and gave an overview about the project timeline.
Public Input
None
Board Questions and Discussion
Mr. Massey asked if the new dam would be built on top of the old one. Mr. Smith explained that this
would be a replacement of the existing arch dam and would be about 25 feet higher.
Mr. Massey asked about Joe Wright Reservoir. Mr. Smith responded that is the only water storage the
City owns and operates. Mr. Smith said the City has control over the Halligan dam, but not the water
currently stored there. The additional water would be for Fort Collins. Mr. Massey said this seems like
a much better project than Glade, and he would support it.
Mr. Richards asked for a comparison in cost between this and the Big Thompson. Mr. Smith explained
that the cost of water from the Big Thompson is $90K per acre foot compared to $10K per acre foot
from this project. The fact that the City already has the water rights for this project is a big factor in the
cost savings. Mr. Richards agreed with Mr. Massey that this is a good, viable option.
Mr. Richards asked whether this project would help or impact the other water districts throughout Fort
Collins. Mr. Smith explained that the other providers were part of this project at one time but backed
out in 2009 due to uncertainties and are now pursuing other water supply options.
Chair Cram asked about the impact on the Poudre through the Fort Collins metro area. Mr. Smith
explained there would be a 2% reduction in flow overall, mostly because of what they remove in the
summer.
Ms. Penning asked whether this might help with flooding issues with the Poudre. Mr. Smith said that
was possible, but that wasn’t part of the analysis.
Chair Cram asked about an increase in surface evaporation. Mr. Smith said about 5% of what is stored
there evaporates, which is common. He added that since it is cooler up there, there is less evaporation
than there would be here.
4. GRANT EVERITT APPEAL OF DENIAL OF ONE TIME EXEMPTION OF CLASS D1 LICENSE TO
BUILD A CLASS C2 LICENSE-LEVEL PROJECT (5-PLEX MULTI-FAMILY)
DESCRIPTION: The Board will hear an appeal of the Chief Building Official’s decision
regarding a contractor licensing issue. The Board will make a ruling as to
whether to uphold, overturn, or modify the decision of the CBO.
STAFF: Russ Hovland, Chief Building Official
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 6
DRAFT
City of Fort Collins Page 4 June 27, 2019
Mr. Everitt introduced himself to the Board.
Staff Presentation
Mr. Hovland presented the staff report. He provided background about this case. He explained the
request and his reasons for denial. He referred the Board to the documents included in the packet.
Appellant and Parties-in-Interest in Support of Appeal Arguments
Mr. Everitt spoke to the Board. He explained his reasoning for his request. He mentioned two examples
of similar work he had done. He shared some of his background and expressed his confidence in his
ability to do this project.
Staff Response
Mr. Hovland reported to the Board that the last contractor mentorship they approved is proceeding in a
satisfactory manner.
Board Questions of Staff and Parties-in-Interest
Ms. Penning disclosed she had worked with Mr. Everitt previously, but stated that would not present a
conflict.
Ms. Penning asked whether a tenant finish would require fire sprinkling. Mr. Hovland explained that it
would in some cases.
Mr. Massey disclosed having worked with Mr. Everitt in the past. He said the fire separations are his
biggest concern. Mr. Everitt responded that about 70% of their tenant finishes have had a fire sprinkler
component. He said he had done a fire separation wall for the project he did at Intersect Brewery. He
commented that this particular design by architect Greg Fisher has been built several times before, and
they will be working with sub-contractors who have been involved in those projects.
Mr. Massey asked whether Greg Fisher would be providing construction administration services for
this. Mr. Everitt said they haven’t discussed it, but he has in the past, and he would likely do so this
time.
Mr. Massey asked for a description of the 5-plex. Mr. Everitt explained that there would be three units
below and two above and provided additional details about the project.
Ms. Penning asked if Mr. Everitt had attempted to take the exam for the C-2 license. Mr. Everitt said
he had.passed it.
Ms. Penning asked if Mr. Everitt had identified a willing mentor. Mr. Everitt replied in the affirmative.
Chair Cram mentioned complications with commissioning this kind of project. Mr. Everitt explained that
there would be five standalone furnaces and he didn’t anticipate much crossover in the HVAC, so he
didn’t think there would be an issue.
Mr. Hovland clarified that since this has dwelling units over and under, in addition to wall separations
and sprinklers, they will also have floor and ceiling separations.
Board Discussion
Mr. Richards mentioned having worked with Mr. Everitt in the past as well.
Mr. Richards suggested a motion to support a mentorship.
Mr. Marzonie agreed, and asked Mr. Everitt who would act as the mentor. Mr. Everitt stated that Patrick
Elder with Elder Construction had agreed to do that.
Ms. Penning suggested Mr. Everitt should pursue his C2 license after this project. Mr. Hovland
explained that he would need to do two projects under this type of mentorship first. If he then applied
for a third permit, it could be granted administratively by the CBO and then used as his third project to
apply for his C2.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 7
DRAFT
City of Fort Collins Page 5 June 27, 2019
Motion
Mr. Richards moved to allow Mr. Everitt to obtain this building permit under the agreement that
he would operate in a mentorship with a C2 contractor in order to demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Board that the applicant possesses other qualifications not specifically listed
in this Article, such as specialized training, education or additional experience, which the Board
has determined qualifies the applicant to perform in a competent manner any construction
authorized under the license or certificate sought, and provided that such relief may be granted
without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent
and purposes of this Article.
Mr. Marzonie seconded.
The motion passed 5-0.
Mr. Hovland stated he would meet with Mr. Everitt and the mentoring contractor to execute a signed
agreement which would also be signed by the property owner.
• OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Hovland proposed allowing these decisions to be done administratively rather than coming before
the board. Chair Cram agreed with that approach. Ms. Penning stated that having inspections to
ensure the mentor is on site is a good control. She asked about the repercussions if the agreement
isn’t followed. Mr. Hovland explained that if there is a lack of supervision, the contract can be nullified
and a contractor with the proper license would have to take over the permit.
• ADJOURNMENT
Chair Cram adjourned the meeting at 2:39 p.m.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager.
Minutes approved by a vote of the Board on __________.
_________________________________ ______________________________
Russell Hovland, Chief Building Official Alan Cram, Chair
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 8
Agenda Item 2
Item 2, Page 1
Staff Report October 31, 2019
Building Review Board
STAFF
Tom Leeson, Director, Community Development and Neighborhood Services
Noelle Currell, PDT Finance Manager
SUBJECT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND BUILDING PERMIT FEES STUDY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Summary:
As part of the City’s coordinated fee update process, City Staff along with MGT Consulting Group (MGT)
conducted an in-depth analysis of the City’s development review and building permit fees. This study
evaluated whether these fees are set at appropriate levels, inclusive for all costs, consistent with the City’s
goals for cost recovery, and how fees compare to other communities regionally.
Due to the complexities, processes and number of departments involved in development review and the
permitting, the Council Finance Committee requested an advisory committee be created to better understand
potential impacts of fee and methodology changes and collect feedback and advisement regarding proposed
changes.
Staff has extensively evaluated the methodology for calculating fees and is requesting feedback on the change
in methodology for calculating building permit and plan check fees from using the valuation of a project to
using the square footage of a project (not all project types apply), a flat fee for over-the-counter permits,
addition of a new erosion control and storm water inspection fees, as well as updates current development
review fees based on a simplified fee schedule. No methodology changes are being requested for
development review fees.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Development Review Fee Advisory Committee
A Development Review Fee Advisory Committee was formed based on Council Finance Committee directive
to better understand how to simplify the current fee schedule, calculating of fees, when fees are due, validating
and gaining buy-in to a new methodology and providing recommendations. This balanced group was
comprised of industry professionals, Fort Collins Citizens, and City staff.
Advisory Committee List: A Blend of Citizens, Industry and Staff
Industry: Jennifer Bray: Affordable Housing Board
Adam Eggleston: Ft. Collins Board of Realtors
Doug Braden: Home Builders Association
Citizen: Matt Robenalt: Downtown Development Authority
Cathy Mathis: Local Legislative Affairs Committee
Braulio Rojas: South Ft. Collins Business Association
Packet Pg. 9
Agenda Item 2
Item 2, Page 2
Linda Stanley: Economic Advisory Commission
City Staff: Mike Beckstead: Project Sponsor
Russ Hovland: Fee Owner Building Permit Fees
Tim Kemp: Fee Owner Engineering Fees
Noelle Currell: Project Manager
Tom Leeson: Fee Owner Development Review Fees
Overview of Meetings and Topics Covered
The group convened for five (5) two-hour sessions starting in May 2019 with the final meeting September
2019.
Fee History
Currently there are numerous fees across CDNS (Community Development and Neighborhood Services),
Utilities, and Engineering, spread over three (3) types of fees; development review, infrastructure inspection
(engineering), and building permit. Examples include building permit fee, plan review fee, transportation
development review, over-the-counter permits, and engineering inspection fees. The current percentage for
cost recovery is set at 100%.
The City Manager is authorized to set fees based on the costs of providing development and building permit
review services, pursuant to City Code Sec. 7.5-2. The Land Use Code (Sec. 2.2.3.D) establishes the cost
recovery model for development and building permit fees:
1. Recovery of Costs. Development review fees are hereby established for the purpose of recovering the
costs incurred by the City in processing, reviewing and recording applications pertaining to
development applications or activity within the municipal boundaries of the City, and issuing permits
related thereto. The development review fees imposed pursuant to this Section shall be paid at the
time of submittal of any development application, or at the time of issuance of the permit, as
determined by the City Manager and established in the development review fee schedule.
2. Development Review Fee Schedule. The amount of the City's various development review fees shall
be established by the City Manager and shall be based on the actual expenses incurred by or on
behalf of the City. The schedule of fees shall be reviewed annually and shall be adjusted, if necessary,
by the City Manager on the basis of actual expenses incurred by the City to reflect the effects of
inflation and other changes in costs. At the discretion of the City Manager, the schedule may be
referred to the City Council for adoption by resolution or ordinance.
Fee Calculation Review
To accurately calculate where fee levels should be set, an inclusive listing of fees was thoroughly reviewed,
every staff member involved in a fee activity was identified, and staff members that complete fee related
activities were interviewed to determine the amount of time spent per fee item. Calculations were carried out
to determine the fully burdened cost of employees. Overhead calculations were also reviewed and included
things like buildings, managers, and IT support. Fees were set based on the time and the overhead allocated.
t. Validation steps were taken to ensure proper cost recovery, which included;
• ensuring no individual groups were over-allocated (available work hours versus total time of fee
activities);
• estimating revenue forecasts based on 2018 volumes (ensuring revenue does not end higher than
cost); and
• confirming with management teams to ensure accurate allocation of each individual’s time to the fees
(e.g. only allocating 25% of some positions).
Packet Pg. 10
Agenda Item 2
Item 2, Page 3
Methodology Changes and Impacts
Development Review Fees
No methodology change for the development review fees (pre-building permit activity, such as Project
Development Plan, Minor Amendment, Final Development Plan) is proposed. However, one goal in this area
was to reduce the number of fees, through fee consolidation or deletion (APO labels removed).
Additional changes within the development review fees include adding staff members that are fully engaged in
development review activities that have not historically been included within the fee calculations. This includes
City Attorney’s Office staff, Forestry staff, and Parks Planning staff. Additionally, Utilities development review
fees have historically been collected at time of Building Permit, and those will now be collected at time of
development review application to more accurately reflect the time of service.
The impacts of these changes are an increase in development review fees for all application types.
Infrastructure Inspections
No methodology change is proposed for the infrastructure inspection fees. These fees were last updated in
1997, so the impact of these changes is an increase in the infrastructure inspection fees.
Staff is proposing a methodology shift for new construction building permit fees from being based on valuation
to square footage/building type. The square footage of a project is not subject to disagreements as it is a
definite quantity provided within the application; it is known in the early phases of a project, so it provides a
stronger basis for calculating accurate fee estimate. Additionally, square footage has a strong correlation to the
amount of time it takes to review/process an application and the time it takes to complete inspections.
To help with efficiency and overall fee consistency, over-the-counter permits will go to a flat fee versus
valuation based (examples: residential roof, water heater, furnace). Staff time in this area is driven by type of
work, not the value.
Tenant finishes and remodels will remain valuation based. Valuation cost breakouts were updated based upon
interviews with building inspectors with the result being a decrease in these application types.
It should be noted that sales and use tax is still based on valuation, so applicants will still need to provide the
project valuation for tax purposes.
The impacts of these changes, including shifting the timing of collection of the Utility development review fees,
are a decrease in building permit fees.
New Fees: Erosion Control & Storm Water Construction Inspection
These are proposed new fees that will cover field inspection personnel. Currently no fees are collected, and
this activity is subsidized by the rate payers and not by established fees. Staff is requesting implementation of
an erosion control fee & storm water infrastructure inspection fee to cover the costs of inspections that are
currently being executed.
The process completed by Utilities is as follows; Field verification by a City Stormwater Inspector is now
required as stated in the project Development Agreement, City Land Use Code Section 3.3.2(E)(1)(e), and Fort
Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual Ch 3, Sec 3.1). Project managers should request inspections prior to
installation of stormwater features, or at a minimum, keep the City inspector up to date on scheduling.
Inspections target the milestones listed in the feature’s corresponding construction checklist, which is
submitted as part of the Site Grading and Drainage Certification (checklists may change as the program
evolves).
Packet Pg. 11
Agenda Item 2
Item 2, Page 4
As part of the certification process, certification checklist documentation is submitted to Utilities’ Water
Engineering Department and requires acknowledgment that verification occurred at the intervals specified
therein.
Utilities Light and Power are not included in this study and request.
Developer/Builder Cost Impacts
In order to understand/quantify the impact on development, Staff did a comparative study on existing
developments. Samples were chosen based upon common application types including: Infill development,
Single Family Homes, Multi-family, Affordable Housing, Commercial Buildings and Industrial Uses. Fees
within this study generally increased ~30%, however as part of the overall fee stack, the updates resulted in
minor changes (from less than 1% to 10% of total City Fees). Additional details are included in attachment
XYZ.
City Cost/Revenue Impacts
Since the fees charged are intended to cover the costs to provide the service, an analysis was done to
evaluate the costs to the City of development review, infrastructure inspection, and building permits based on
the 2018 volume of permit applications. In 2018, the City collected $5.6 million in development related fees,
which were intended to cover the costs of those services. The actual total cost in 2018 was closer to $7.6M.
The greatest impact on collections is seen in the Utilities Funds and the Transportation fund. In Utilities the
changes are driven by the timing of collection, updated cost inputs and addition of Erosion Control and
Stormwater Infrastructure Inspections. Within the Transportation fund changes are driven primarily by the
infrastructure inspections (which as noted had not had fee updates since 1997) and update to number of
Transportation funded Development Staff (e.g. Traffic Engineers and Civil Engineers).
Packet Pg. 12
Agenda Item 2
Item 2, Page 5
Next Steps and Public Outreach
Staff is currently engaging in a robust public outreach process with the following groups:
• South Fort Collins Business Association
• Super Issues Forum
• Northern Colorado Homebuilder’s Association
• Downtown Development Authority
• North Fort Collins Business Association
• Local Legislative Affairs Committee
• Affordable Housing Board
• Water Board
• Human Relations Board
• Economic Advisory Commission
• Building Review Board
• Housing Catalyst
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Presentation
Packet Pg. 13
1
Development Review Fee Updates – Public Outreach
Tom Leeson/Noelle Currell – October/November 2019
Fee Coordination Timeline
2
Detailed fee studies:
• 4 years for CEF, TCEFs & Development fees
• 2 years for Utility fees
In years without updates, an annual inflation adjustment occurs
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
2019 Fee Group – Development Review/Building Fees only
• Decoupled from 2019 fee update
201620172018201920202021
Capital Expansion Fees Update Step II Step III Update
Transportation CEFs Update Step II Update
Electric Capacity Fees Update Update Update
Water Supply Requirement Update Update Update
Wet Utility Fees Update Update Update
Building Development Fees Update Update
Fee Working Group Active Active Active
1
2
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Staff Presentation
Packet Pg. 14
What is Development Review
& Purpose of Fees
Fees recover the costs to process, review, inspect and record
applications pertaining to development applications/activity and
issuance permits related thereto.
3
Development Review
•Project Development Plan
• Final Development Plan
•Major/Minor Amendments
Development
Construction Permit
• Infrastructure
•Erosion Control
•Stormwater
Building Permit
•Plans Review
•Building Inspections
Fees in Scope for this Study
4
Fee Type Description When is it
Paid?
# of Application
Types/Fees/Measures
1. Development Review
Fees
Covers staff time related to reviews of
development in the community
Development
Application
Submittal
32
2. Infrastructure Inspections Covers infrastructure, erosion controls
and stormwater inspections
Development
Construction
Permit Issuance
37
3. Building Permit Covers staff time/materials inspecting
buildings
Building Permit
Issuance
37
• Customer Focus 150 “fees” to 105
3
4
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Staff Presentation
Packet Pg. 15
History of Fees
• Last Update – Varies by Type/Department of City
• Infrastructure Inspections - 1997
• Utilities Development Review - 2001
• Development Review - 2006
• Building Permits - 2011
• Cost recovery assumptions varied by type of fee/department
• Costs spread across multiple areas of city and fractions of people
making accurate assessment actual cost difficult
• Staff initiated a bottoms up analysis of costs associated with each fee
5
How Did Staff Update
• Met with every staff member involved in process
• Based on their experience, determined time the activity drives
• Used actual personnel, materials and overhead costs to develop new
fee
• Did a look back – used historical fee volumes and new fee numbers
to validate costs and revenue are aligned
6
5
6
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Staff Presentation
Packet Pg. 16
Key Updates & Impacts
7
Fee Type Methodology Changes Cost
Recovery Impact to Fees
Development Review
Fees
• All Cost Inputs Updated
• Some Costs Previously in Permits now in
Development Review Fees
• Fees Consolidated
• Utility Fees Based on Full Cost Recovery
• Utility Fees Collected at Time of Service
100% ↑
Infrastructure
Inspections
• All Cost Inputs updated
• New Fees Proposed 100% ↑
Building Permit
• All Cost Inputs updated
• New construction square footage based
vs. value based
• Over the counter Flat Fees
100% ↓
New Erosion Control/Stormwater Fees
• Two Fees
• Erosion Control Construction Inspection
• Bi-weekly inspections of developments currently under
construction
• Fee based on size of site and duration of construction
• Stormwater
• Inspection of permanent Stormwater infrastructure (e.g. porous
pavers)
• Fee based on quantity/type of Stormwater Facilities
• Why Needed
• Activities are currently being carried out by City Staff – being
funded through rate payers, not development
• Fees are Paid at Development Construction Permit
8
7
8
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Staff Presentation
Packet Pg. 17
City Revenue Impact
Costs include: Personnel, Materials and OH
*Current collections is 2018 actual data, Future is 2018 volumes w/ new fee amounts
9
Fee Type Current
Collections*
Future*
1. Development Review $583K $3,654K
2. Infrastructure Inspection $322K $898K
New Stormwater Fees $0 $75k-$100K
3. Building Permit $4,751K $3,008K
Total $5.6M $7.6M
Fee Type PDP FDP DCP Building Permit Others Total PDP FDP DCP Building Permit Others Total New H/(L) Old % Change
Development Review 25,083 2,000 400 ‐ ‐ 27,483 22,425 17,250 5,132 ‐ ‐ 44,807 17,324 63.0%
Infrastructure Inspections ‐ ‐ 2,722 ‐ ‐ 2,722 ‐ ‐ 7,931 ‐ ‐ 7,931 5,209 191.4%
Building Permit ‐ ‐ ‐ 100,619 ‐ 100,619 ‐ ‐ ‐ 66,638 ‐ 66,638 (33,981) ‐33.8%
Subtotal Fees Updated 25,083 2,000 3,122 100,619 ‐ 130,823 22,425 17,250 13,063 66,638 ‐ 119,375 (11,448) ‐8.8%
Escrows ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 71,483 71,483 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 71,483 71,483 ‐ 0.0%
Impact Fees ‐ ‐ ‐ 839,735 ‐ 839,735 ‐ ‐ ‐ 839,735 ‐ 839,735 ‐ 0.0%
Others 250 ‐ ‐ 509,369 700 510,319 250 ‐ ‐ 509,369 700 510,319 ‐ 0.0%
Subtotal Other Fees 250 ‐ ‐ 1,349,104 72,183 1,421,536 250 ‐ ‐ 1,349,104 72,183 1,421,536 ‐ 0.0%
Grand Total $ 25,333 $ 2,000 $ 3,122 $ 1,449,722 $ 72,183 $ 1,552,360 $ 22,675 $ 17,250 $ 13,063 $ 1,415,742 $ 72,183 $ 1,540,912 $ (11,448) ‐0.7%
Old Structure/What was Actually Paid New Fee Structure
Infill/Mixed Use - Uncommon
Residential Sq Ft – 175,884
Commercial Sq Ft – 6,952
Tenant Finish Value - $250k
119 Units
Decrease of $96/unit
10
9
10
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Staff Presentation
Packet Pg. 18
Fee Type PDP FDP DCP Building Permit Others Total PDP FDP DCP Building Permit Others Total New H/(L) Old % Change
Development Review 40,150 4,000 400 ‐ 8,499 53,049 20,348 31,927 18,735 ‐ 25,919 96,930 43,881 82.7%
Infrastructure Inspections ‐ ‐ 55,433 ‐ ‐ 55,433 ‐ ‐ 190,733 ‐ ‐ 190,733 135,300 244.1%
Building Permit ‐ ‐ ‐ 338,469 4,204 342,673 ‐ ‐ ‐ 184,033 ‐ 184,033 (158,639) ‐46.3%
Subtotal Fees Updated 40,150 4,000 55,833 338,469 12,703 451,155 20,348 31,927 209,468 184,033 25,919 471,697 20,542 4.6%
Escrows ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 6,500 6,500 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 6,500 6,500 ‐ 0.0%
Impact Fees ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,970,176 ‐ 1,970,176 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,970,176 ‐ 1,970,176 ‐ 0.0%
Others 250 ‐ 446 762,904 750 764,349 250 ‐ 446 762,904 750 764,349 ‐ 0.0%
Subtotal Other Fees 250 ‐ 446 2,733,080 7,250 2,741,026 250 ‐ 446 2,733,080 7,250 2,741,026 ‐ 0.0%
Grand Total $ 40,400 $ 4,000 $ 56,279 $ 3,071,549 $ 19,953 $ 3,192,180 $ 20,598 $ 31,927 $ 209,914 $ 2,917,113 $ 33,169 $ 3,212,722 $ 20,542 0.6%
Old Structure/What was Actually Paid New Fee Structure
Residential Single Family
Timbervine
178 Building Permits
173 Units
327k residential sq ft added
7 Stock plans
Increase of $119/unit
11
Fee Type PDP FDP DCP Building Permit Others Total PDP FDP DCP Building Permit Others Total New H/(L) Old % Change
Development Review 47,312 2,000 400 ‐ 2,186 51,898 21,650 16,785 2,025 ‐ 8,595 49,055 (2,843) ‐5.5%
Infrastructure Inspections ‐ ‐ 42,170 ‐ ‐ 42,170 ‐ ‐ 98,341 ‐ ‐ 98,341 56,170 133.2%
Building Permit ‐ ‐ ‐ 333,831 ‐ 333,831 ‐ ‐ ‐ 141,443 ‐ 141,443 (192,389) ‐57.6%
Subtotal Fees Updated 47,312 2,000 42,570 333,831 2,186 427,900 21,650 16,785 100,366 141,443 8,595 288,838 (139,062) ‐32.5%
Escrows ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 21,765 21,765 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 21,765 21,765 ‐ 0.0%
Impact Fees ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,483,740 ‐ 3,483,740 ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,483,740 ‐ 3,483,740 ‐ 0.0%
Others 250 ‐ 56,959 953,110 650 1,010,969 250 ‐ 56,959 953,110 650 1,010,969 ‐ 0.0%
Subtotal Other Fees 250 ‐ 56,959 4,436,850 22,415 4,516,474 250 ‐ 56,959 4,436,850 22,415 4,516,474 ‐ 0.0%
Grand Total $ 47,562 $ 2,000 $ 99,529 $ 4,770,682 $ 24,601 $ 4,944,374 $ 21,900 $ 16,785 $ 157,324 $ 4,578,293 $ 31,010 $ 4,805,312 $ (139,062) ‐2.8%
Old Structure/What was Actually Paid New Fee Structure
Residential Multi-Family
The Wyatt
Residential Sq Ft – 356,324
Garage Sq Ft – 26,974
Clubhouse Sq Ft – 7,732
368 units
Decrease of $378/unit
12
11
12
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Staff Presentation
Packet Pg. 19
Fee Type PDP FDP DCP Building Permit Others Total PDP FDP DCP Building Permit Others Total New H/(L) Old % Change
Development Review 19,364 2,000 400 ‐ 600 22,364 22,425 17,250 8,167 ‐ 5,450 53,292 30,928 138.3%
Infrastructure Inspections ‐ ‐ 7,437 ‐ ‐ 7,437 ‐ ‐ 14,519 ‐ ‐ 14,519 7,082 95.2%
Building Permit ‐ ‐ ‐ 117,689 ‐ 117,689 ‐ ‐ ‐ 30,922 ‐ 30,922 (86,767) ‐73.7%
Subtotal Fees Updated 19,364 2,000 7,837 117,689 600 147,490 22,425 17,250 22,686 30,922 5,450 98,733 (48,757) ‐33.1%
Escrows ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 40,073 40,073 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 40,073 40,073 ‐ 0.0%
Impact Fees ‐ ‐ ‐ 904,504 ‐ 904,504 ‐ ‐ ‐ 904,504 ‐ 904,504 ‐ 0.0%
Others 250 ‐ ‐ 288,215 ‐ 288,465 250 ‐ ‐ 288,215 ‐ 288,465 ‐ 0.0%
Waiver Amount (2,985) (360) ‐ (97,333) (30) (100,708) (4,037) (3,105) (597) (102,899) (206) (110,843) (10,135) 10.1%
Subtotal Other Fees (2,735) (360) ‐ 1,095,386 40,043 1,132,334 (3,787) (3,105) (597) 1,089,820 39,867 1,122,198 (10,135) ‐0.9%
Grand Total $ 16,629 $ 1,640 $ 7,837 $ 1,213,075 $ 40,643 $ 1,279,824 $ 18,639 $ 14,145 $ 22,089 $ 1,120,742 $ 45,317 $ 1,220,931 $ (58,892) ‐4.6%
Old Structure/What was Actually Paid New Fee Structure
Affordable Housing
Village on Redwood
Residential Sq Ft – 84k
72 units
18% affordable housing waivers
Decrease of $818/unit
13
Fee Type PDP FDP DCP Building Permit Others Total PDP FDP DCP Building Permit Others Total New H/(L) Old % Change
Development Review 85,064 8,000 800 ‐ 11,322 105,185 89,700 69,000 2,780 ‐ 24,700 186,180 80,995 77.0%
Infrastructure Inspections ‐ ‐ 4,034 ‐ ‐ 4,034 ‐ ‐ 24,264 ‐ ‐ 24,264 20,231 501.5%
Building Permit ‐ ‐ ‐ 123,890 1,854 125,744 ‐ ‐ ‐ 73,612 ‐ 73,612 (52,132) ‐41.5%
Subtotal Fees Updated 85,064 8,000 4,834 123,890 13,176 234,963 89,700 69,000 27,044 73,612 24,700 284,056 49,093 20.9%
Escrows ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 120,720 120,720 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 120,720 120,720 ‐ 0.0%
Impact Fees ‐ ‐ ‐ 969,000 ‐ 969,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ 969,000 ‐ 969,000 ‐ 0.0%
Others 1,000 ‐ ‐ 505,049 3,985 510,034 1,000 ‐ ‐ 505,049 3,985 510,034 ‐ 0.0%
Subtotal Other Fees 1,000 ‐ ‐ 1,474,049 124,705 1,599,754 1,000 ‐ ‐ 1,474,049 124,705 1,599,754 ‐ 0.0%
Grand Total $ 86,064 $ 8,000 $ 4,834 $ 1,597,939 $ 137,881 $ 1,834,718 $ 90,700 $ 69,000 $ 27,044 $ 1,547,661 $ 149,405 $ 1,883,810 $ 49,093 2.7%
Old Structure/What was Actually Paid New Fee Structure
Commercial - Harmony Commons
Commercial Sq ft – 25,805
Hotel Sq Ft – 59,594
Child care Sq Ft – 12,142
Total Value of Tenant Finishes - $3.72M
Increase of $49k
14
13
14
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Staff Presentation
Packet Pg. 20
Fee Type PDP FDP DCP Building Permit Others Total PDP FDP DCP Building Permit Others Total New H/(L) Old % Change
Development Review 37,372 2,000 400 ‐ ‐ 39,772 22,425 17,250 1,657 ‐ ‐ 41,332 1,560 3.9%
Infrastructure Inspections ‐ ‐ 8,198 ‐ ‐ 8,198 ‐ ‐ 28,808 ‐ ‐ 28,808 20,610 251.4%
Building Permit ‐ ‐ ‐ 35,476 ‐ 35,476 ‐ ‐ ‐ 43,156 ‐ 43,156 7,680 21.6%
Subtotal Fees Updated 37,372 2,000 8,598 35,476 ‐ 83,446 22,425 17,250 30,465 43,156 ‐ 113,296 29,850 35.8%
Impact Fees ‐ ‐ ‐ 146,930 ‐ 146,930 ‐ ‐ ‐ 146,930 ‐ 146,930 ‐ 0.0%
Others 250 ‐ ‐ 127,600 ‐ 127,850 250 ‐ ‐ 127,600 ‐ 127,850 ‐ 0.0%
Subtotal Other Fees 250 ‐ ‐ 274,530 ‐ 274,780 250 ‐ ‐ 274,530 ‐ 274,780 ‐ 0.0%
Grand Total $ 37,622 $ 2,000 $ 8,598 $ 310,007 $ ‐ $ 358,227 $ 22,675 $ 17,250 $ 30,465 $ 317,686 $ ‐ $ 388,077 $ 29,850 8.3%
Old Structure/What was Actually Paid New Fee Structure
Industrial - South College Storage
Storage sq ft – 107,890
$5.8M valuation
Increase of $30k
15
City Revenue impacts by Fund
Revenue increases about $2M – mainly in Transportation and Utilities
Funds which have not been recovering cost
16
15
16
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Staff Presentation
Packet Pg. 21
Advisory Committee
• Advisory Committee Members
• 16 invitees
• City Staff, DDA, Board of Realtors, Affordable Housing, EAC,
Developers, Builders
• 8 hours of meetings spread over 4 months
• Final outcomes
• Unanimously Supported
• Fee increase concerns, but understand drivers
• Acknowledgement that these fees are a very small percentage of the
total fees paid to the City and overall impact is small (-4 - 9% of total
fees)
17
Public Outreach
18
Organization Date
Fort Collins Board of Relators 10/8/2019
Northern Colorado Homebuilder's Association 10/9/2019
Local Legislative Affairs Committee 10/11/2019
Planning & Zoning Board 10/11/2019
Affordable Housing Board 10/15/2019
Water Board 10/17/2019
Super Issues Forum 10/29/2019
Building Review Board 10/31/2019
Downtown Development Authority 11/14/2019
Economic Advisory Commission TBD
Housing Catalyst TBD
North Fort Collins Business Association TBD
South Fort Collins Business Association TBD
17
18
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Staff Presentation
Packet Pg. 22
Next Steps
• October 21st – Council Finance Committee
• October/November/December – Outreach
• 1/14/20 – Council Work Session
• Feb 2020 – Adoption – tentative
• April 2020 – Fees Implemented - tentative
• Summer 2021 – Fee Updates in Coordination with all other Fees
(lead out of Finance)
19
Backup
20
19
20
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Staff Presentation
Packet Pg. 23
Methodology
1. List of fees/application types was thoroughly reviewed
• Fees will be “consolidated” from customer side – customer currently
sees breakout; they will see one number and City will split out
amongst funds on the backend
• Certain fees no longer called out individually (e.g. Sign Posting or
Affected Property Owners)
2. Identification of all staff involved in fee related activities
3. Interviews with staff on individual fees/application types – amount of
time spent per item - average
4. Calculation of fully burdened cost of employees
5. Fees based on fully burdened cost and time
21
How they are Calculated: 100% Cost Recovery
Example of Calculated Amount – Sewer Manhole:
• Fully burdened hourly inspector cost - $56.06/hour
• Cost includes salary, benefits, vehicle, clothing, computer refreshes,
annual training/certifications
• Total time for Inspection – 120 minutes
• Total Direct Cost - $112.12
• Total Indirect Cost - $60.61
• Includes Inspector Manager time, admin time (take in application),
software, building, general City OH (HR, Legal, Finance)
• Calculated Cost - $172.73
22
21
22
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Staff Presentation
Packet Pg. 24
Tenant Improvements Examples
23
Value Description Current Fee New Fee Change % Change
$ 450 Install new electrical breaker for the installation of canned lights, and install vent to washer. Replaced water lines for sink
and washer box. with stub wall. $ 25 $ 50 $ 25 100%
$ 3,400 Install a a 40,000 btu garage furnace and install 50 ft of gas line and add new electrical circuit. $ 142 $ 127 $ (15) ‐11%
$ 21,000
This in an addition of an unheated 3 season Sunroom (12'X15') 180 sq. ft. including several new caissons added at
engineered support points with a 60 foot patio pad extension on west side and 26 foot patio pad extension on the south
side, and adding electrical.
$ 522 $ 400 $ (123) ‐23%
$ 34,000
Remodel of 3033 to include constructing small sections of demising walls to separate space into 3 retail suites. Relocate
light switches as needed and modify one entrance/exit door and add 3rd entrance/exit door for tenant B. Add doors to
separate tenant suites from the common area.
$ 757 $ 557 $ (200) ‐26%
$ 65,000 Tenant finish of 2,515 sq. ft. for "Crooked Stave Taproom" to include minor demolition, electric, mechanical and plumbing.
Work to also include changing out light fixtures, and adding wood planks and painting no exterior foyer. $ 1,209 $ 823 $ (387) ‐32%
$ 120,000
Interior remodel of 265 sq ft to include removing one non‐loading curtain wall to open up the kitchen and extend it into the
current study. Adding a new gas range with hood, moving existing electrical and plumbing as needed. Black Timber Builders
to do the framing.
$ 1,789 $ 1,170 $ (619) ‐35%
$ 480,000
Tenant finish of 8300 sq ft for 'Computer Services, Inc.' to include reconfiguring the current office space, new framing,
acoustical ceilings, fire sprinkler modifications, plumbing, HVAC and electrical. $ 4,669 $ 3,330 $ (1,339) ‐29%
$ 1,000,000
Complete interior demoltion and tenant finish of 10898 sq ft to include relocating office spaces, meeting spaces, restrooms
and a second story addition of 1186 sq ft will be added. Exterior changes will include changing the existing façade to match
the addition.Steel frame construction throughout building.
$ 8,429 $ 6,200 $ (2,229) ‐26%
$ 10,288,390
Renovation of existing 25,075 sq. ft. building to include new manufacturing/ testing space on 1st floor with office and
conference rooms. Mechanical equipment will be housed in mechanical basement. All new mechanical and plumbing work
throughout building, including (9) new rooftop HVAC units. Minor exterior improvements including new entry canopy on
southeast corner and small (2x5') windows on south and east sides of building.
$ 53,905 $ 57,286 $ 3,381 6%
23
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Staff Presentation
Packet Pg. 25
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 1
Staff Report October 31, 2019
Building Review Board
STAFF
Russ Hovland, Chief Building Official
SUBJECT
BUILDING PERMIT FEE CHANGE UPDATE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to inform the Board about a recent change regarding building permit fees for roofing
that was made effective 10/7/19. No action is required from the Board.
Building Services has been under-collecting on Sales & Use Tax related to residential roofing permits due to
the square-based valuation methodology that has been in practice since 2008.
To ensure Sales & Use tax on activities within the City is collected correctly, beginning on October 7, 2019, all
residential roofing permits will be assessed a building permit fee of $75. Sales & Use Tax will be collected
based upon the actual valuation (materials and labor) of the job cost, and only the materials will be taxed.
Valuation is calculated as ½ material and ½ labor.
Packet Pg. 26
Agenda Item 4
Item 4, Page 1
STAFF REPORT October 31, 2019
Building Review Board
STAFF
Russ Hovland, Chief Building Official
SUBJECT
PROPOSED WORK PLAN FOR THE BUILDING REVIEW BOARD
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The attached work plan is the estimation of the work, time, and cases the board may hear in 2020.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
If the Board agrees with the recommendation, the Board may pass a motion to “Recommend the board approve
the proposed work plan.”
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2020 Work Plan
Packet Pg. 27
Community Development &
Neighborhood Services
Planning
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.221.6376
970.224.6111- fax
2020 Annual Work Plan
Building Review Board
The Building Review Board will continue to meet when there are public discussion or
hearing/appeal items placed on the regular monthly agenda. The Board may also meet
as needed in order to convene special hearings.
Staff anticipates that the Building Review Board will hear several appeals by contractor
license applicants who do not strictly meet the qualification criteria specified in the City
Code. Under its quasi-judicial review authority, the Board is empowered to grant variances
from such criteria when it determines there are practical difficulties or that an undue
hardship would be imposed on the applicant; or, when the Board determines the applicant
has sufficient specialized training, education, or additional relevant experience.
The Board is also empowered to render disciplinary action, including suspension or
revocation of regulated contractor licenses, under which any specified infractions listed in
the regulations are committed.
Additionally, in its code appellate function, the Board may hear appeals from strict
application of the building codes or from an interpretation of the codes by the Building
Official. The Board will continue to hear cases involving challenges to the Building
Official’s interpretation of the adopted building codes, as well as the adopted International
Property Maintenance Code (IPMC).
In its advisory capacity, the Board is expected to participate as a member of the Code
Review Committee, in the review of the International Building Codes. The Board will be
asked to make recommendations to Council regarding any suggested revisions based on
local conditions and community standards.
Action Items:
1. The adopted 2006 International Property Maintenance Code will be reviewed for
updating in 2020 with a goal of adopting the 2018 IPMC by mid-year. This will be
presented to the board for input and support.
2. Update contractor licensing standards and requirements.
_____________________________________ ___________________________
Alan Cram, Building Review Board Chair Date of Approval
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 28
Agenda Item 5
Item 5, Page 1
Staff Report October 31, 2019
Building Review Board
STAFF
Russ Hovland, Chief Building Official
SUBJECT
SCHEDULING AND BYLAWS CHANGES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City Council has a need to use the Council Chambers for Urban Renewal Authority meetings on dates that
would conflict with eight of the Building Review Board’s monthly meetings for 2020 based on the current
schedule. Because of this, it makes the most sense to select a different day of the month to meet on a regular
basis in the hopes of avoiding these scheduling conflicts in the future.
Staff has researched alternative dates and would like to propose the following two options that align with the
availability of Council Chambers and with departmental staffing resources:
Option 1 – Meet on the third Monday of each month at 2:00 p.m. Because of Martin Luther King Day
and Presidents’ Day, the January and February meetings will be on the second Monday of the month at
10:00 a.m. (See attached “Schedule Option #1”.)
Option 2 – Meet on the last Thursday of each month at 9:00 a.m. Because of holiday conflicts, the
November meeting will be on the third Thursday at 9:00 a.m., and the December meeting will be on the
third Wednesday at 1:00 p.m. (See attached “Schedule Option #2”.)
Because Article II, Section 1 of the Bylaws of the Building Review Board currently states that, “Regular meetings
of the Board shall be held on the last Thursday of each month at 1:00 p.m.”, an amendment will be necessary.
Staff proposes the following amendment to Article II, Section 1 of the Bylaws, which will allow the Board to make
any further necessary scheduling changes without having to continually amend the Bylaws:
The Board shall establish a regular schedule for monthly meetings based on the preference of the
members, availability of an appropriate meeting space, and staffing considerations.
Staff recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Board approve one of the two scheduling options, based on the preference of the
members. Staff further recommends that the Board approve the proposed amendment to the Bylaws.
If the Board agrees with the Staff recommendation, the Board may:
• Vote to approve one of the two scheduling options, and the Bylaws amendment.
If neither scheduling option appeals to the Board, the Board may:
• Vote to direct staff to delay finalization of the 2020 Board schedule in order to research other potential
meetings days and bring those options to the Board at a subsequent meeting. [Note that the likelihood of
securing a different meeting day is uncertain and that such a delay may result in the loss of options that are
currently available in Council Chambers.]
Packet Pg. 29
Agenda Item 5
Item 5, Page 2
SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL:
I move that the Building Review Board approve Schedule Option [1 or 2] and the amendment to the Bylaws that
states, ”The Board shall establish a regular schedule for monthly meetings based on the preference of the
members, availability of an appropriate meeting space, and staffing considerations.”.
SAMPLE MOTION FOR DELAY:
I move that the Building Review Board direct staff to delay finalization of the 2020 Board schedule in order to
research the possibility of meeting on [specify preferred day(s)] and bring this information to the Board at its next
meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Schedule Option #1
2. Schedule Option #2
3. Proposed Bylaws Amendment
Packet Pg. 30
Building Review Board
2020 HEARING SCHEDULE – OPTION #1
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD
Council Chambers – 300 Laporte Avenue
3rd
Monday of the month*
* Due to Martin Luther King Jr. Day and President’s Day, the January
and February meetings will be held on the 2nd Mondays at 10:00 a.m.
Month Hearing Date Hearing Time
January* Mon., Jan. 13 10:00 a.m.
February* Mon., Feb. 10
(election of officers)
10:00 a.m.
March Mon., Mar. 16 2:00 p.m.
April Mon., Apr. 20 2:00 p.m.
May Mon., May. 18 2:00 p.m.
June Mon., Jun. 15 2:00 p.m.
July Mon., Jul. 20 2:00 p.m.
August Mon., Aug. 17 2:00 p.m.
September Mon., Sep. 21 2:00 p.m.
October Mon., Oct. 19 2:00 p.m.
November Mon., Nov. 16
(Work Plan due)
2:00 p.m.
December Mon., Dec. 21 2:00 p.m.
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 31
Building Review Board
2020 HEARING SCHEDULE – OPTION #2
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD
Council Chambers – 300 Laporte Avenue
Last Thursday of the month*
* Due to holiday conflicts, the November meeting will be on the third Thursday at
9:00 a.m., and the December meeting will be on the third Wednesday at 1:00 p.m.
Month Hearing Date Hearing Time
January Thu., Jan. 30 9:00 a.m.
February Thu., Feb. 27
(election of officers) 9:00 a.m.
March Thu., Mar. 26 9:00 a.m.
April Thu., Apr. 30 9:00 a.m.
May Thu., May. 28 9:00 a.m.
June Thu., Jun. 25 9:00 a.m.
July Thu., Jul. 30 9:00 a.m.
August Thu., Aug. 27 9:00 a.m.
September Thu., Sep. 24 9:00 a.m.
October Thu., Oct. 29 9:00 a.m.
November* Thu., Nov. 19
(work plan due) 9:00 a.m.
December* Wed., Dec. 16 1:00 p.m.
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 32
BYLAWS AND RULES OF PROCEDURE
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
ARTICLE I
Section 1. These Bylaws and Rules of Procedure have been adopted by the Building Review
Board. Any Bylaws or Rules of Procedure previously in effect are herewith superseded.
Section 2. The official title of this Board shall be the Building Review Board of the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado.
ARTICLE II
Section 1. The Board shall establish a regular schedule for monthly meetings based on the
preference of the members, availability of an appropriate meeting space, and staffing
considerations. Regular meetings of the Board shall be held on the last Thursday of each month
at 1:00 p.m.
Section 2. Special meetings may be called by the Chairperson of the Board at such other times as
the Chairperson may determine, provided that written notice or notice by telephone of such
meetings and for the subject matter of such meetings be given to each Board Member at least
twenty-four (24) hours prior to the times set for such meetings; provided further that notice of
any such meetings be filed with the City Clerk twenty-four (24) hours before the time of such
meetings. A Board Member attending any meeting shall be deemed to have received the
necessary notice of such meeting.
Section 3. All meetings of the Board shall be held in a designated city facility or other such
location after proper notice has been given as set forth in Article II, Section 2.
Section 4. All meetings shall be open to the public.
Section 5. A quorum of the Board shall consist of four regular members and no official action on
any matter may be taken by the Board unless a quorum is present.
Section 6. The order of business for all meetings shall be the order as it appears in the agenda
except that the Chairperson may rearrange the order of business unless otherwise directed by a
majority of the Board.
Section 7. Any Board Member who has a personal or financial interest in any matter before the
Board as set forth in the City Code, shall disqualify himself or herself from any consideration or
discussion of such matter or voting upon such matter. Any such disqualification shall be noted in
the official minutes of the meeting and the affected Board Member shall file a Conflict of
Interest Disclosure statement with the City Clerk.
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 33
Bylaws and Rules of Procedure
Building Review Board
Page 2
ARTICLE III
Section 1. The Building Review Board shall be comprised of seven members.
Section 2. At the first regular meeting in February or March, a Chairperson and Vice
Chairperson shall be elected by majority vote of the Board.
Section 3. The Chairperson shall preside at all meetings of the Board. In the event of the absence
of the Chairperson, the Vice Chairperson shall preside. In the absence of the Vice Chairperson,
the Board Member present having the longest tenure on the Board shall preside.
Section 4. A vacancy in the office of Chairperson shall be filled automatically by the Vice
Chairperson and a new Vice Chairperson elected at the next regular meeting of the Board among
the regular members. A vacancy in the office of Vice Chairperson shall be filled at the next
regular meeting of the Board by election from among the regular members. The officers so
elected shall serve until the next annual meeting.
Section 5. The Chairperson, subject to these Bylaws and Rules of Procedure, shall decide all
points of order or procedure, unless otherwise directed by a majority of the Board in session at
that time.
Section 6. The Secretary of the Board shall be the Director of Building and Zoning Department
who shall be a non-voting member of the Board. The Secretary shall keep official minutes of
each Board meeting, shall conduct all official correspondence and generally supervise the
clerical and technical work of the Board.
ARTICLE IV
Amendments
These rules may be amended or modified by a majority vote of the Board, provided that such
amendments be presented in writing and such action be taken thereon at a subsequent regular
meeting, subject to the approval of the City Council.
Approved October 31, 2019.
Building Review Board, Alan Cram, Chair
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 34