HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 07/27/2021 - WORK SESSION
City of Fort Collins Page 1
Jeni Arndt, Mayor
Emily Gorgol, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem
Susan Gutowsky, District 1
Julie Pignataro, District 2
Tricia Canonico, District 3
Shirley Peel, District 4
Kelly Ohlson, District 5
Remote Meeting
City Hall West
300 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
Cablecast on FCTV
Channel 14 on Connexion
Channel 14 and 881 on Comcast
Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Tammi Pusheck
City Attorney City Manager Interim City Clerk
Upon request, the City of Fort Collins will provide language access services for individuals who have limited English
proficiency, or auxiliary aids and services for individuals with disabilities, to access City services, programs and
activities. Contact 609.221.6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance. Please provide 48 hours
advance notice when possible.
A petición, la Ciudad de Fort Collins proporcionará servicios de acceso a idiomas para personas que no dominan el
idioma inglés, o ayudas y servicios auxiliares para personas con discapacidad, para que puedan acceder a los
servicios, programas y actividades de la Ciudad. Para asistencia, llame al 609.221.6515 (V/TDD: Marque 711 para
Relay Colorado). Por favor proporcione 48 horas de aviso previo cuando sea posible.
City Council Work Session
July 27, 2021
6:00 PM
(Amended 7/26/21)
CALL TO ORDER.
1. Homelessness Advisory Committee Report on Shelter Options. (staff: Jackie Kozak-Theil, Honore
Depew; 12 minute presentation; 40 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to share findings and recommendations from a report completed by the
City Manager’s temporary Homelessness Advisory Committee including an assessment of future
shelter needs (space and amenities), explored locations, ideas for mitigating impacts and leveraging
opportunities, suggested engagement strategies, and funding considerations.
2. Discuss Approaches to Regulating Areas and Activities of State Interest Pursuant to Powers
Established in State Law Commonly Referred to as 1041 Powers. (staff: Paul Sizemore, Kelly Smith;
10 minute presentation; 30 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to receive direction from Council on the project scope for developing 1041
Regulations, and to request an off-cycle appropriation to support project completion.
City of Fort Collins Page 2
3. Civic Center Master Plan. (staff: Tyler Marr; Ken Mannon; Blake Visser; 15 minute presentation; 45
minute discussion)
This item was amended to add a link to the Master Plan Document.
The purpose of this item is to discuss the Civic Center Master Planning process. Staff and consultants,
Clark & Enersen, will present an overview of the process including engagement to date, a draft site
concept, and next steps.
The City Operation Services Department is updating the Civic Center Conceptual Master Plan that
was completed in 2015. The intent is to identify space planning needs and efficiencies for current and
future staffing, develop a new conceptual master plan for the two-block site to account for facilities
constructed since 2015, and align with recent planning studies, such as the 2017 Downtown Master
Plan. The updated master plan will provide design concept and design cost estimates for new City Hall
facilities and the Civic Center campus. The City will use the updated plan to secure funding for design
of a phased build-out.
4. Recruitment and Selection of City Manager. (staff: Teresa Roche; 5 minute presentation; 40 minute
discussion)
The purpose of this item is to review and evaluate the process to recruit and select the City Manager.
Information obtained during the discussion will be used to prepare Council agenda materials related
to a preliminary plan and schedule for the City Manager recruitment and selection process. The items
will be considered on August 4, 2021.
ANNOUNCEMENTS.
ADJOURNMENT.
DATE:
STAFF:
July 27, 2021
Honore Depew, Interim Policy and Project Manager
Jackie Kozak-Thiel, Chief Sustainability Officer
Kyle Stannert, Deputy City Manager
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Homelessness Advisory Committee Report on 24/7 Shelter.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to share findings and recommendations from a report completed by the City Manager’s
temporary Homelessness Advisory Committee including an assessment of future shelter needs (space and
amenities), explored locations, ideas for mitigating impacts and leveraging opportunities, suggested engagement
strategies, and funding considerations.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What feedback do Councilmembers have on the proposed next steps for planning and engagement?
2. Do Councilmembers support focusing site exploration, engagement, and planning on locations that are
currently publicly- or partner-owned?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Like many cities across the country, Fort Collins is a place where individuals and families sometimes experience
homelessness. There are numerous ways the City of Fort Collins and dedicated comm unity partners work every
day to help make homelessness in our community rare, brief, and non -recurring. Using a Housing First*
approach, there are many ways to intervene and interrupt the cycle of homelessness.
*Housing First is an assistance approach that prioritizes providing permanent housing to people experiencing
homelessness, as a platform to pursue goals and needs to improve quality of life. This approach is guided
by the belief that people require basic necessities like food and a place to live b efore attending to anything
less critical, such as getting a job, budgeting, seeking medical or mental health treatment, etc.
Emergency shelter is one important part of a holistic spectrum of interventions to support the City’s Strategic
Objective 1.2 to help make homelessness rare, brief, and non-recurring. (Attachment 1)
Current Situation
• There is not enough day and overnight shelter capacity for Fort Collins residents experiencing homelessness,
and the community is already feeling the impacts of shelter gaps.
• There is insufficient funding, housing options, and programming to support diversion
o Diversion is the process to work individually with people, either before they become homeless or as soon
as possible after becoming homeless, to divert them from entering the shelter system by finding short-
term housing while they resolve the issues causing homelessness for them.
• Very limited low-cost housing (e.g., single room occupancy) is available for transitional and long -term options.
1
Packet Pg. 3
July 27, 2021 Page 2
• Emergency shelter is being used as de facto housing in some cases.
• Lack of shelter capacity limits the City’s ability to fully enforce its camping ordinance on public land.
• Gaps exist in times and services, and for various identities (youth, couples, people w/ pet s, respite or
recuperative care, LGBTQ+, etc.).
• Distance between shelters and services creates barriers to access and makes it harder for people to exit
homelessness.
• The City works with dedicated partners to respond to system pressures and improve acc ess to shelter and
services both locally and regionally through the NoCO Continuum of Care, especially during winter season.
• Current City funding and staff resources support day shelter, emergency and seasonal overflow shelter, street
outreach, enforcement and compliance, and regional system coordination.
• Snapshot of current needs and capacity:
o Based on data from the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), in Q2 of 2021 Fort Collins
had 569 people experiencing chronic homelessness and 1,951 people enrolled in programs supporting
people experiencing homelessness of all types and lengths of time.
▪ This new data system is more accurate and comprehensive than in the past; still gearing up to being
fully comprehensive for our region.
o Fort Collins Rescue Mission has capacity for 80 men overnight and 60 during the day at their current
location on Jefferson and with their new, temporary 24/7 shelter operation.
o Catholic Charities shelters up to 54 women per night and two families in their emergency overnight
shelter, Samaritan House (plus dedicated veterans’, women’s and men’s residential programs).
o Murphy Center provides daytime services including appointments with resource and housing navigators,
laundry, mail, employment support, and other critical support services including the resource hub with
over 40 services provided daily by over 20 agencies (e.g., Neighbor to Neighbor, SummitStone Health
Partners, etc.).
o Other shelter services for specific populations are provided by community organi zations such as the
Family Housing Network and Crossroads Safehouse.
o Currently, meals are provided at the Rescue Mission and Catholic Charities to those staying with them
overnight.
Temporary Advisory Committee
• Over the course of almost two years, a Homelessness Advisory Committee (Attachment 2) of volunteer
community members, representing different perspectives from multiple sectors (Attachment 3), was
convened by the City Manager to explore the current status of and needs in the local shelter system .
Committee members were committed to learning about the issues and from one another and community
stakeholders to produce pragmatic reports on their findings and recommendations.
• The first phase of committee work examined data trends and held conversations with providers and
responders to surface current gaps in services for different populations. It was determined that 24/7 shelter is
1
Packet Pg. 4
July 27, 2021 Page 3
needed in the community as one component of an entire spectrum of tools that align with a Housing First
approach to make homelessness rare, brief, and non-recurring. (Attachment 4)
• A key tension that was highlighted during the first phase is that on one hand, having services and shelters in
close proximity greatly increases efficiency and access, and on the other hand it means that one geographic
area of the community is disproportionately impacted by disruptive behaviors sometimes associated with
people accessing homelessness resources.
• The next phase of the committee explored the need for 24/7 shelter in more deta il, specifically investigating
possible shelter locations/areas and recommending needed services and amenities. The full second report is
attached (Attachment 5) and its key findings are summarized below.
Committee Background
2019:
• Site search conducted for new shelter locations; campus model from other communities explored.
• Concerns raised after a site was secured as an option for a future homeless shelter by the Bohemian
Foundation (1311 North College).
• Exploration process paused for additional community dialogue.
November 2019: The City Manager convened a temporary Homelessness Advisory Committee to develop
recommendations and considerations for expanding emergency shelter capacity within Fort Collins.
The first report on committee findings was released in September 2020. Council then directed staff to continue
exploring unresolved questions with willing partners.
The second phase of the committee began in December 2020 and built on earlier findings by starting at the major
point of consensus around the need for a 24/7 shelter in our community.
Findings and recommendations were delivered in May 2021.
During the second phase, the committee was tasked with exploring four key questions:
1. What amenities and services should be co-located with a 24/7 shelter?
2. Where can a new 24/7 homeless shelter be located?
a. What trade-offs will exist?
3. How can impacts be addressed and mitigated?
a. What type of engagement is needed?
4. What funding considerations are recommended?
Committee Findings
• The committee reached consensus that 24/7 shelter is needed in our community.
o There was no overall support for a “campus” model where all/most services would be co -located;
rather, the recommendation is to build on existing system assets.
1
Packet Pg. 5
July 27, 2021 Page 4
• 24/7 model could prevent some neighborhood disruptions by providing sufficient overnight capacity and giving
people a place to stay during the daytime, connecting guests with additional services and resources (health,
housing, employment, etc.).
• A new shelter should focus on the gap for single men because it is the largest identified need right now, while
recognizing other gaps exist.
• New shelter should:
o Have a capacity of about 200 beds with ability to shelter 50-100 more people if needed
o Be located near public transportation and bicycle infrastructure
o Include core services like showers, lockers, and laundry facilities
o Have medical and behavioral care services on-site
o Utilize care providers who acknowledge many guests likely have experienced trauma
• The criteria used to assess effectiveness of locations included current zoning regulations and access to
transit and bicycle infrastructure. (Attachment 6, map of zoned areas)
• These seven locations/areas were explored closely and are detailed in the report:
o 1311 North College Ave. (Bohemian Foundation owned)
o 614 East Vine (Larimer County-owned)
o East Mulberry (between Lemay and Timberline)
o Midtown Fort Collins (general area)
o Expand/replace existing shelter or shelters
o Near future Larimer County Behavioral Health Facility (deemed to be an ineffective site location by
HAC due to inaccessibility, long and uncertain timeline, and other factors)
• NOTE: The committee presented the locations explored in a ranked priority order in its final report, based o n
the perceived effectiveness of each.
o The committee was not a majority rules nor decision-making body.
o Each location comes with tradeoffs and would require compromise.
o The committee acknowledged that it was comparing held real estate assets to gen eral location areas,
which provided different levels of detail for consideration.
o A significant difference between explored locations is the estimated timeframe to completion.
• The following table compares characteristics of explored locations.
• The shortest estimated timeframe for design, Development Review, and construction is about three years.
o An overall estimate of time to facility completion can be made by adding three years to when a site
could be identified and secured.
• Larimer County timeframe for Vine St. property is uncertain; likely 2-3 years before it is available.
• Not having a property secured in either Midtown or East Mulberry adds another step and additional
uncertainty/complexity to building a 24/7 shelter.
o Identifying and securing a new property that would meet key criteria may be challenging as those
types of sites are not often available/for sale.
1
Packet Pg. 6
July 27, 2021 Page 5
• Larimer County will not consider new infrastructure near the future Behavioral Health Facility until after
construction is complete in 2023.
Zoned for
congregate
shelter
Within ¼
mile of
bus stop
Safely
accessible
by bicycle
Publicly
/partner
owned (site
control)
In an area with
concentration of
shelters/
services
Potential
stormwater
mediation
needed
1311 North
College
X X X X X
614 East Vine X X X X X X
East Mulberry X X ?
Midtown Fort
Collins
X X X ?
Expand/replace
existing shelter
X X X X X
Near future
Behavioral
Health Facility
X X ?
City of Fort Collins’ Role
• Homelessness is a community-wide issue that requires community-wide effort to address.
• The City has historically been a supporting partner on homelessness response, as detailed above, and will
not be owner or operator of a new 24/7 shelter.
• The City is one partner, not final decision-maker and is committed to collaboration
o Homelessness is a community-wide issue, requires community-wide effort to address.
• The City has several specific roles regarding future 24/7 shelter:
o Statutory land use role for development review when building plans are submitted
o Enforcement and code compliance
o Partial funding for shelter and related activities
o Support community conversations and awareness
o Alignment with existing community goals, plans, and regional partners
• Council’s role:
o Guide planning and engagement efforts
o Help prioritize competing values.
▪ e.g., urgency of need vs. breadth of exploration; proximity to other services vs. concentration
in a geographic area
o Could have a direct role if development review process leads to an appeal of a ruling by the Planning
and Zoning Commission
Public Engagement Plan
Shared public engagement work is proposed with shelter partners, particularly Fort Collins Rescue Mission, and
supported by other partners (Larimer County, Bohemian Foundati on, Housing Catalyst, Catholic Charities,
Homeward Alliance, etc.). (Attachment 7)
1
Packet Pg. 7
July 27, 2021 Page 6
• Phase 1: Public awareness campaign to share committee findings and background (Q3 2021 - Inform)
• Phase 2: Community conversations about how new 24/7 shelter can make ou r community better for
everyone, and beginning site-specific discussions (Q4 2021 - Consult & Collaborate)
• Phase 3: Continued site-specific discussions about mitigation and opportunities (Q1 2022 - Collaborate)
Next Steps
• Staff to co-lead engagement and outreach efforts with community partners. (Q3 2020-Q1 2021)
• Create a draft “Good Neighbor Agreement” for community review and discussion. (Q3 2020)
• Establish a shelter development timeline scenario and initial building plan/design, based on locatio n options,
for community to engage with. (Q3-Q4 2021)
• Continue to work with key partners and community leaders around planning and engagement to clarify roles,
align expectations, and establish funding and operational structure. (Q3-Q4 2021)
• Send updates to Council via monthly homelessness memos. (Ongoing)
ATTACHMENTS
1. Homelessness Solutions Graphic (PDF)
2. Graphic Summary (PDF)
3. Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Members (PDF)
4. Homelessness Advisory Committee 1.0 Executive Summary (PDF)
5. Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Final Report (PDF)
6. Zones Permitting Homeless Shelters (PDF)
7. Public Engagement Plan (PDF)
8. Powerpoint Presentation (PDF)
1
Packet Pg. 8
ATTACHMENT 1 1.1
Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: Homelessness Solutions Graphic (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
The second phase of the committee explored
the need for 24/7 shelter in more detail,
specifically investigating possible shelter
locations and recommending needed services
and amenities.
The reports from both committees can be found
at: fcgov.com/homelessnesscommittee
CURRENT CONDITIONS
• Like other cities in the country, Fort Collins
is a place where individuals and families are
experiencing homelessness.
• In the second quarter of 2021, 569 peoplewere
experiencing chronic homelessness inƫFort
Collins and 1,951 people were enrolled in
supportive programs.
• Day and overnight shelter capacity do!/ not
meet the needs of people experiencing
homelessness in our community. There are
many hours of every day when there is no place
for people to safely be indoors.
Over the course of almost two years, a
Homelessness Advisory Committee of volunteer
community members, representing different
perspectives from multiple sectors, was convened
by the City Manager to explore the current status
and needs in the local shelter system. Committee
members !4,(+.! ƫ 1..!*0ƫ +* %0%+*/ƫ * ƫ"101.!ƫ
+,0%+*/ƫ3%0$ƫ +))1*%05ƫ/0 '!$+( !./ƫ0+ƫ,.+ 1 !ƫ
,. #) 0% ƫ.!,+.0/ƫ+"ƫ0$!%.ƫ"%* %*#/ƫ * ƫ
.! +))!* 0%+*/ċ
The first phase of committee work examined data
trends and held conversations with providers and
responders to surface current gaps in services for
different populations. It was determined that
24/7 shelter is needed in the community as one
piece of an entire spectrum of tools that align
with a Housing First approach to make
homelessness rare, brief and non-recurring.
Fort Collins Homelessness Advisory Committee
Findings and Recommendations – Summer 2021
HOMELESSNESS
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
TIMELINE
November 2019:
Homelessness
Advisory Committee
(HAC) convened.
Committee tasked
with researching
the current situation
in the community
and making
recommendations
related to pressures
and gaps in the Fort
Collins homeless
shelter system.
March 2020:
Northside Aztlan
Community Center
ceased operations
because of COVID-19
and was repurposed
as a temporary 24/7
homeless shelter.
Lessons learned from
pilot 24/7 shelter
included in committee
findings.
September 2020:
1st Committee report
produced.
November 2020:
The City and Fort
Collins Rescue Mission
(FCRM) leased space
from the Food Bank
for Larimer County to
provide emergency
overnight shelter
and meals during the
winter months. FCRM
operated this shelter.
December 2020:
HAC reconvened
to build on earlier
findings; started from
consensus around the
need for a 24/7 shelter
in our community.
May 2021:
FCRM returned
operations to their
property located
at 316 Jefferson
St. with temporary
24/7 shelter
accommodations paid
for by federal CARES
funding.
June 2021:
2nd Committee report
produced.
July 2021:
Council work session
to discuss findings,
next steps, and
proposed public
engagement.21-23401How can a 24/7 Homeless Shelter improve the lives of everyone in the community?
ATTACHMENT 2 1.2
Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: Graphic Summary (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
Locations Explored in Final Report:
•1311 N. College Ave.
(Bohemian Foundation owned)
•614 E. Vine (Larimer County owned)
•East Mulberry (area between
Lemay and Timberline)
•Midtown Fort Collins (general area)
•Expand/replace existing shelter orshelters
•Near future Behavioral Health Facility
(County owned/deemed an ineffectiveƫ
location 5ƫ0$!ƫ +))%00!!)
City Role & Next Steps
The City is one partner in this initiative and not the
final decision maker. Homelessness is a community-
wide issue that requires community-wide effort to
address, and the City is committed to collaboration.
• City has several specific roles regarding future
24/7 shelter:
•statutory land use role for development review
when building plans are submitted
•enforcement and code compliance
•partial funding for shelter and related activities
•support community conversations and awareness
•alignment with existing community goals and
plans and regional partners
• After hearing feedback from City Council Members
at the 7/27 Work Session, a process timeline willƫbe
developed regarding extensive engagementƫwork,
key partner roles, joint location decision,ƫand
funding structure for a new 24/7 shelter in our
community.
• City staff expects to co-lead engagement and
outreach efforts with community partners to:
•share committee findings
•explore the connection between 24/7 shelter and
reducing impacts on businesses and (housedƫand
unhoused) neighbors
•begin site-specific community conversationsƫand
planning
Challenges of current conditions
Opportunities / tradeoffs of a
co-located services model
Criteria for site feasibility
and effectiveness
Amenities and services that should
be co-located with a 24/7 shelter
Possible 24/7 homeless shelter locations
Strategies to mitigate impacts
Community engagement
Funding consideration
THEMES ADDRESSED IN
COMMITTEE REPORTS
General findings:
• 24/7 model could prevent some neighborhood
and business disruptions as people are able to
move indoors with dignity.
• 24/7 shelter can help increase safe access to
services for people experiencing homelessness
(health, housing, employment, etc.).
• Prioritize focus on largest existing gap in system
– single men; also focus on access to shelter
and services for other underserved groups (e.g.,
youth, LGBTQ+, etc.)
Needed services and amenities:
• Suggest capacity of about 200 beds with
flexibility to shelter 50-100 more people
if needed.
• Include core services like laundry and shower
facilities, medicalĥbehavioral care services on-site.
Site characteristics considered necessary for an
effective shelter location:
1. Zoned for congregate shelter
2. Accessible by public transit
3. Close to bicycle infrastructure
COMMITTEE
FINDINGS
Auxiliary aids and services are available for persons with disabilities.
1.2
Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: Graphic Summary (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
Homelessness Advisory Committee (2.0) Members
Brian Ferrans – Health District of Northern Larimer County
Cheryl Zimlich – Bohemian Foundation
David Rout – Homeward Alliance
Dean Hoag – North Fort Collins Business Association
Desiree Anthony – Fort Collins Rescue Mission
Gloria Kat – The Family Center
Joe Domko - Catholic Charities
Julie Brewen – Housing Catalyst
Laura Walker – Larimer County
Matt Robenalt – Downtown Development Authority
Seth Forwood – Fort Collins Rescue Mission
Homelessness Advisory Committee (1.0) Members
Alma Vigo-Morales
Fernando Leyva
Ben Mozer
Brian Ferrans
Cheryl Zimlich
David Rout
Dean Hoag
Desiree Anthony
Jeff Swoboda
Johnny Square
Joshua Geppelt
Julie Brewen
Kristen Psaki
Laura Walker
Lily Adams
Luke McFetridge
Matt Robenalt
Michael Sinnett
Nick Verni-Lau
Yvonne Myers
Holly LeMasurier
ATTACHMENT 3 1.3
Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Members (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
Recommendations and Considerations for Homeless Shelters in Fort Collins - 9/14/20 Final
HAC 1.0 Report – Executive Summary (excerpt)
In November 2019, the Fort Collins City Manager convened an Advisory Committee of diverse members
representing service providers and community members with and without lived experience with homelessness
to explore and surface recommendations and considerations around expanding emergency shelter capability
within Fort Collins. The committee began this work in support of our community’s goals of making
homelessness rare, short-lived, and non-recurring.
The committee learned about the current situation facing community members experiencing homelessness
through reviewing data, panel discussions with providers and responders, conversations with each other, and
visiting current shelters. They surfaced current gaps in services for different populations and trends in data.
Despite being interrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, most committee members continued participating after
a multi-month break in active meetings to assemble this report.
The committee recommends a 24/7 shelter model to serve basic needs, built for current and future capacity
and uses, fully accessible for the population(s) served, and able to assess the needs of the whole person. The
committee differed on structure, oversight, and amount of services, and how population(s) would be best
served - including how much medical, trauma-informed services, and outdoor space use would be ideal.
Considering a campus or co-located model, the committee recommends: achieving clarity around who is being
served; shared governance model, roles, responsibilities, and non-duplication of services amongst providers;
ensuring basic services can be provided; and locating shelter near public transportation. The committee agrees
serving multiple populations safely may be challenging. Opportunities of co-location include efficiency in
service delivery and helping the community understand the real need for services.
Points of difference and tradeoffs around a campus or co-located model include: whether to locate services on
a large campus or throughout the community, cost increases with enhanced services, unduly burdening one
part of our community versus spreading our shelters, and inclusion of permanent supportive housing with the
shelter. Concerns of a campus model include increased cost for a larger parcel of land, increased cost for
security and safety for those accessing services and the surrounding areas, and risks of undesirable or illegal
activity.
Criteria for site feasibility include recommendations to ensure: services needed by the population(s) served are
available through co-location or are nearby; not overburdening any part of our community; understanding of
affordability and needed infrastructure now and into the future; and early and effective engagement with
potential neighbors. Considerations include design of the facility for mental health and wellness, efforts to
combat isolation and foster positive connection with the broader community.
Strategies to address and mitigate challenges focused on several concerns, namely, how to: prevent restricting
poverty to one part of town; resource upfront and ongoing costs of new shelter; both safe shelter and more
affordable housing are needed yet are seen as competing for resources; dealing with the current pandemic
and what comes next; and how to continue community and neighborhood dialogue.
Unresolved questions are listed at the end of this report for future reference and use in this process.
ATTACHMENT 4 1.4
Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: Homelessness Advisory Committee 1.0 Executive Summary (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
Table of Contents
Charter 2
Committee Members 2
Process and Meetings 3
Limitations of this Committee 5
Results 6
Shelter Needs 6
General Impacts and Recommended Mitigations 8
Location Consideration Priority 10
Order of Consideration Overall 10
Order of Consideration using Ranked Choice Voting 10
Order of Consideration using Percentage of Represented Groups 11
Location Details in Descending Priority Consideration Order 12
North Fort Collins - 1311 North College Avenue 12
North Fort Collins - Vine and Redwood - Larimer County site 14
Mulberry Corridor - from Lemay to Timberline 15
Renovate existing shelter(s) 16
Midtown 17
South Fort Collins - near Larimer County Behavioral Health Center site 17
Next Steps 18
Appendix 19
Group Norms 19
Results from the Committee Survey 19
Additional information referenced earlier in the report 21
ATTACHMENT 5 1.5
Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Final Report (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
FINAL Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report
Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 2 of 22
Charter
In November 2019, the Fort Collins City Manager convened a temporary Homelessness Advisory Committee
(HAC) of diverse members representing business owners, service providers, members of the faith
community, healthcare professionals, and community members (with and without lived experience of
homelessness) to develop recommendations and considerations for expanding emergency shelter capacity
within Fort Collins. The committee began this work in support of our community’s goal to make
homelessness rare, short-lived, and non-recurring. Meetings were open to the public to observe and were
often well attended.
The HAC was formed in response to systemic pressures in the community and specifically after a site search
for potential new shelter space and co-located services in 2019. Concerns were raised by some community
members after a site in north Fort Collins was secured as an option. City Manager Atteberry then decided to
pause the exploration process and zoom out for additional dialogue.
In continuation of the effort begun in November 2019, this second Advisory Committee to the City Manager
was formed a year later to consider key questions and offer recommendations regarding the potential
development of permanent homeless shelter in Fort Collins, including lessons learned from running a 24/7
COVID-19 shelter at the Northside Aztlan Community Center with greater distancing requirements. The role
of committee members was to advise the City Manager on key considerations from varying perspectives, and
to represent community interests to identify opportunities and concerns related to the following key
questions:
1. What amenities and services should be co-located with a 24/7 shelter?
2. Where can a new 24/7 homeless shelter be located? What trade-offs will exist?
3. How can impacts be addressed and mitigated? What type of engagement is needed?
4. What funding considerations are recommended?
The recommendations and considerations from this committee, while commissioned by the City Manager,
are intended to provide guidance to community leaders and providers as they make decisions on how best to
support our community and all its residents.
Committee Members
Brian Ferrans – Health District of Northern Larimer County
Cheryl Zimlich – Bohemian Foundation
David Rout – Homeward Alliance
Dean Hoag – North Fort Collins Business Association
Desiree Anthony – Fort Collins Rescue Mission
Gloria Kat – The Family Center
Joe Domko - Catholic Charities
Julie Brewen – Housing Catalyst
Laura Walker – Larimer County
Matt Robenalt – Downtown Development Authority
Seth Forwood – Fort Collins Rescue Mission
1.5
Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Final Report (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
FINAL Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report
Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 3 of 22
These 11 members collectively bring the following perspectives to this committee:
The first two options are “Have family or lived experience with homelessness, mental illness, and/or addiction” and “Service
provider to people experiencing homelessness”, and the last two options were self -identified by individuals, using Other.
Process and Meetings
The committee first met remotely in December 2020, establishing ground rules and drafted the overall flow
of addressing the questions in the charter. Each meeting was 90 minutes, with people honestly sharing
perspectives and asking questions of each other and supporting City staff members.
To accommodate all the work needed, the committee added an additional meeting to the original six, and
requested and received Spanish translation support for observers for the last few meetings.
The committee addressed each question in turn - following are summaries of the process and responses:
1. What amenities and services should be co-located with a 24/7 shelter?
Much of the committee’s time invested here was understanding what amenities and services should
be co-located with a 24/7 shelter. The service and shelter providers met and assembled a draft of
needed amenities within a range of solutions from what would meet immediate needs, to the next
tier of service, to what would be most ideal. Providers used current experience and brought in
information from other service providers in Denver to ensure they had the best information possible.
They also identified what would not be acceptable in a shelter to meet the needs of people
experiencing homelessness within our community.
The committee debated, challenged, and added to the provider information to create a detailed
spreadsheet.
In support of the committee, City staff worked with Vaught Frye Larson Aronson Architects to create
a “Building Program” - or rough outline of space requirements for each function - at different levels
of designed occupancy. This spreadsheet helped the committee consider the building and site needs
that could impact where a shelter could be located. Note: the committee requested larger numbers
of occupancy be explored to understand future potential impact and in an effort to provide decision-
makers with information to ensure a site could function effectively into the future.
1.5
Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Final Report (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
FINAL Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report
Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 4 of 22
2. Where can a new 24/7 homeless shelter be located? What trade-offs will exist?
The committee requested a map of where shelters could be located. The following shows all zones
which permit homeless shelters (in pink), walkable ¼ mile radius circles around bus stops (in darker
gray), and biking lanes and trails (in blue, purple, and green):
Using the map and focusing on the overlapping requirements listed above, four locations were
initially chosen - North Fort Collins (1311 North College), Mulberry Corridor, Midtown, and South Fort
Collins adjacent to the future Behavioral Health Center. Another option considered was Renovate
Existing Shelters. As the committee’s work progressed, they added a potential location of the North
Fort Collins site at Vine and Redwood, restricted Mulberry Corridor to the area between Lemay and
Timberline to keep closer to services and reduce transient problems, and removed the South Fort
Collins location adjacent to upcoming Behavioral Health Center due to nonavailability of services and
amenities.
3. How can impacts be addressed and mitigated? What type of engagement is needed?
The committee discussed these for each location, and in general, sharing and debating best practices
and successful strategies from other communities. These potential impacts and opportunities to both
the surrounding community and people experiencing homelessness - along with mitigation and
engagement strategies, financial/resource considerations, and timeline considerations - are detailed
in this spreadsheet. Additionally, the spreadsheet also includes some information from Staff to
augment what the committee put together.
1.5
Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Final Report (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
FINAL Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report
Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 5 of 22
4. What funding considerations are recommended?
While the committee had questions around funding - for example, who would fund what for how long
- the lack of specifics around exact shelter location, building design, and resulting operations
prevented detailed results. Cost of acquisition, development, and operations will vary depending on
the exact location, and the committee could not effectively develop estimates for the costs
involved. Instead, the committee chose to flag the types of costs that might be higher or lower
depending on the final site chosen. Further exploration of how the shelter would be funded through
acquisition, development, and operation, as well as what organization(s) will be responsible for that
funding, will be vital to make the best decisions for our community.
Limitations of this Committee
Locations considered for a permanent shelter varied from a specific plot of land to currently occupied sites
to general areas in Fort Collins where zoning allows construction and operation of a shelter and where
transportation and other services are available. This affected the ability of this committee to be able to
fully compare options. Specific site selection - unless already acquired - will be difficult because of the
unique nature of a shelter, and that speculation around a project like this can itself impact pricing and
availability of sites before they are acquired.
Another limitation that followed the issue above is that the committee did not have specific neighborhood
and business representation on the Mulberry Corridor, North Fort Collins Redwood & Vine, or Midtown
locations. If either area is chosen, a successful process will require bringing those perspectives into the
process as soon as practical.
Available time and the need for remote work during the pandemic limited the depth of some conversations
and exploration of all the issues involved. Despite best efforts, we did not explore every concern and
consideration or how to mitigate potential impacts as fully as will be needed in the next phases of outreach
and engagement.
1.5
Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Final Report (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
FINAL Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report
Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 6 of 22
Results
Shelter Needs
The committee identified the needs of our population of people experiencing homelessness, and the
amenities and services in a range from minimal requirements to ideal. These include:
- A 24/7 shelter is needed primarily for men
- To fill current and near future population, 200 beds and flexible space for 50 - 100 additional
beds is needed (bunks are acceptable)
- Assuming women and families with children would continue to be served by Catholic Charities
- Key amenities
- Services must be delivered with a trauma-informed care lens rooted in dignity
- Able to accommodate inclement weather days without people being dispersed through the
community
- Located on transportation routes - must be bikeable and walkable, with access for those
differently abled
- Medical / Behavioral Health Support on-site
- Commercial kitchen and dedicated eating area
- Showers and laundry
- Multi-use space with a greater or equal footprint to the overnight sleeping area
- Adequate parking for staff, guests, and fleet vehicles - including space for bike racks /
storage
For comparison, the current shelter system - under COVID-19 spacing - provides emergency overnight mats
and beds to men, women, and families. The Fort Collins Rescue Mission shelters men and has capacity for 80
overnight and 60 during the day. Catholic Charities shelters up to 54 women per night and two families. The
Murphy Center provides daytime services including appointments with resource and housing navigators,
laundry, mail, employment services, and other critical support services. Currently, meals are provided at
the Rescue Mission and Catholic Charities to those staying with them overnight.
In 2019 - under pre-COVID-19 spacing - an average of 129 men (142 November - April and 116 May - October)
and 50 women were sheltered overnight.
The best representation of current emergency needs in our community comes from the response to the
COVID-19 pandemic. The Northside Aztlan Community Center (NACC) was repurposed into a 24/7 emergency
shelter from March - June 2020 and the Food Bank warehouse on Blue Spruce was utilized from November
2020 - April 2021 as an emergency overnight shelter for men.
1.5
Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Final Report (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
FINAL Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report
Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 7 of 22
- The NACC served a total of 272 unduplicated men and 268 unduplicated women, and the maximum
sheltered overnight at one time was 114. Blue Spruce served a total of 511 unduplicated men, with
an average of 118 served each night, and the maximum sheltered at one time was 151.
- From November 2020 - April 2021, women and families were sheltered at Catholic Charities, where
54 overflow mats were available and an average of 26 served each night.
- Emergency shelter capacity outside COVID-19 response efforts typically require people to be turned
away due to space limitations, which was not necessary when these larger shelters were open.
Alongside these emergency shelter services, there are longer-term shelter options for women fleeing
domestic violence at Crossroads Safehouse, and for four (soon to be 11) families experiencing homelessness
through the Family Housing Network. Catholic Charities offers program beds for nine men, six women, eight
veterans and four families, and Harvest Farm (operated by the Rescue Mission) offers a long-term program
for men seeking to exit substance abuse and homelessness.
More detail on amenities and services surfaced by the committee is available in this spreadsheet.
Overall Hopes for a New 24/7 Shelter
Following are edited excerpts from the survey results that reflect individual and shared perspectives
discussed during the committee’s time together (full results are in the Appendix below):
A 24/7 model can truly engage more people, establish a true community of sojourning, build
resiliency, and connect folks with more resources, ultimately resulting in more people working their
way out of homelessness.
A 24/7 shelter would significantly improve our opportunity to achieve our community goal of making
homelessness rare, short-lived and non-recurring. If operated correctly, the shelter would be a
centerpiece of our efforts to help people escape homelessness.
Giving people experiencing homelessness a place to go and resources will positively impact our
community. Expanding and deepening shelters' role in the continuum of care for unhoused individuals
leads to housing individuals and getting them the mental, physical, and behavioral health they need
to be whole. When people exit shelter into housing they also can become productive members of our
community and give back.
I hope to have the ability to outreach, resource, counsel, and empower those experiencing
homelessness, hopelessness, marginalization and oppression. With a safe place for people to be
(found) during the day, I'll be able to facilitate MORE successful transitions into housing, at a quicker
rate. I hope that our community can see human spirits instead of dirty faces, unique stories instead
of preconceptions, warriors instead of junkies, compassion instead of condemnation, and love
instead of disgust.
My hope is that the 24/7 shelter will serve as a vital, life-saving first stop in an integrated system,
connecting participants with a full spectrum of services, resources, and housing opportunities. The
shelter should have a focus on community and relationship building, with messaging that participants
are full-fledged citizens, endowed with the same rights, opportunities, privileges, and
responsibilities as any Fort Collins resident.
1.5
Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Final Report (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
FINAL Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report
Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 8 of 22
Related to our community and current impacts, I see a 24/7 shelter/day center providing a
welcoming place for those experiencing homelessness to have their needs met, eliminating the need
to find public restrooms, alternative welcoming places to gather etc.
Lessen the shuffle of persons experiencing homelessness between daytime and overnight service
facilities, and minimize the number of persons dwelling on the streets when hours of service are NOT
available in either daytime or overnight facilities. Leveraging the 24/7 opportunity to connect people
with the specific services they require to begin the journey out of homelessness. A 24/7 model
creates an opportunity to provide transitional housing options that are severely limited in Fort
Collins.
A 24/7 shelter/day center eliminates the large check in and leaving process that now occurs with the
shelters due to their hours and other operational needs. Currently everyone essentially arrives and
leaves at one time - a 24/7 model could be more of a continuous in and out process, especially as
jobs are accessed during the day etc. There would be a place to store some belongings as well while
they were working or getting services etc.
Because service providers and relationships would be in more continuous and in closer contact with
those experiencing homelessness it increases the likelihood of problem solving quicker to find
housing and stabilize. Shelter is not a substitute for housing.
Creating a shelter resource that helps connect the homelessness community rather than keeps it
fragmented by offering a space with enough beds to shelter the majority of folks that also houses
staffing from multiple service agencies so that individuals can access resources quickly and often.
The easier it is for people to stay connected to community resources and humane shelter, the faster
people will be able to get on the path to exiting homelessness.
General Impacts and Recommended Mitigations
These issues are likely to affect any site chosen, and are listed here with recommendations from the
committee on potential mitigations:
Nearby neighborhoods and businesses feel burdened by the presence of a shelter
Success will require building strong relationships through early, open, and continued engagement
with neighbors and business owners with deep listening and as much transparency as possible. Recent
communications from concerned community members reinforce this recommendation of data-
informed conversations with as many community members connected to the potential site of a
shelter before, during, and long after the shelter is open and operating.
The committee recommended a “Yes, and…” approach to honestly validate the needs of the
neighbors and business owners, then bring in the needs of the greater community and of people
experiencing homelessness. Also bringing and qualifying data will be important for effective
communication and increased understanding.
To support surrounding community members, it’s important to meet people where they are. For
example, having Spanish translation available when needed can ensure effective communication and
understanding around emotionally-charged conversations.
1.5
Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Final Report (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
FINAL Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report
Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 9 of 22
Some people experiencing homelessness affect nearby neighborhoods and businesses with
disruptive behavior
The committee discussed the need to raise behavioral challenges to the shelter providers to have
disruptive behaviors addressed - without having to trigger police intervention. A Good Neighbor
policy that brings service providers and residents together has been successful in Boulder in
addressing disruptive behavior, and could be adapted here in Fort Collins.
Additionally, having adequate day shelter space with nearby services could significantly reduce
people “hanging around” businesses and neighborhoods. The Fort Collins Rescue Mission’s recent
shift to a 24/7 shelter model has gotten positive feedback from surrounding businesses, although the
shift did reduce the number of people able to be served.
Attracting more people experiencing homelessness to our community - “If you build it, they
will come”
The committee discussed the possibility of a residence requirement that could help ensure serving
residents first and discourage people from outside Northern Colorado coming to get support. Also,
the Mulberry Corridor option was focused away from I-25 to reduce the attractiveness of a shelter to
transient populations.
During on-site visits to shelters in other areas, some committee members were told by those
providers that this was an effective practice. Our local providers shared that, while a residency
requirement is a good idea in concept, it is very difficult to do in practice. Most clients currently
being served are from Northern Colorado, and data show travelers are not currently coming to access
services, as evidenced by recent data from the Murphy Center:
- 72% from Fort Collins (66%) or Loveland (6%)
- 7% from Weld County
- 6% from Denver
- 2% from Boulder
- 7% other City in Colorado
- 6% Out of State
While stories were shared of other cities’ challenges, more concrete data - along with effective
strategies from other municipalities that have been employed successfully - will be helpful to
minimize this potential problem.
A shelter will not move people out of homelessness and could become more de facto housing
The committee wrestled with the fact that emergency shelter is only one portion of the continuum
of care supporting people moving out of homelessness. Having it in place will not reduce the need for
government and service providers to accelerate the expansion of other services to make affordable
and supportive, transitional housing available.
[Prioritizing shelter needs in gaps and times to meet current demand.]
1.5
Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Final Report (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
FINAL Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report
Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 10 of 22
More options and support to help people become homed are vital to ensure the intention of a
temporary shelter does not turn into more de facto housing for people experiencing homelessness.
Funding for acquisition, construction, and operation of a shelter will be significant
Funding will need to come from a partnership of many sources - public and private. The approaches
to secure capital funding versus ongoing operations and maintenance funding will likely require
different approaches.
Location Consideration Priority
Following are results of the locations under consideration, overall by total numbers of committee members,
using a ranked choice voting method, and by percentage of represented groups.
Order of Consideration Overall
These collective results reflect survey results where each member put the location options in priority order:
Order of Consideration using Ranked Choice Voting
Alternatively, the results below reflect the same data using a ranked choice voting method. In the first
round, no location got over 50% of the vote, so the sites with only 1 vote each were eliminat ed and those
members who had voted for those locations had their next highest (non-eliminated) vote counted:
North Fort Collins
- 1311 N College
North Fort Collins -
Vine and Redwood
East Mulberry
(Lemay to
Timberline) Midtown
Expand/replace
existing shelter(s)
Round 1 “vote” 5 3 1 1 1
Round 2 “vote” 7 4
1.5
Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Final Report (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
FINAL Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report
Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 11 of 22
Order of Consideration using Percentage of Represented Groups
These results again reflect the same data, yet show the percentage of each group which voted for each
location. Since the committee had both significant numbers of service providers, business/non-profit
leaders, and community leaders, these results attempt to create more parity between the different groups
represented. The first graph shows first choices, and the second graph shows first + second choices.
1.5
Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Final Report (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
FINAL Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report
Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 12 of 22
Location Details in Descending Priority Consideration Order
The following information is generated from worksessions and the survey, and is listed below with site
specific Opportunities/Hopes, Impacts/Fears, Financial and Resource Needs / Timeline, and Potential
Mitigations as surfaced by Committee Members. In some cases, individual perspectives conflict with each
other and will need further exploration and clarification when a site is selected moving forward. Many of
these items can also be seen on this spreadsheet on Impacts & Opportunities by Location.
North Fort Collins - 1311 North College Avenue
Opportunities / Hopes
- Land already purchased and available; adequate size for shelter needs
- Transportation is accessible, near bike paths, on bus route - time required for transportation
between facilities/services is a major drain on people experiencing homelessness
- Population is more likely to access robust, established services in the area familiar with; good
coordination with existing/complementary services
- Adequate space to provide for needed operations, added community amenities and to create buffers
between activities. Adequate space makes phasing easier.
- Collaboration between services streamlined and issues mitigated to result in improved health and
movement into stable housing
- Ability to add other community amenities to the build out
- North Fort Collins is most demographically diverse and more likely to reach populations currently
underserved
- A shelter could be a cultural and economic driver; opportunity for growth in commerce and
perspective
Impacts / Fears
- Detrimental to the safety of surrounding neighborhoods, businesses, and school
- Behaviors or cultural perceptions will not change with the presence of shelter in north part of town
- Different underserved groups may not be able to co-exist, evidenced by experience of study group at
the Murphy Center with positive narratives and good intentions yet families - especially Spanish-
speaking) feel unsafe there
- Does not align with the North College Community Investment Plan adopted by the City; the north
part of our city has been left out of development plans
- To honor our homeless population they should be placed next to a supported community instead of a
community that has been segregated and excluded from government benefits and live in poverty
- Our homeless mainly formed with veterans, that come with PTSD, substance use, mental health and
stress would be placed next to a community that has struggled accessing services too and also come
with trauma
- Homeless shelter will be a new addition - we should respect who got there first
- The North College community is already overwhelmed by different social issues: 1.- Hickory MHP is
for sale and residents are trying to become owners through a Resident Owned Community program. If
this is not achieved there is a high risk for many of the residents to lose their homes if the buyer
decides to increase the rent. The buyer is known for increasing rents and violating residents' rights.
1.5
Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Final Report (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
FINAL Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report
Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 13 of 22
2.- Poudre Valley Mobile Home park just sent a letter of intent to sell the park. We are talking about
500 homes that could potentially face the same issues. 3.- Businesses and residents continue to see
the effects of homelessness in this part of town, with many issues that have not been collectively
solved. Guests trespassing into mobile home communities, guests roaming around inside mobile home
parks where children are present, etc. 4.- Poor planning around the development of this part of town
(Marijuana dispensaries next to an ice cream place, next to a bar, next to a bowling alley). 5.- North
College residents have expressed their desire to have a cultural center representative of their
cultural heritage. This needs to be acknowledged
- It places too many services in one area of the community, Devalue surrounding properties.Very costly
to do all of the improvements, No infrastructure and no stormwater system in place currently, Not
large enough to accommodate all of the improvements and the shelter, Also major opposition in the
area.
- That the backlash from residents might further stigmatize those experiencing homelessness and any
issues which may already occur without the facility would accumulate to reflect the unhoused
community as a whole.
- I acknowledge their fears, and I am not in their shoes.
- I don't think you could overcome all of the concerns.
Financial and Resource Needs / Timeline
- Need infrastructure for buildings
- Development process estimated to take 12 months
Potential Mitigations
- Effective day shelter will reduce “hanging around” community with place to go; allows providers and
people experiencing homelessness to be connected
- Advocacy and working with adjacent communities and dealing with their own challenges/issues
- Need a representative sample of the population/residents of the North corridor to provide input; I
hope this location is not chosen without the input and appropriate engagement of the North College
residents
- Relationship building, open mindedness, education.
- Be able to reflect the healing and health that is invested into the community through statistics and
stories of lives restored.
- Create a strategic and thorough campaign to engage the neighborhood, address stigma, and broaden
the perspectives on those experiencing homelessness; Engage the community in a vision of what
community amenities could be included that are desired.
- Great operators of the shelter/day services and a welcoming space for people experiencing
homelessness so they feel a sense of belonging.
1.5
Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Final Report (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
FINAL Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report
Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 14 of 22
North Fort Collins - Vine and Redwood - Larimer County site
Option added by Committee at 9 April meeting. Overall many similar opportunities and concerns as the
North College site in the North Fort Collins area
Opportunities / Hopes
- Good location to the services in the area (close to resources between Catholic Charities and Murphy
Center), less impact to the surrounding neighborhoods
- On a bus route, simplifies transportation
- A chance for the City and County to partner / work together on this site.
- Adequate space for operations and amenities
- Potentially Less impact if shelter is here vs North College - less community mitigation and messaging
needed*
- Not adjacent to residential neighborhoods*
- Ability to add other community amenities to the build out
*Following a Coloradoan article, Old Town North HOA members communicated to the committee through an
email-writing campaign that they have significant fears and concerns if this site were used
Impacts / Fears
- Increased number of homeless guests
- A few years out having access to the property. Need to mitigate flood plain issues.
- May be less of an issue to 1311 North College - not sure how the community will react differently
Financial and Resource Needs / Timeline
- Will be at least 30 months for County Fleet to fully exit the site via staged moving to their new site
become available, and future use of the site will remain undetermined most of that timeframe
- Not designated or donated like 1311 North College property
- Depending on Utilities Director review for compliance with floodplain regulations, could involve very
expensive stormwater remediation or may not be a significant challenge
Potential Mitigations
- Location closer to existing services [than 1311 North College]
- Any site will take several years to get through the process anyway
- Engage the community in visioning what desired community amenities could be included
- Great operators and a welcoming space for people experiencing homelessness so they feel a sense of
belonging in our community
1.5
Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Final Report (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
FINAL Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report
Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 15 of 22
Mulberry Corridor - from Lemay to Timberline
Opportunities / Hopes
- A project in this area could be an income and development generator / driver for the entire corridor
- Area does not have as much effect on the surroundings
- Opportunity to define a culture and environment for service delivery, opening up potential for a
campus design
- Transportation services may be free flowing; on a bus route
- Close to motels folks experiencing homelessness frequent; and there is already significant police
presence
- Any expansion of shelter that keeps people safe and alive is a value to our community
- Could offer the opportunity for more services to expand as complementary offerings with more
available real estate on that corridor
Impacts / Fears
- Could become seen as a shelter-off-the-highway
- Seems like an industrial area
- It will become a ghetto
- There are two mobile home communities (Air Park and Parklane). I hope it is not too close to these
locations
- Pushes people experiencing homelessness further out of the city and away from resources; not close
to most utilized resources for this population
- This is not a realistic option for homeless services. It is disconnected from the (entire) community
and most existing resources. Particularly in a 24/7 model, people would be isolated and in a vacuum.
They would access other services less frequently (because of time/distance), and therefore escape
homelessness less quickly and less often. Perhaps hyperbolic, but it would almost certainly cause
providers, people experiencing homelessness and advocates to question the overall purpose of the
project: is it to relocate people experiencing homelessness or to empower people to escape
homelessness?
- The difficulties of coordinating services and the logistics for guests to access services may mean that
we have people in our community who do not get the physical, mental, and behavioral resources
they need which translates to a less safe community on the whole and a growing rather than a
shrinking unhoused community in our city
Financial and Resource Needs / Timeline
- Might be a while before site is within city limits / developing property adjacent to City would trigger
annexation
- May be less expensive to develop prior to municipal annexation
- Need to acquire
- Not currently in City Limits, may not be for several years. Would this create a delay in the project?
- Would develop per County regulations if property is in the County
1.5
Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Final Report (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
FINAL Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report
Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 16 of 22
Potential Mitigations
- Look at a location that will cause less impact.
- Could be an area that could accommodate a shelter with little impact to its surroundings.
- I am concerned that this is under consideration.
- I believe significantly more money and a significantly larger facility will be needed to bring agencies
into shelters rather than located nearby.
- Great operators and a welcoming space for people experiencing homelessness so they feel a sense of
belonging in our community.
Renovate existing shelter(s)
Could include Murphy Center, Catholic Charities, and Fort Collins Rescue Mission
Opportunities / Hopes
- Moderate expansion could bring a positive change to service providers.
- Less impact on the surroundings. Less need to address neighbor concerns than a brand new location.
- Close to services, Smooth transition.
- Any increase in shelter and resources is a benefit to our community.
- Better coordination, resourcing, staffing. More sophisticated tracking/analyzing needs and numbers.
- They are known locations which is a comfort to users and with existing public and private
“neighbors” already
- Transportation issues are solved
- Issue of land procurement and zoning already solved
- Established identities and association with services
Impacts / Fears
- Short-term and long-term impact assessment. Is it really going to mitigate many of the current
struggles for guests and service providers? To what percentage will their capacity be increased?
- If expand in Old Town, impact to businesses there could be similar or greater to current North Fort
Collins
- Having enough land and space for a larger facility; Limited space for expansion based on the numbers
we have been talking about; The current footprints at these locations are limiting, thus making it
hard to expand and costly to bring things up to code.
- Fort Collins Rescue Mission looking to expand to get more beds, getting info on building and fire
codes - looking very difficult
- Similar to Midtown.
- May not have enough good infrastructure in existing locations to build what’s really needed.
- Doesn't solve the issue as not enough room to gain the required capacity and accommodate other
operational spaces desired
Financial and Resource Needs / Timeline
- Primarily lack of available space and higher cost of remodeling / renovation
- Could reduce availability of shelter while renovating shelters
1.5
Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Final Report (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
FINAL Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report
Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 17 of 22
Potential Mitigations
- Maybe a small change could have a better outcome. Ongoing issues could be kept under control while
collectively thinking of better and more effective interventions.
- Designing a shelter that would work in the space available.
- Similar to Midtown.
- Not a mutually exclusive option; one shelter could be refurbished while another is relocated
Midtown
Opportunities / Hopes
- This location could balance the weight of the many services already located on the North. Our
homeless guests deserve a top notch location so they can be safe and thriving and have that sense of
belonging and not feeling displaced.
- Less impact to neighborhoods, On a bus route, could revitalize existing area.
- Similar to East Mulberry
Impacts / Fears
- Not close to services, Impact on surrounding businesses.
- Midtown is far-removed from other services/resources - there are almost no other services. It would
create efficiency gaps in our homelessness response system and the overall effort to quickly move
people out of homelessness. Inconvenient and inaccessible in context of day-to-day activities among
people experiencing homelessness
- Similar to East Mulberry with the additional FEAR similar to North College of increased stigmatization
combining with the more difficult access to services.
- Complicated politics would delay/obstruct progress of this initiative
Financial and Resource Needs / Timeline
- Similar to East Mulberry, more money and space to bring resources and services into shelter.
Potential Mitigations
- Collocated services and amenities need to be well designed for a centralized location.
- Could improve an existing property.
- I believe Midtown is only a feasible option if at least some other services relocate to Midtown (such
as the Murphy Center) and/or with a fixed, seven days per week bus from the shelter to other parts
of the community. This does not seem like the most efficient option.
- Great operators and a welcoming space for people experiencing homelessness so they feel a sense of
belonging in our community.
South Fort Collins - near Larimer County Behavioral Health Center site
Option eliminated by the Committee as nonviable during 9 April meeting
1.5
Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Final Report (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
FINAL Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report
Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 18 of 22
Next Steps
The committee provided ideas for continued effort, supporting final siting of a 24/7 shelter and beyond:
- Clarify the City’s role and who will make the “final decision” / how it will be made / what it will
be. This could be part of the Communications and Outreach plan listed below. Communicating the
City’s role as convener and supporter of this potential community resource, along with information
about how a decision to build a shelter would be made by service providers and property owners,
could help improve understanding and summon support. These roles include: 1) obligatory required
role relative to quasi-judicial oversight of application for a shelter from owner/applicants 2)
regulatory enforcement role - police, violation of laws, activities that may take place 3)
Enhancement role - not required, but beneficial - City’s ongoing funding of Outreach Fort Collins is
an example and 4) bonus - areas that have not yet been identified in ways that fit a broader
community need.
- Convene businesses, faith communities, neighborhoods, service providers, and county and city
stakeholders interested in driving toward solutions. Building a team of willing partners can surface
possibilities for resources and provide support for overcoming obstacles and challenges.
- Create and implement communications and outreach plan/strategy moving forward. Community
efforts succeed when there is a direct and personal connection with everyone affected by the
project: homed residents, residents experiencing homelessness, businesses, and organizations. A
coordinated communications and outreach plan can ensure two-way communication so the
community needs for a shelter can be clearly articulated and concerns and potential problems can be
addressed.
- Conduct a visioning process or master site planning to achieve the outcomes desired and identify
mitigating solutions where possible. Getting people affected by the project involved in the visioning
and site planning process can help create better solutions and shared ownership of the results. Could
start with Building Program document and consider further analysis to understand the appropriate
size and ability to flex to meet changing needs.
- Continue to work on the other pieces in the system that support people to be housed. Emergency
shelter is only one portion of the Continuum of Care. For example, ensuring services are available in
or near the shelter to support people moving out of homelessness, and having sufficient affordable
housing for people to move into, will be needed to make homelessness rare, brief, and nonrecurring.
Much like how the HAC completed a matrix of services that would be necessary in a 24/7 shelter, we
could complete a matrix of existing and needed services for people experiencing homelessness across
the community
1.5
Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Final Report (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
FINAL Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report
Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 19 of 22
Appendix
Group Norms
- Speak from personal experience
- Lead with inquiry and curiosity
- Value diverse perspectives
- Get comfortable with discomfort
- Acknowledge the difference between intent and impact
- Use the buffet rule (firsts before seconds)
- Speak directly and honestly
Results from the Committee Survey
Overall hopes for what a new 24/7 shelter could do
My hope is that the 24/7 shelter will serve as a vital, life -saving first stop in an integrated system, connecting
participants with a full spectrum of services, resources, and housing opportunities. The shelter should have a
focus on community and relationship building, with messaging that participants are full -fledged citizens,
endowed with the same rights, opportunities, privileges, and responsibili ties as any Fort Collins resident.
Lessen the shuffle of persons experiencing homelessness between daytime and overnight service facilities, and
minimize the number of persons dwelling on the streets when hours of service are NOT available in either
daytime or overnight facilities. Leveraging the 24/7 opportunity to connect people with the specific services
they require to begin the journey out of homelessness. 24/7 model creates opportunity to provide transitional
housing options that are severely limited in Fort Collins.
A homeless shelter should offer protection and safety to homeless individuals. It should be a place that offers
comprehensive support for those with the desire to move out of homelessness.
Provide assistance to the homeless population to help them to get back into society and be a positive part of
the community.
I believe that a 24/7 shelter would significantly improve our opportunity to achieve this community goal
(making homelessness rare, short-lived and non-recurring). A 24/7 shelter would provide stability/reliability to
people experiencing homelessness and regular access to services--both at the shelter and at connected
community resources, such as the Murphy Center. If operated correctly, the shelter would be a centerpiece of
our efforts to help people escape homelessness.
Giving people experiencing homelessness a place to go and resources will positively impact our community.
Expanding and deepening shelters' role in the continuum of care for unhoused individuals leads to housing
individuals and getting them the mental, physical, and behavioral health they need to be whole. When people
exit shelter into housing they also can become productive members of our community and give back.
I hope to have the ability to Outreach, Resource, Counsel, and Empower those experiencing homelessness,
hopelessness, marginalization and oppression. With a safe place for people to be (found) during the day, I'll be
able to facilitate MORE successful transitions into housing, at a quicker rate.
1.5
Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Final Report (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
FINAL Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report
Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 20 of 22
I hope that our community can see human spirits instead of dirty faces, unique stories instead of
preconceptions, warriors instead of junkies, compassion instead of condemnation, and love instead of disgust.
Eliminate people sleeping/living in unsafe conditions, although I am still not clear on the numbers/volume of
the need for the physical building shelter.
Increase capacity for overnight shelter as well as offer or comprehensive daytime and prevention services.
Because service providers and relationships would be in more continuous and in closer contact with those
experiencing homelessness it increases the likelihood of problem solving quicker to find housing and stabilize.
Shelter is not a substitute for housing.
Related to our community and current impacts, I see a 24/7 shelter/day center providing a welcoming place
for those experiencing homelessness to have their needs met, eliminating the need to find public restrooms,
alternative welcoming places to gather etc.
A 24/7 shelter/day center eliminates the large check in and leaving process that now occurs with the shelters
due to their hours and other operational needs. Currently everyone essentially arrives and leaves at one time,
with a 24/7 model, I envision this being more of a continuous in and out process, especially as jobs are
accessed during the day etc. There would be a place to store some belongings as well while they were working
or getting services etc.
Creating a shelter resource that helps connect the homelessness community rather than keeps it fra gmented by
offering a space with enough beds to shelter the majority of folks that also houses staffing from multiple
service agencies so that individuals can access resources quickly and often. The easier it is for people to stay
connected to community resources and humane shelter, the faster people will be able to get on the path to
exiting homelessness.
Overall fears for what a new 24/7 shelter could do
My fears for a 24/7 model is that it would be the one and only major investment by the larger communit y and,
once established, people experiencing homelessness would be "out of sight, out of mind" and thus any robust
investment in a spectrum of rapid/transitional/affordable/permanent supportive housing opportunities would
be ignored or forgotten. 24/7 facilities without an exit strategy are a disaster. I also fear that if we make
homeless too "easy", we will simply attract more people experiencing homelessness. I cannot ignore the
realities of progressive municipalities currently being overwhelmed by the gr owing need and numbers of people
experiencing homelessness. The irony is that the communities which try to do the most about the need,
typically end up with the greatest increase in the need. How will that be addressed? I have yet to hear any
meaningful dialog around this issue.
The enigma of shelters as a "build-it-they-will-come" situation will further manifest in additional substantive
examples of other communities taking advantage of Fort Collins' generosity, and if NOT mitigated by
intentional and pragmatic shelter policies and local regulatory oversight the neighborhood where the new 24/7
shelter is located will become overwhelmed with unmanaged and negative impacts.
Our community is already impacted by homelessness (on top of other ongoing social and economic crises). City
and County governments really need to make affordable and transitional housing a priority and guarantee that
sheltered individuals can really obtain barrier-free assistance to move out of homelessness. My fear with a new
homeless shelter of that capacity (500 right?) is that it could potentially increase the number of homeless on
the streets and it will not solve already existing issues. Government and service providers need to ask ourselves
if we already have the infrastructure and built capacity to support the social, economic and health related
needs that this project will generate.
1.5
Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Final Report (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
FINAL Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report
Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 21 of 22
I can't see it completely helping the transient population out of homelessness.
Shelters are a crucial part of a housing-first system, but must be operated according to a housing-first
philosophy. It is important that a 24/7 shelter is equipped to provide shelter and basic -needs assistance, but
also that the shelter/surrounding community resources are equipped to effectively utilize that resource and
move people out of homelessness. A new 24/7 shelter will not solve homelessness on its own, so the
accompanying services/expansions to other services must be a part of the conversation.
A 24/7 shelter must also be inclusive. What steps will be taken to ensure that everyone can access overnight
shelter, including further-marginalized subpopulations, such as the LGBTQ+ community, people of color, youth,
etc.?
I believe a strategic and intentional policy for prioritizing those experiencing homelessness in our comm unity is
imperative.
I don't fear; because the resources, services and, frankly, the acknowledgement and validation that these
struggling souls will experience.... will manifest positive impacts on the whole community and inspire
compassion, understanding, and perspective.
Under-resourced services/staffing
More infrastructure in Fort Collins may increase PEH traffic to the city.
I don't have any fears of developing a newer and more humane space for the existing community members
experiencing homelessness. Regardless of how well we do at making homelessness rare, short-lived, and non-
recurring we will always have individuals needing emergency shelter and as a community we should want to
provide that in a space that is clean, accessible, adequately sized, and designed for the population utilizing the
space. We shouldn't not improve our community's resources knowing it will benefit individuals simply because
we are afraid that others from outside our community might come and use those services.
Other comments about the process, your involvement, and results
Very interesting reflections and great facilitation process.
I feel we have come up with what is needed for a shelter. The hard part is where to place it. I would like to see
on our recommendation, stating the pro's and con's of each location and letting the City Manager and Council
decide where to put it. We have two locations that are known and two more locations that don't have a
specific property. It is hard to give a complete objective opinion unless you have all of the properties selected.
We have areas in general for the locations.
Thank you to everyone for your work on this project, and to the City for bringing this diverse group of voices to
the table.
I was hoping to have firmer recommendations that would rally local stakeholders and lead our community
toward action as a result of this committee. Perhaps we may still accomplish this. No matter the decision or
results, I am committed to being engaged with my community until a concr ete recommendation with next
steps and tangible results is developed. I am especially interested in bridging business, faith communities,
governments, and service providers to develop that plan, fund it and implement it once developed.
Additional information referenced earlier in the report
Amenities and Services Needed in an Effective Shelter
1.5
Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Final Report (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
FINAL Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report
Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 22 of 22
Exploratory Building Program information
Impacts and Opportunities by Location
1.5
Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Final Report (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
E Douglas Rd
E Vine Dr
E Prospect Rd
E Harmony Rd
E Trilby Rd
Carpenter Rd
W Horsetooth Rd
W Drake Rd
W Prospect Rd
W Mulberry St
Laporte Ave
S Timberline RdN Taft Hill RdS Taft Hill RdZiegler RdCollege AveR
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
e
A
v
eN Lemay AveS Lemay AveN Shields StS Shields StS Overland Trail392
1
14
25
287
287
25
ZONES THAT PERMIT HOMELESS SHELTERS
LEGEND
Zones that permit
homeless shelters*
Bus stops within 1/4
mile of zones
City Limits
Growth
Management Area
* Zones include Community Commercial, General Commercial, Service Commercial, Downtown and Industrial
N
21-23401
ATTACHMENT 6 1.6
Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Zones Permitting Homeless Shelters (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PLAN OUTLINE
PROJECT TITLE: 24/7 HOMELESS SHELTER OUTREACH
OVERALL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT LEVEL: Inform → Consult → Collaborate
BOTTOM LINE QUESTIONS: How can a 24/7 shelter for people experiencing homelessness (PEH) be an
added community benefit? What amenities should this facility include? What strategies will help mitigate
neighborhood impacts, wherever a shelter is located?
KEY STAKEHOLDERS: People with Lived Experience, Area Residents & Businesses, Homeless Service &
Shelter Providers, City & County Government, Developers & Funders
TIMELINE: August 2021 – Q2 2022
_______
PHASE 1 (Inform)
•Communicate background information and previous work completed
•Storytelling from perspective of people with lived experience
Timeframe: August – September 2021(Q3 2021)
Key Topics:
•Current conditions, extent and urgency of the need
o Highlight day and overnight shelter and winter/inclement weather shelter needs
o Number of community members experiencing chronic homelessness
▪Use data from Homeless Management Information System (HMIS)
•Findings from 18 months of Homelessness Advisory Committee work
o Consensus around the need for new 24/7 shelter in the community
o Intention to relocate and expand Fort Collins Rescue Mission
o Share the shelter locations explored and the site criteria used
•Connection between 24/7 shelter and reducing impacts on businesses and (housed and unhoused)
neighbors
•Emergency shelter is just one piece in a spectrum of housing/homeless intervention efforts
Tools and Techniques:
•Coloradoan “In The City” column
•Story pitch to local media
•Animated video of infographic for social media (including FAQs and dispelling myths)
•City website updates
_______
PHASE 2: (Consult & Collaborate)
•Begin community conversation about vision of what facility could be and people’s hopes and fears
•Begin site-specific community conversations and planning
Timeframe: October – December 2021 (Q4 2021)
Key Topics:
•Components of a successful 24/7 shelter
•How 24/7 shelter can benefit all in our community
ATTACHMENT 7 1.7
Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Public Engagement Plan (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
• Stakeholders’ hopes and fears
• Site-specific tradeoffs and opportunities
Tools and Techniques:
OurCity.fcgov.com page that includes:
• FAQs
• Infographic with background and context
• Animated video
• “Big Ideas & Questions” board
• HAC (committee) reports
• Calendar with key dates and timelines
_______
PHASE 3: (Collaborate)
• Site-specific public dialogue
Timeframe: January – March 2022
Key Topics:
• Site-specific tradeoffs and mitigation needs
• Project funding options
• Timeline
• Operational structure
Tools and Techniques:
• Third-party consultants to assist with community conversations and engagement
o Pending funding as part of the 2022 budget
• Community issues forum(s)
• Amplifying voices of people with lived experience of homelessness
• Neighborhood listening sessions
• Design charettes
• Stakeholder site visits
• Council work session and/or staff report
1.7
Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Public Engagement Plan (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
Homelessness Advisory Committee
7-27-21
Summary of Process and Findings
Honore Depew, Interim Policy and Project Manager
Beth Sowder, Social Sustainability Director
Jackie Kozak Thiel, Chief Sustainability Officer
ATTACHMENT 8 1.8
Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
1.What feedback do Councilmembers have on the proposed next steps for
planning and engagement?
2.Do Councilmembers support focusing site exploration –engagement and
planning –on locations that are currently publicly-or partner-owned?
2Discussion Questions
1.8
Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
Collaborate with other agencies to address poverty issues and other
identified high-priority human service needs, to make homelessness
rare, brief, and non-recurring.
3Strategic Alignment
Strategic Objective 1.2
1.8
Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
4Current Conditions
Baseline Agreements about System Pressures
City of Fort Collins Partnerships on Homelessness
•Overnight and day shelter capacity in Fort Collins inadequate to meet need
•Impacts of shelter gaps affect all residents
•Distance between shelters and services makes it harder for people to exit homelessness
•Northern Colorado Continuum of Care
•Outreach Fort Collins & Murphy Center support
•CARES & CDBG funding support
•Te mporary overnight shelter expansion
•Non-congregate shelter program
•Seeking expanded day shelter options and providing funding
•Homeless Management Information System (HMIS)
•Coordinated Assessment & Housing Placement System (CAHPS)
•Affordable housing work (Land Bank Program, Housing Strategic Plan, etc.)
•Homeward2020 Partnership
1.8
Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
•Fort Collins Q2 of 2021
•569 people experiencing chronic homelessness
•1,951 people enrolled in supportive programs
•Fort Collins Rescue Mission capacity –80 men overnight and 60 during the day;
•Temporary 24/7 model began May 1, 2021
•Catholic Charities capacity –up to 54 women per night;
•Moving to 24/7 model Q3 2021
•Murphy Center –daytime services
•resource and housing navigators, laundry, mail, employment support, etc.
•Other community organizations offer shelter services for specific populations
•E.g., Family Housing Network and Crossroads Safehouse
5Current Conditions
Snapshot of Needs
1.8
Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
•Fort Collins Rescue Mission primary overnight shelter for men
•Needs to relocate due to space and location constraints
•2019 site search for new shelter locations
•Site secured as option for future shelter by Bohemian Foundation (1311 N. College)
•Concerns raised about concentration of shelter / services in North Fort Collins
•Process paused for additional community dialogue; advisory committee convened
6Committee Origin and Background
Committee Background
Committee Timeline
•November 2019 –Homelessness Advisory Committee (HAC) formed
•To advise City Manager on filling gaps in homeless shelter system
•Phase 1 (Nov. 2019 –Sept. 2020)
•21 members; broad in scope
•Phase 2 (Dec. 2020 –May 2021)
•11 members; more narrowly focused
1.8
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
7Committee Members and Charge
•Brian Ferrans –Health District of N. Larimer County
•Cheryl Zimlich –Bohemian Foundation
•David Rout –Homeward Alliance
•Dean Hoag –North FC Business Association
•Desiree Anthony –Fort Collins Rescue Mission
•Gloria Kat –The Family Center
•Joe Domko -Catholic Charities
•Julie Brewen –Housing Catalyst
•Laura Walker –Larimer County
•Matt Robenalt –Downtown Development Authority
•Seth Forwood –Fort Collins Rescue Mission
Committee Members –Phase 2
1.What amenities and services should be co-
located with a 24/7 shelter?
2.Where can a new 24/7 homeless shelter be
located?
•What trade-offs will exist?
3.How can impacts be addressed and
mitigated?
•What type of engagement is needed?
4.What funding considerations are
recommended?
Key Questions for Consideration
1.8
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
•Reached consensus that 24/7 shelter is needed in our community
•New shelter should focus on the gap for single men
•largest identified need right now; other gaps also exist
•A n ew 24/7 shelter should:
•have a capacity of about 200 beds,
•with flexibility to shelter 50-100 more people if needed;
•be located near public transportation and bicycle infrastructure;
•include shower and laundry facilities;
•have medical and behavioral care services on-site;and
•care providers should anticipate shelter guests likely to have
experienced trauma.
8Committee Findings –Needs Assessment
Recommendations for Shelter
1.8
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
Committee Findings –Locations Explored
1.Zoned for congregate shelter
2.Accessible by public transit
3.Close to bicycle infrastructure
9
•1311 N. College Av e. | Bohemian Foundation-owned
•614 E. Vine | Larimer County-owned
•East Mulberry | Area between Lemay and Timberline
•Midtown Fort Collins | General area
•Expand/replace existing shelter or shelters
•Near future Behavioral Health Facility | County-owned
•Deemed ineffective by committee
Site Characteristics for Effective 24/7 Shelter
Locations Explored in Final Report
1.8
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
•Clarify the City’s role and who will make the “final decision” / how it will be
made / what it will be
•Convene businesses, faith communities, neighborhoods, service providers,
and county and city stakeholders interested in driving toward solutions
•Create and implement communications and outreach plan/strategy moving
forward
•Conduct a visioning process or master site planning to achieve the
outcomes desired and identify mitigating solutions where possible
•Continue to work on the other pieces in the system that support people to be
housed
10Committee Findings –Next Steps
Committee Suggestions for Next Steps
1.8
Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
•Statutory land use role –development review when plans are submitted
•Public Engagement & Communications –support community-wide conversations
•Enforcement –Police Services, Code Compliance, etc.
•Funding –likely partial funding for shelter and related activities
•Enhancement & Context –convene local and regional partners; explore best practices
to align outcome with existing community goals and plans
•City Council’s Role
•Guide planning and engagement efforts
•Help prioritize competing values
o urgency of need vs breadth of exploration
o proximity to other services vs. concentration in a geographic area
11Next Steps –Role Clarity
City of Fort Collins’Role
1.8
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
Phase 1 (Q3 2021 –Inform)
•Public awareness campaign to share committee findings, background, and
current conditions
Phase 2 (Q4 2021 –Consult & Collaborate)
•Community conversations about how new 24/7 shelter can make our
community better for everyone, and beginning site-specific discussions
Phase 3 (Q1 2022 –Collaborate)
•Continued site-specific discussions about mitigation and opportunities
12Next Steps -Engagement
Proposed Public Engagement Plan
1.8
Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
•City staff to co-lead engagement and outreach efforts with community partners
•Draft “Good Neighbor Agreement” for community review and discussion
•Establish a shelter development timeline scenario and initial building design,
based on location options, for community engagement
•Continue to work with key partners and community leaders around planning
and engagement to:
•clarify roles, align expectations, and establish funding and operational
structure
•Share updates with City Council via monthly homelessness memos
13Next Steps -Summary
Proposed Next Steps
1.8
Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
1.What feedback do Councilmembers have on the proposed next steps for
planning and engagement?
2.Do Councilmembers support focusing site exploration –engagement and
planning –on locations that are currently publicly-or partner-owned?
14Discussion Questions
1.8
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
15
Additional Slides
1.8
Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
•Seeks permanent, affordable housing as quickly as possible
•Geared towards both individuals and families
•Provides supportive services, connections, and community-based supports
•Aims to keep people in housing and avoid returning to homelessness
16Housing First Model Summary
A H ousing First Approach:
1.8
Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
17Committee Findings –Locations Explored
Characteristics of Explored Locations
Zoned for
shelter
Within ¼
mile of bus
stop
Safely
accessible by
bicycle
Publicly-
/partner-
owned
Area with
concentration of
shelters/ services
Potential
stormwater
remediation
needed
1311 N. College Ave.X X X X X
614 E. Vine X X X X X X
East Mulberry X X ?
Midtown Fort Collins X X X ?
Expand/replace
existing shelter X X X X X
Near future Behavioral
Health Facility X X ?
1.8
Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
18Homelessness Initiatives Funding History
2015-2016 through 2020-2021 budget years include
costs related to:
•Data/HMIS
•Homeward 2020
•Outreach Fort Collins
•Murphy Center operations
•Northern Colorado Continuum of Care
•Landlord Risk Mitigation Fund
2017-2018 also includes special agency session
funds, which has since moved to Municipal Court
2020 Redeploy from Police and PFA
•Homelessness Lead Specialist position
•Outreach Fort Collins north expansion
•Restorative Justice Program support
2020-2021
•Funds from CARES/CDBG-CV:
•Congregate shelter temporary relocation
to Blue Spruce
•Congregate shelter expansion at Catholic
Charities
•Non-congregate shelter
1.8
Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
Peer City Research 19
•Riverside, CA
•Provo, UT
•Gainesville, FL
•Eugene, OR
•Ta coma, WA
•Garland, TX
•Boise, ID
•Bellevue, WA
Staff have conducted
peer city research for
the following locations:
Elements to Consider:
•Importance of built environment/design of
space for guests and surrounding
community
•Inclusion of community gathering spaces
•Inclusion of services beyond shelter, such
as cafes, career training, resource
navigation, classes, clothing closets,
medical care and case management
•Outdoor space usable for gathering,
classes, gardening, art, bike parking, etc.
•Funding and partnership models
1.8
Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10482 : 24/7 Shelter)
DATE:
STAFF:
July 27, 2021
Kelly Smith, Senior City Planner
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Discuss Approaches to Regulating Areas and Activities of Stat e Interest Pursuant to Powers Established in State
Law Commonly Referred to as 1041 Powers.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to receive direction from Council on the project scope for developing 1041
Regulations, and to request an off-cycle appropriation to support project completion.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Do Councilmembers support one of the following options to develop 1041 regulations?
Option #1: Regulations focused on immediate development pressures.
Option #2: Regulations based on both immediate and potential future development pressures.
2. Do Councilmembers support a mid-cycle appropriation to expedite project initiation?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
During a Council meeting held on May 4, 2021, Councilmembers adopted Resolution 2021 -055, which directed
staff to evaluate whether 1041 regulations would help the City achieve its policy goals and to research the
feasibility for adopting 1041 regulations.
In terms of policy alignment, both City Plan and the Strategic Plan identify policies and objectives that aim to
direct development in a way that ensures compatibility between adjacent land uses, minimize infrastructure and
resource needs, and protect historic and natural resources. Currently, the City’s Land Use Code provides a
limited local review process for public agency projects. As such, adopting 1041 regulations would offer the City
greater authority over public development projects that qualify as areas or activit ies of statewide interest per
House Bill 74-1041 and help the City achieve its stated policy objectives.
Since the May 4th Council meeting, staff has performed extensive research on other Colorado communities that
have adopted 1041 regulations to better understand the scope, process, resource needs and timeline for
developing and implementing this permitting program. An overview of 1041 regulations, current City codes,
development trends, and lessons learned from other communities are provided below, foll owed by potential
options for next steps in developing 1041 regulations for Council discussion.
HOUSE BILL 74-1041
The purpose of 1041 powers is to give local governments control over certain development projects occurring
within their jurisdiction, even when the project has statewide impacts. The term “1041” refers to the number of the
bill, House Bill 74-1041 (HB 1041), that created the 1041 powers in 1974, and the statutes regarding 1041 powers
are also referred to as the Areas and Activities of State Interest Act (“AASIA”). To exercise 1041 powers, a local
government must designate the areas or activities of state interest and adopt guidelines for the administration of
the designated areas or activities, all pursuant to statutory procedures and limitations.
2
Packet Pg. 58
July 27, 2021 Page 2
Areas of State Concern include:
1. Mineral Resource Area: Any area in which there has been “significant mining activity in the past or present,
mining development is planned or in progress, or mineral rights are held by mineral patent or valid mi ning
claim with the intention of mining.”
2. Natural Hazard Area: “an area containing or directly affected by a natural hazard” (i.e. geologic, wildfire, flood,
radioactivity, seismic).
3. Areas Containing, or Having Significant Impact on Historical, Archaeological or Natural Resources of
Statewide Importance.
o Historical or archaeological resources of statewide importance means “resources which have been
officially included in the national register of historic places, designated by statute, or included i n an
established list of places compiled by the state historical society.”
o Natural resources of statewide importance “is limited to shorelands of major, publicly owned reservoirs
and significant wildlife habitats in which the wildlife species, as identi fied by the division of parks and
wildlife of the department of natural resources, in a proposed area could be endangered.”
4. Areas Around Key Facilities: Development may have a material effect upon the key facility or the surrounding
community. Key facility means airports; major facilities of a public utility; interchanges involving arterial
highways; rapid or mass transit terminals, stations, and fixed guideways.
AASIA defines Activities of State Concern as the following:
1. Site selection and construction of water supply and treatment systems and major extension of existing
domestic water and treatment systems.
2. Site selection and development of solid waste disposal sites.
3. Site selection of airports.
4. Site selection of rapid or mass transit terminals, stations and fixed guideways.
5. Site selection of arterial highways and interchanges and collector highways.
6. Site selection and development of new communities: new community means the major revitalization within
existing municipalities or the establishment of urbanized growth centers in unincorporated areas.
7. Efficient utilization of municipal and industrial water projects.
8. Conduct of nuclear detonations.
9. The use of geothermal resources for the commercial production of electricity.
Procedure for the Designation of Areas and Activities and Adoption of Guidelines
To exercise 1041 powers, the Colorado Revised Statutes require the City to designate the areas and activities to
be regulated and adopt guidelines to administer the designated a reas and activities. The designation of areas
and activities may occur only after a noticed public hearing where Council must consider, at a minimum, the
intensity of current and foreseeable development pressures. Council must specify the boundaries of an y
designated area, why the designated area or activity is of state interest, the dangers from uncontrolled
development of the area or conduct of such activity, and the advantages of developing such area or activity in a
coordinated manner. The City may adopt guidelines, and regulations for carrying out such guidelines, for
administering designated areas and activities that are more stringent than the criteria listed in the applicable state
statutes.
Once the City holds a public hearing and initially desig nates an area or activity to be of state interest, no person
may engage in development within the designated area or conduct the designated activity until the City has finally
determined the designation and guidelines. In other words, a moratorium goes int o effect on development within
the initially designated area or on the initially designated activity until the City makes a final determination on the
designation and the applicable guidelines.
To the extent a person proposes to engage in development in a n area of state interest or conduct and activity of
state interest that the City has not previously designated and for which guidelines have not been adopted, the City
2
Packet Pg. 59
July 27, 2021 Page 3
is authorized to hold a public hearing to designate such area or activity and to adopt g uidelines under which to
review the proposal. In other words, the City has an opportunity to exercise 1041 powers over proposals for areas
and activities not previously anticipated as requiring regulations.
CURRENT CITY REGULATIONS
The City’s Land Use Code regulates private and public projects differently. For private development projects, a
variety of codified mechanisms are in place that are framed around a project’s proposed land use and the site’s
zoning designation. Depending on project complexity and potential impacts, a neighborhood meeting may be
required and the decision maker could be the Director, a Hearing Officer, Planning and Zoning Commission or
Council. Decision makers have broad authority to place conditions of approval on development appl ications to
meet the intent of the code. A project may require several submittals before and after a hearing, and there is no
specific time frame by which the City must approve a project. Land Use Code standards cover several aspects of
site design that require multiple City departments to review and approve. These design standards include, but are
not limited to, landscaping, building standards, tree stocking, water conservation, environmental protection,
exterior lighting, building setbacks, road design, pedestrian connectivity and utility infrastructure.
The City’s Land Use Code regulates public projects differently where review criteria and approval processes are
dictated by Colorado State law. Below is a summary of relevant codes and review processes that are applied to
public projects.
Division 2.16 - Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR)
The City’s current authority in regulating public projects is based on Colorado State law, which creates a limited
local review process to assess the “character, loca tion and extent” for public buildings or structures (See CRS
§31-23-209). In other words, the review criteria (character, location and extent) replace the design and zoning
standards found in the Land Use Code. The submittal requirements, review and approv al processes are outlined
in the Land Use Code and referred to as the “Site Plan Advisory Review,” or SPAR. A SPAR applies to any public
building or structure that is a part of the development, and review is advisory in scope.
The SPAR process has similar steps to other development review proposals, including a neighborhood meeting,
review meetings with City staff, and a public hearing with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Unlike other
development projects, the SPAR process has a strict timeline. Once an application is received, the proposal must
be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission within 60 days, unless the applicant voluntarily extends or
waives that deadline.
The Planning and Zoning Commission can approve or disapprove the application. Un like other development
projects, the Commission cannot apply conditions of approval to the application, and if the Commission
disapproves the proposal the applicant’s governing body can overrule the Commission’s decision with a 2/3 vote
of its membership.
Division 2.17 - City Projects
While the SPAR process applies to all public projects, Section 2.17 of the City’s Land Use Code requires that City
projects be processed according to zoning and land use standards and be subject to review by the Planning and
Zoning Commission in all instances. This distinction is important as some (not all) City projects that may fall under
1041 Authority are already subject to the City’s land use authority. Such projects would include the development
or expansion of water/wastewater treatment facilities; however, any associated pipeline infrastructure may be
exempt from review (see Division 5.1.2 description below).
Division 5.1.2 - Definitions - Development
Based on the Land Use Code definition of “Development,” a limited number of projects are exempt from City
development review. Exempt projects include utility, City, and Downtown Development Authority (DDA) projects
located within existing public easements or rights -of-way, including water/wastewater pipeline distribution systems
and roadway maintenance or improvement projects. Depending on how 1041 regulations are crafted, some
projects that may qualify as an activity of statewide interest may otherwise be exempt from development review.
2
Packet Pg. 60
July 27, 2021 Page 4
Below is a list of project types c urrently exempted from review that may be relevant to the 1041 regulation
discussion:
• Work by the City, road agency, or railroad company to maintain or improve a roadway or railroad track, if the
work is carried out on land within the boundaries of the right-of-way, or on land adjacent to the right-of-way, if
the work is incidental to the project within a right-of-way.
• Work by the City or any public utility for the purpose of inspecting, repairing, renewing or constructing, on
public easements or rights-of-way, any mains, pipes, cables, utility tunnels, power lines, towers, poles, tracks.
Staff Analysis
While 1041 Authority could apply to private development, it is staff’s perspective that the Land Use Code provides
sufficient tools for regulatory authority. However, 1041 regulations offer stronger authority over public projects that
qualify as an area or activity of statewide interest. For example, unlike SPAR the 1041 permitting program would
not impose a constrained 60-day review period; the City’s role would be regulatory and not advisory in scope;
conditions of approval could be placed on an application by the Decision Maker; and the Decision Maker’s
determination could not be overturned by the applicant’s governing body.
Depending on how 1041 regulations are drafted, potential positive outcomes may include, but are not limited to:
• Role is not advisory
• Influence project location and design
• Authority to deny or revoke permit
• Enforcement and Penalties
• Financial securities for impacts and restoration requirements
• Inspections, even on private property
• Equity/benefit analysis requirements (environmental and socioeconomic)
CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE
To better understand the current development pressure the City is facing and how 104 1 regulations could provide
stronger land use authority over public projects, staff evaluated projects reviewed through the SPAR process and
assigned an activity of statewide interest to each project where applicable.
Over the past 11 years, the City has processed a total of 36 SPAR applications; of those 32 applications could not
be linked to an activity of statewide interest. Twenty-nine 29 applications were from educational institutions, such
as Poudre School District, Colorado State University and Front Range Community College, that proposed either
new buildings or modifications to existing buildings. Two applications were from Larimer County related to jail
campus expansions, and one was from Poudre Valley Regional Electric Authority to construct a con crete-block
wall for screening purposes.
The remaining four applications were processed within the past 9 months and include three water conveyance
projects of varying sizes and an Interstate-25 Port of Entry redesign. The table below provides further de tail about
each project, when it went to hearing, the outcome and staff analysis about the process.
Projects Reviewed Under SPAR
Project Activity Notes
Colorado State University Raw
Water Utility Expansion (Hearing:
October 2020, Approved)
• Site Selection and
Construction of Water
Supply and Treatment
Systems
• 1500 LF of 14” dia steel pipe
• Bored under natural resources, street and
trails
• Buffered bore pits from natural resources
• City staff unsure if this project could be
regulated under 1041 since applicant is
public school
• Staff feels SPAR process or an
administrative approval process would have
2
Packet Pg. 61
July 27, 2021 Page 5
Project Activity Notes
been sufficient
Fort Collins Loveland Water District:
Golden Currant Water Line
(Hearing: Dec 2020, Approved)
• Site Selection and
Construction of Water
Supply and Treatment
Systems
• Replace 5,000 LF of existing leaky pipe;
Pipe is 20” in dia., connects to existing tank
• Applicant worked with HOA and Natural
Areas on pipeline location
• Provided documentation of existing cultural
and natural resources
• Staff feels SPAR process or an
administrative approval process would have
been sufficient
Colorado Dept of Transportation:
Port of Entry (Hearing: Jan 2021,
Approved)
• Location of Highway
and Interchanges
• New commercial truck entry stations ·
Required land dedication from Natural Areas
Department
• Encroaches into wetland buffer, but no
direct impacts to wetlands
• In hindsight, staff would have liked more
information on alternatives evaluation since
project impacted Natural Areas
Northern Integrated Supply Project
(Hearing: June 2021, Disapproved)
• Site Selection and
Construction of Water
Supply and Treatment
Systems
• 18,000 LF of buried pipeline (32”-36” dia) ·
Water intake structure · Grading control
structure
• Impacts to wetlands, riparian forest,
Boxelder Creek, Dry Creek, Lake Canal
• Staff felt SPAR was inadequate and resulted
in insufficient information to determine
extent of impacts to cultural or historic
resources, city rights-of-way, environmental
resources, and city utilities
Potential Future Projects (within 10-year horizon)
Staff performed preliminary research on potential projects that could occur within the next ten years. Staff
researched applications submitted for Conceptual Review, the first stage in the development review process that
occurs prior to a formal SPAR application submittal. Only one project processed under Conceptual Review
qualified as an activity of statewide interest and was reviewed in 2019. The project is referred to as NEWT 3
Pipeline and is a regional water transmission pipeline pr oject that spans through the City to deliver water to Weld
County and eastern Larimer County. Staff anticipates a formal SPAR application being submitted in the near term
(within 1-3 years).
Staff also reached out to City transportation engineers and pla nners, as well as CDOT, to understand potential
future transportation projects. Only one project was mentioned as potentially occurring within the 10 -year horizon
(Mulberry/I-25 Interchange). This project is currently unfunded, therefore it is less clear w hen to anticipate a
development proposal. Information about both projects is included in the table below.
Project Activity Notes
NEWT 3 Water Pipeline (Potential
Future Project: Conceptual Review
Meeting Jan 2020)
• Site Selection and
Construction of Water
Supply and Treatment
Systems
• 28,300 LF of buried pipeline (TBD dia)
• Crosses Boxelder Creek, wetlands, Cooper
Slough, raptor nests
CDOT Mulberry/I25 Interchange
(Potential Future Project)
• Location of Highway
and Interchanges
• Unknown
Aside from these two projects, staff is unaware of other potential projects that may fall under 1041 regulations but
acknowledges that there could be others, especially in the much distant future (>10years), such as regional mass
transit projects and major utility projects.
1041 REGULATIONS IN OTHER COMMUNITIES
2
Packet Pg. 62
July 27, 2021 Page 6
Since the May 4, 2021 City Council discussion on 1041 regulations, staff has reached out to thirty -five local
communities to better understand which communities have adopted 1041 regulations and the process they t ook
to develop, adopt and implement regulations. Staff initially focused on peer communities with populations greater
than 50K residents; however the majority of municipalities that reported as having adopted 1041 regulations in the
2015 Colorado Land Use Survey (posted on the Department of Local Affairs website) have not actually adopted
them. Another constraint encountered during this research is that most communities that have adopted
regulations did so nearly twenty years ago, so little is known about t he process taken and resources that were
needed to develop and adopt regulations. Given the limited number of municipalities that have adopted 1041
regulations, staff broadened its research to include both counties and smaller municipalities. (Attachment 1)
In general, staff found that the process to develop, adopt and implement regulations is complex and labor
intensive, and there are a limited number of experts who specialize in 1041 regulations. Consequently, many
communities have liberally borrowed lan guage from regulations in other communities or have hired outside help
to support project completion. Depending on the outreach performed and whether regulations were based on
those from other communities, timelines to draft and adopt ranged between 6 mont hs to 18 months. Many
communities that drafted regulations in-house relied on legal staff to lead the project. The scope of regulations
varied, where some communities chose to regulate every activity while others carefully selected activities based
on development pressure. Few communities regulate areas of statewide interest. Several communities have
updated their regulations multiple times over the years based on lessons learned during permit reviews. Many
communities that have adopted regulations have not processed any applications through those regulations.
Other Engagement
During the past month staff also engaged in conversations with City Engineering, City Utilities, Water Providers
and Sanitation Districts to better understand initial opportunities and concerns about the City adopting 1041
regulations, and experiences with 1041 permitting processes in other jurisdictions. Staff will continue to engage
these stakeholders as regulations are developed. (Attachment 1)
Overall, there was concern expressed by Water Providers, and Sanitation Districts over regulations having vague
submittal requirements and review criteria. Some representatives stated that vague regulations in other
communities have resulted in endless rounds of submittals and project de lays. Additionally, vague requirements
have led to inconsistencies in interpretations by decision makers during the approval process, where decisions
seemed more politically motivated than regulatory in nature. Stakeholders indicated that the 1041 permitti ng
process is also onerous and duplicative of federal and state permitting requirements. Something that could impact
the schedule for creation of 1041 regulations is engagement of external agencies which would require significant
lead time for outside boards to review and comment on draft regulations.
From a City perspective, the Utilities Department expressed concern over self-regulating projects that have
already undergone a formal approval process. All capital projects are reviewed and approved by Counc il during
the budgeting process, and it may not be efficient to require another layer of City review and approval. City
Utilities staff are also concerned over delays to projects that have been planned for years.
City Engineering seemed generally supportive, although there were questions over how little the regulations may
get exercised. Comments indicated that having more control over access routes and road closures for some
CDOT projects could have a positive impact.
OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Based on the information collected during initial engagement, current staffing levels, and project complexity, staff
has prepared two options for Council consideration. Inherent in each option are consulting services to meet an
aggressive timeline without compromising project integrity, and balancing this work with other priorities such as
Development Review, Oil and Gas Regulations, Nature in the City code updates, site inspections, East Mulberry
Plan update, and Land Use/Water Use code and policy updates.
Option #1: Regulate Based on Immediate Development Pressure; $40K Needed; 10 -12 Months to
Complete
2
Packet Pg. 63
July 27, 2021 Page 7
Staff would schedule a hearing to designate activities based on immediate development pressure. Activities would
include:
1. Site selection and construction of water supply and treatment systems
2. Site selection and construction of highways and interchanges
Concurrently, staff would return to Council seeking an off-cycle appropriation for consultant services and secure a
contract with a consultant team. The scope of services would include assisting with engagement, researching
best practices in other communities, outside legal counsel, and drafting customized regulations to address Fort
Collins’ needs and priorities.
Option #2: Regulate Based on Immediate and Potential Future Development Pressure; $60K Needed; 15 -
18 Months to Complete
Staff would return to Council seeking an off-cycle appropriation for consultant services and secure a contract with
a consultant team. The scope of services would include researching other potential development pressures the
City might face, researching how areas of statewide interest could help the City achieve policy goals, outside legal
counsel, assistance with engagement, and drafting customized regulations to address Fort Collins’ needs and
priorities. After initial research on development pressure and areas of statewide interest, staff would return to
Council with a recommendation for activities and areas to designate, then schedule a hearing to designate those
activities. Staff would then begin drafting regulations.
Comparison of Options
OPTION PROS CONS
#1: Regulations Based
on Immediate
Development Pressure
• Ensures regulations will likely get used
• Other development types unlikely or in
distant future
• State statutes are flexible and allow
more activities and areas to be
designated in the future
• State statutes allow for moratoriums to
be placed on development applications
until regulations are adopted or
updated
• More activities will require additional
staff time from multiple City
departments with full workplans
• Less resources and staff time to
develop and adopt to make a
meaningful impact
• Not capitalizing on project momentum
to create a more comprehensive set of
regulations
• Would not be immediately prepared if
an application comes in at a future
date for an activity not regulated
#2: Regulations Based
on Immediate and
Potential Future
Development Pressure
• Could address full authority of HB1041
• Will be prepared for all potential
development regulations
• Capitalizes on consultant help,
engagement and project momentum
• Inexperienced in 1041 review and
permitting; an iterative process of
developing regulations may benefit the
City to capitalize on lessons learned
• Engagement would require staff time
from across the organization and
across different industries
• May never need the full scope of
regulations
• More time and staff resources needed
NEXT STEPS
1. Staff is seeking direction on the scope of 1041 Regulations.
• Option #1: Regulations Based on Immediate Development Pressure
2
Packet Pg. 64
July 27, 2021 Page 8
• Option #2: Regulations Based on Immediate and Potential Future Development Pressure
2. Staff is seeking support for consulting services to expedite project initiation.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Engagement Summary (PDF)
2. Powerpoint Presentation (PDF)
2
Packet Pg. 65
1041 REGULATIONS ENGAGEMENT
Since the May 4, 2021 City Council discussion on 1041 Regulations, staff has personally reached out to
thirty -five local communities , different City Departments, regional water providers and local sanitation
districts to better understand lessons learned and concerns regarding 1041 regulations.
Peer Communities
Staff initially focused on peer communities with populations greater than 50K residents, however given
the limited number of municipaliti es that have adopted 1041 Regulations staff broadened its research to
include both smaller municipalities and counties. Below is a snapshot of information collected and key
lessons learned. Of particular note is the majority of municipalities that reported as having adopted 1041
Regulations in the 2015 Colorado Land Use Survey (presented on the Department of Local Affairs
website) have not adopted them.
Colorado Communities > 50K Residents
1041
Regulations
MUNICIPALITY Y N ACTIVITIES/AREAS
Arvada X
Aurora* X
Boulder X
Broomfield* - - Did not answer requests for information
Castle Rock - - Did not answer requests for information
Centennial X •Location of Airports
Colorado Springs X
Commerce City X
•Site selection and construction of highways, arterial highways and collector
highways;
•Site Selection and Construction of Major New Domestic Water and Sewage
Treatment Systems and/or Major Extension of Existing Domestic Water and
Sewage Treatment Systems;
•Site Selection and Construction of Major Facilities of a Public Utility.
Denver* X
Grand Junction* X
Greeley* X
Highlands Ranch X
Lakewood X
Longmont X
Loveland X
Parker* X
Pueblo X
•Efficient Utilization of Municipal and Industrial Water Projects;
•Site Selection and Construction of Major New Domestic Water and Sewage
Treatment Systems and/or Major Extension of Existing Domestic Water and
Sewage Treatment Systems;
•Site Selection and Construction of Major Facilities of a Public Utility.
Thornton* X
Westminster X
*Communities misrepresented as having adopted 1041 in DOLA’s 2015 Colorado Land Use Survey
Communities with 10K-50K Residents
1041
Regulations
MUNICIPALITY Y N ACTIVITIES/AREAS
Canon City* X
Durango* X
Frederick* X
Fruita* X
Golden X •Site selection of arterial highways and interchanges;
ATTACHMENT 1 2.1
Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Engagement Summary (10478 : 1041 Powers)
Lafayette* X
Louisville X
• Areas around key facilities (arterial highway interchanges);
• Geologic hazard areas;
• Site selection of arterial highways and interchanges;
• Site selection of collector highways.
Steamboat* X
Superior X
• Site selection and construction of highways, arterial highways and collector
highways
• Mineral Resource Areas
Windsor* X
*Communities misrepresented as having adopted 1041 Regulations in the 2015 Colorado Land Use Survey
Communities Interviewed and Lessons Learned
Jurisdiction Key Notes
Boulder County
• Adopted in early 1990s; little known about process taken to develop and adopt
• Reviewed several applications:
o Electric transmission line
o Expansion of wastewater treatment plant
o Highway interchange
o Water pipeline
• Has worked well however looking to update eventually to simplify criteria and potentially exempt
smaller projects
LaPlata County
• Adopted in 2018 (one of the last counties to adopt 1041 in state)
• Spent many years studying adopting regs (over 15 years), adopted a resolution 15 years ago to
develop regs but just never did it
• 11 months to draft and adopt
• 2 FTE (county attorneys) and support from Planning Dept; however required long hours from
attorneys
• Hired legal assistance to review and develop regulations
• Lifted regulations from Arapahoe County
• Strongly recommend hiring outside consultant help and not doing in-house due to project complexity
• Has not processed an application yet
Summit County
• Developed in early 2000s
• Hired outside consultant to develop regulations
• Unsure the process taken to develop and adopt
• Processed less than 10 applications
• Worked well for environmental considerations
Larimer County
• Adopted regs in early 2000s
• Processed under 10 permits
• Recommends being very intentional about what regulating as to not overprocess applications
• In process of revising (5th revision)
o 6-7 months to revise code
o Trying to make criteria more specific so not open to interpretation
o May regulate more activities
o Hired outside consultant for revision
• Anticipates a review of application fee structure next year for all development types
• Project review through construction require a huge lift in staff time
• Implementation will require several months to put in place different supporting programs
Pueblo County
• Adopted in early 2000s
• In response to water diversion project proposed by Colorado Springs Utilities
• Placed moratorium on all projects that fall under certain activities while developing regulations
• Regulated all activities as a precautionary tool
• Attorney lifted regulations from Eagle County
• No engagement
• Took approximately 4-5 months to draft, then two months to adopt and implement
2.1
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Engagement Summary (10478 : 1041 Powers)
City of Pueblo
• Adopted in early 2000s
• Updated in 2014 using Pueblo County criteria
• Same attorney at Pueblo County wrote updated Pueblo City regulations
• Did not engage industry, public or other stakeholders
• Attorney and Planning Director met internally and identified activities to regulate
• Has NOT processed a permit application
• Established criteria for administrative process for projects with Findings of No Significant Impact
(FONSI)
• Processed 4 applications administratively through FONSI for a solar project on city-owned land leased
to solar company; very small-scaled project
Town of
Silverthorne
• Adopted in early 2000s
• Little known about process taken to develop and adopt
• Has NOT processed an application
Commerce City
• Adopted in early 2000s
• Little known about process taken to develop and adopt
• Processed two applications:
o Early 2007: Installation and location of a Tri -State Generation & Transmission Assoc.
electrical line through City and neighboring jurisdictions.
o 2020: Regional sewer interceptor planned by Metro Wastewater Reclamation
District.
▪ In lieu of permit, negotiated an IGA for requirements
▪ The IGA was found to be a great negotiating tool to allow project, avoid
time consuming process for applicant, and negotiate terms that benefited
community
Superior
• Adopted in early 2000s
• Little known about process taken to develop and adopt
• Has NOT processed an application
OTHER ENGAGEMENT
City Utilities, City Engineering, Water Providers, Sanitation Districts Comments and Concerns
Agency/Group Key Notes
City Utilities
• Concern that regulations will result in self -regulating City projects
• Capital Projects already approved by City Council during the budget process so don’t need another
approval process
• Definitely need to better understand how permit process may impact scheduled projects that have
been planned for several years
• Already have project coordination process in place for projects in ROW; hate to duplicate a u tility
coordination process. One of the first things done when a project comes in is send out to engineering
for coordination
• Sometimes not value add for planners to review projects that are technical and complex; hard to
bring people up to speed
• Would like to see very clear regulations so understand requirements, nothing vague
City Engineering
• Concern regulating might compromise relationship with CDOT for future funding initiatives
• Could focus on interchanges, and locations of Park and Rides, transit facility on 287
• Closure to access routes during I-25 expansion and other projects would have been good to have
more authority over
ELCO, NFR
Water District,
Boxelder
Sanitation
District, FCLWD,
South FTC
Sanitation
• Often projects require state and federal permits so 1041 permit is duplicative
• 1041 is a pretty onerous process to go through and add a lot of cost to projects from project delays
and permitting requirements
• Often criteria is so vague that it can be difficult to understand requi rements, can be interpreted
differently by decision-makers to fit political agendas, and prolong process because have no idea how
to fulfill requirements
• Need technical requirements to measure criteria against for decision making
• Important to include an appeals process so that don’t have to go through process if impacts are
minimal
2.1
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Engagement Summary (10478 : 1041 Powers)
• Concern regulations will prohibit regional projects from being approved that provide regional needs
• Engagement will require significant lead time so boards have the chance to rev iew draft regulations
and staff perform several job functions; (2-3 months for review and comment preferable)
• Would like projects currently planned be approved through SPAR process and not have to wait until
1041 regs are developed
2.1
Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Engagement Summary (10478 : 1041 Powers)
1
1041 Regulations
Paul Sizemore & Kelly Smith
July 27, 2021
ATTACHMENT 2 2.2
Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (10478 : 1041 Powers)
Questions
1.Do Councilmembers support one of the following options to develop 1041
Regulations?
•Option #1: Regulations focused on immediate development pressures
•Option #2: Regulations based on immediate and potential
development pressures
2.Do Councilmembers support a mid-cycle appropriation to expedite project
initiation?
2
2.2
Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (10478 : 1041 Powers)
STRATEGIC
ALIGNMENT
Neighborhood Livability
•1.7 Guide
Development
BUDGET
•Not Budgeted
Why We Are Here
3
2.2
Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (10478 : 1041 Powers)
How City Regulates Now
4
•Follows State Statutes
•Public Entities
•Role Advisory
•Ti meline: 60 Days
•Decision Can Be Overruled
S
P
A
R
ITE
LAN
DVISORY
EVIEW
2.2
Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (10478 : 1041 Powers)
1041 Regulations
5
PERMITTING PROCESS
•Role is regulatory not advisory
•Influence project location and design
•Authority to deny or revoke permit
•Enforcement and Penalties
•Financial securities for impacts and restoration
requirements
•Inspections, even on private property
•Equity/benefit analysis requirements (environmental and
socioeconomic)
Outcomes
2.2
Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (10478 : 1041 Powers)
How City Regulates Now
6
EXEMPTIONS
•CDOT projects if work is
within ROW
•City or Public Utility projects
if work is within public
easement or ROW
•City or Public Utility projects
if work is to restore site
ecology
CITY PROJECTS
•Processed like private
development projects
•Requires review by PZ in
all instances
2.2
Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (10478 : 1041 Powers)
New/Expanded
Domestic Water
Municipal/
Industrial Water
Projects
Highways and
Interchanges
New
Communities
Current Development Pressure
7
Public Utilities Solid Waste
Disposal Mass Transit Airports
Geothermal
Resources
Nuclear
Detonation
2.2
Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (10478 : 1041 Powers)
New/Expanded
Domestic Water
Municipal/
Industrial Water
Projects
Highways and
Interchanges
New
Communities
Potential Future Development Pressure
8
Public Utilities Solid Waste
Disposal Mass Transit Airports
Geothermal
Resources
Nuclear
Detonation
*potential future projects
•Front Range
Passenger Rail*
2.2
Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (10478 : 1041 Powers)
New/Expanded
Domestic Water
New/Expanded
Wa ter/Sewer
Tr eatment
Highways and
Interchanges
New
Communities
Current Development Pressure
9
Public Utilities Solid Waste
Disposal Mass Transit Airports
Geothermal
Resources
Nuclear
Detonation
•NISP
•NEWT 3 Water Pipeline*
•FCLWD Golden Currant
•CSU Raw Water Expansion
•Hughes Stadium*
*Potential future projects
•CDOT Port of Entry
•Mulberry/1-25*
Qualified projects
2.2
Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (10478 : 1041 Powers)
Mineral Resource
Areas
•Gravel Mining
Natural Hazard
Areas
•Geologic
•Wildfire
Historical/Natural/
Archaeological
Resource Areas
•Irrigated areas
Areas Around Key
Facilities
•Highways
•Airports
•Utility
Infrastructure
Areas of State Interest
10
2.2
Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (10478 : 1041 Powers)
Engagement
WHAT WE HEARD:
•Complex process
•Recommend contracting help
•Engagement significant
•Each activity requires review criteria and submittal
requirements
•Each permit requires substantial staff time to review
•Exemptions to specific projects/developers
•Duplicative and vague
•Concern over regulating City projects
11
2.2
Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (10478 : 1041 Powers)
Consultant Services
12
Oil
and
gas
Mulberry
Plan
Update
Housing
Code
Updates
Manufactured
Home Zoning
Inspections
Land &
Wa ter
Use
Development
Review
Nature
in the
City
CONSULTA NT SCOPE
•Assist w/ Draft Regulations
•Outside Legal Counsel
•Engagement
CITY DEPT SUPPORT:
•CAO
•Utilities
•SSD
•Tr ansportation
•CDNS
2.2
Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (10478 : 1041 Powers)
Option #1: $40K
13
Public Utilities Solid Waste
Disposal Mass Transit AirportsAUGSEPTOCTNOVDECJANFEBMARAPRMAYJUNJULY AUGHEARING/FUNDING
APPROP/CONTRACTING
CODE DEVELOPMENT
ENGAGEMENT
REVISE CODE
COUNCIL WORK SESSION
CODE ADOPTION
IMPLEMENTAT ION
2.2
Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (10478 : 1041 Powers)
Municipal/
Industrial Water
Projects
New/Expanded
Wa ter/Sewer
Tr eatment
Highways and
Interchanges
New
Communities
Option #2: $60K
14
Public Utilities Solid Waste
Disposal Mass Transit Airports
•Hughes Stadium*AUGSEPTOCTNOVDECJANFEBMARAPRMAYJUNJULYAUGSEPTOCTNOVDECJANFEBMARFUNDING APPROP/
CONTRACTING
CODE DEVELOPMENT
ENGAGEMENT
HEARING/ WORK
SESSION
CODE REVISIONS
CODE ADOPTION
IMPLEMENTAT ION
2.2
Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (10478 : 1041 Powers)
Option #1
15
Opportunities Considerations
•Regulations will likely get used
•Other development types
unlikely
•State statutes are flexible
•Shorter time frame and less
resources
•Not capitalizing on project
momentum
•Not immediately prepared for all
development types
•Regulating City projects
Considerations
2.2
Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (10478 : 1041 Powers)
Option #2
16
Opportunities Considerations
•Could address full authority of
HB1041
•Will be prepared for all potential
development projects
•Capitalizes on project
momentum
•Iterative process may be
beneficial
•Engagement would require staff
time from across the organization
and across different industries
•May never need the full scope of
regulations
•Regulating City projects
•More resources and time required to
complete
Considerations
2.2
Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (10478 : 1041 Powers)
Questions
1.Do Councilmembers support one of the following options to develop 1041
Regulations?
•Option #1: Regulations focused on immediate development pressures
•Option #2: Regulations based on immediate and potential
development pressures
2.Do Councilmembers support a mid-cycle appropriation to expedite project
initiation?
17
2.2
Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (10478 : 1041 Powers)
DATE:
STAFF:
July 27, 2021
Tyler Marr, Deputy Director, Information & Employee
Services
Ken Mannon, Operations Services Director
Blake Visser, Senior Facilities Project Manager
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Civic Center Master Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to discuss the Civic Center Master Planning process. Staff and consultants, Clark &
Enersen, will present an overview of the process including engagement to date, a draft site concept, and next
steps.
The City Operation Services Department is updating the Civic Center Conceptual Master Plan that was completed
in 2015. The intent is to identify space planning needs and efficiencies for current and future staffing, develop a
new conceptual master plan for the two-block site to account for facilities constructed since 2015, and align with
recent planning studies, such as the 2017 Downtown Master Plan. The upda ted master plan will provide design
concept and design cost estimates for new City Hall facilities and the Civic Center campus. The City will use the
updated plan to secure funding for design of a phased build-out.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC Q UESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What additional information or changes are needed for the plan to be ready for Council consideration of
adoption?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
As the city has grown over the past several decades, so has organizational staffing fo r city government and the
need to strategically house those staff members in buildings. With further growth expected over the next three
decades, combined with Council, staff, and the community outgrowing existing space, and some current buildings
not being viewed as ideal to keep as long-term City organization assets, there is a need to strategically plan the
spacing for the downtown campus where a large portion of City staff work.
As part of the 2021 budget, Council funded an update of the Civic Center Master plan, (Attachment 1) which is
intended to plan the Civic Center Block 32/42, current buildings, Washington Park, and streets. This update will
inform the Facilities team and City Leadership of investments required to meet the staffing and community needs
as we move into the future. Recognizing that the COVID-19 pandemic gave pause around the future of work, this
plan and the assumptions therein were developed with a hybrid model in mind. As one specific example, 60%
onsite staffing was determined to be the City’s operating model for this plan and moving forward.
Other assumptions:
• 60% Hybrid model (3 days in the office, 2 days remote work);
• Additional 15% area factor added to workstations to provide flexibility with overlapping schedules; and
• Greater emphasis on individual breakout spaces, collaboration rooms and conference rooms to meet all
meeting type needs.
Planning Process
• Space Planning - Facilities were analyzed with respect to the quality of architecture, mechanical, electrical,
and plumbing conditions. Current quantities of space were defined for each building and department. Staff
July 27, 2021 Page 2
growth projections were established by numerous interviews with department heads and staff.
• Development Staff Engaged - Park Planning and Development along with the Planning Department were
engaged in early meetings to discuss important considerations related to city planning, development
guidelines and goals.
• Charrettes - Three-day design charrettes were held involving the City’s leadership team, dep artment leaders,
key staff from across all departments, and the project team.
• Public Engagement - The charrette design outcome and survey were shared on OurCity website for comment
from the public.
• Boards and Commissions - A presentation was given regarding the process of the City Master Plan and
charrette outcome. The B&C representatives were invited to ask questions and give feedback. All items have
been recorded and are part of the draft for reference in future development of the design.
• Interdepartmental Staff Engagement - Park Planning and Development, CDNS, Engineering, Poudre Fire,
Police, and Utilities were gathered to give final comments on feasibility of the Master Plan Draft and any other
items that are relevant as the design develops further. These comments are available in the draft.
Draft Master Plan Concept
The concept of the master plan is focused on consolidating City operations for an improved customer experience.
1. Community
• A true front door for customer service to the Fort Collins community.
• Most parking will be kept to the exterior of the site and parking garages while perimeter gateways will act
as general wayfinding for people arriving to the site through various modes of transportation.
• Central gathering spaces that promote public use during and after hours, on weekends and during
holidays.
• Howes Street will support various community events while tying the two blocks together from both a visual
and a functional standpoint.
• The overall character of the site reflects Washington Park through the preservation of existing tree
canopy and the inclusion of softscape areas that define places of gathering and circulation.
• Art, landforms, and other site amenities will be used as visual wayfinding throughout the site.
• Howes will remain open to traffic but will become a convertible street for community events.
• Traffic calming elements will be used to create a safe pedestrian environment along Howes while allowing
for easy, accessible access to the buildings.
2. City Staff
• Improved department adjacencies for more efficient work flow.
• Staff can be re-located out of 281 North College to a more appropriate location on the Civic Center
campus and allows for the sale of the building.
• Accommodates growth for needed staff as the number of citizens increase.
Next Steps
1. Conceptual space planning of new and existing buildings to co-locate adjacencies for City departments. for an
improved customer experience.
2. Traffic and Parking Study.
3. Initial Design and Associated Public Engagement.
4. Develop 50% construction design to determine cost estimates.
July 27, 2021 Page 3
ATTACHMENTS
1. Link to Civic Center Master Plan (PDF)
2. Memo to Council, March 17, 2021 (PDF)
3. Powerpoint Presentation (PDF)
Link to
Civic Center Master Plan
Click here to access Master Plan - Main Document
Click here to access the Master Plan - Appendix
ATTACHMENT 1
Operation Services
300 LaPorte Ave, Building B
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6610
970.221.6534
fcgov.com
MEMORANDUM
DT: March 17, 2021
TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers
TH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Kelly DiMartino, Deputy City Manager
Tyler Marr, Interim Director, IES
FR: Ken Mannon, Director of Operation Services
Brian Hergott, Facilities Project Manager
RE: Block 32/42 Civic Center Masterplan Refresh Update
The purpose of this memo is for your information to provide an update on this project funded by
the 2020 Budget revision package.
The City of Fort Collins Operation Services Department is updating the Block 32/42 Civic
Center Conceptual Master Plan that was completed in 2015. The intent of this update, is to
identify current space needs along with planning needs for future staffing, develop a new concept
master plan that sets a vision for the two-block site, and to align with recent planning studies,
like the 2017 Downtown Master Plan. The updated master plan will provide a design concept
and a cost estimate for new municipal facilities and community spaces on the Civic Center
campus. The City will use the updated master plan to help secure funding for design of a phased
build-out.
The space planning analysis involved over 30 departmental meetings to review existing and
future staff needs. The analysis developed city staffing projections for 15-year and 30-year time
frames. In addition, the analysis took into consideration consolidating city staff from other
locations to the Civic Center and a 60/40 hybrid work model where employees will average 3
days per week on site and 2 days a week from home. The City’s remote work experience during
the Covid-19 pandemic was the impetus for using this hybrid approach.
Based on this analysis, there is a need for two to three new buildings that may be constructed in
multiple phases over the 15–30-year planning period. Phase 1A: Look at existing facilities to
right size them with updated space standards to see if we have current space to vacate 281 N.
College. Phase 1B: A new municipal building accommodating City Hall/Municipal court
functions located on the east side of Howes. Phase 2: Option 2A-A Wellness Center addition to
the existing west portion of 300A Laporte, and Option 2B-An additional building expansion to
existing west portion of 300A Laporte.
ATTACHMENT 2
The project team hosted a 3-day design charrette with over 50 city stakeholders that resulted in
the creation of a master plan for the Civic Center that will accomplish the following objectives.
x Elicit community pride
x Promote performance, innovation and resilient, regenerative design
x Provide positive contributions to the City’s natural systems and ecology
x Enhance social and individual health & wellness
x Create opportunities for transparency, good governances, and efficient & effective
service delivery
x Become the vision for the City’s open spaces.
The master plan concept (see attached) identifies the location of the new municipal facilities, as
described above, and is focused around a central community gathering space that crosses Howes,
will support various community events, and creates a visual and functional front door for the
City campus. The overall character of the site is a reflection of Washington Park through the
preservation of existing tree canopy and the inclusion of landscaped areas that define places for
gathering and circulation. Art, landforms, and other site amenities will be used as visual
wayfinding throughout the site. Now that the concept has been developed, the project will focus
on community engagement to refine and improve the initial ideas. Project staff is partnering with
CPIO using the Our City platform to produce a webpage with engagement opportunities and will
meet with several boards and commissions.
Additional next steps in the planning process include:
x Conceptual Design Submittal for Planning and Zoning to provide feedback on conceptual
plan
x Develop an Estimate/Proposal for Phase 1 Costs
x Provide a Detailed Analysis with Recommendations for Review by City Council,
preliminarily through a work session this spring.
Civic Center Master Plan
Clark & Enersen
ATTACHMENT 3
2
•To identify space planning needs and efficiencies for current and future staffing
based on projected community growth.
•Develop a new conceptual master plan for the two-block site to account for
facilities constructed since 2015 in alignment with recent planning studies,
such as the 2017 Downtown Master Plan.
•Provide design concept and design cost estimates for needed municipal
building facilities (City Hall) and the Civic Center campus with public amenities.
Civic Center Master Plan-Context
3
•What additional information or changes are needed in order for the plan to be
ready for Council consideration of adoption?
Question for Council
4Process & Engagement
Guiding Principles
•World Class Leadership:become a point of
community pride in performance, innovation, and
regenerative design that sets an example for the
private sector in its reflection of Fort Collins’
character and culture.
•Vi brant Community Spaces:contribute nature
and ecology to the city while establishing places
for public engagement that promote social and
individual health.
•Resilient Design:create lasting quality that is
climate adaptive, accommodates growth,
flexibility, and a universal community.
•Intuitive Organization:support and activate site
connectivity externally and create a collaborative
environment internally.
•Enhance the Civic Heart:promote physical
embodiment of the city’s mission and plan that
meets immediate needs; establish a vision that
can be invested in and realized.
Hybrid Work Model 5
6Projected Staff Count & Area
612
718
827
923
1,048
1,196
1,368
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
CURRENT 5 YR 10 YR 15 YR 20 YR 25 YR 30 YR
STAFF (EMPLOYEES)
STAFF AVERAGE
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
CURRENT CURRENT (100%)CURRENT (60%+)15-YEAR 30-YEAR 15-YEAR 30-YEAR
RIGHT SIZE (100%)(60%+)
GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE
PROGRAMMED NON-PROGRAMMED
295,433
226,064
354,004
265,403
170,530
195,897
218,951
7Conceptual Master Plan
8Opinion of Probable Costs
STAGE 1A & 1B
New Building & Howes Street Improvement
STAGE 1C
Right Size & Renovate Existing Buildings
CONSTRUCTION $58,233,760 -$67,395,541
PROJECT $75,703,889 -$87,614,204
9
•Space Planning Study
•Tr affic & Parking Study
•Initial Design and Associated Public
Engagement
Next Steps
10
•What additional information or changes are needed in order for the plan to be
ready for Council consideration of adoption?
Question for Council
For More Information, Visit
THANK YOU!
DATE:
STAFF:
July 27, 2021
Teresa Roche, Chief Human Resources Officer
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Recruitment and Selection of City Manager.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to review and evaluate the process to recruit and select the City Manager.
Information obtained during the discussion will be used to prepare Council agenda materials related to a
preliminary plan and schedule for the City Manager recruitment and selection process. The items will be
considered on August 4, 2021.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What worked in the Chief Judge recruitment in 2020 that may guide us in the selection of a City Manager?
2. What considerations are important to Council in the recruitment and selection of a City Manager?
3. Should Council appoint an ad hoc Council Committee to make selection process recommendations to the Council
about matters such as selecting a search firm and adopting a plan and target schedule for the recruitment and
selection of a City Manager?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The effective date of City Manager Darin Atteberry’s resignation is August 20, 2021. Council plan s to appoint an
interim City Manager on August 4 and consider Council action related to approving a preliminary plan and
schedule for recruitment and selection of the City Manager. The major initial steps in the recruitment and selection
are:
1. Decide on a recruitment search firm.
2. Develop a detailed plan for stakeholder input and target schedule for the recruitment and selection of the
City Manager.
Council’s discussion during this work session will assist staff with preparing agenda materials for the A ugust 4,
2021 Council meeting. Those materials may include a resolution that sets out the initial steps and plan for the City
Manager recruitment and selection process and a resolution appointing Councilmembers to serve on an ad hoc
Council Committee tasked with making recommendations to the Council about various aspects of the recruitment
and selection process.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Powerpoint Presentation (PDF)
4
Packet Pg. 103
Presented by:
City Manager
Recruitment Process
07-27-2021
Te resa Roche
Chief Human Resources Officer
ATTACHMENT 1 4.1
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10495 : Recruitment and Selection of City Manager)
2Questions for Council
1. What worked in the Chief Judge recruitment in 2020 that may guide
us in the selection of a City Manager?
2. What considerations are important to the Council in the recruitment
and selection of a City Manager?
3. Should City Council appoint an ad hoc Council Committee to make
selection process recommendations to the City Council about matters
such as selecting a search firm and adopting a plan and target schedule
for the recruitment and selection of a City Manager?
4.1
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10495 : Recruitment and Selection of City Manager)
1. Select Recruitment Firm
2. Organizational Inquiry and Analysis
• Individual Interviews with Key Stakeholders and Group Listening Sessions
• Development of Position Profile Brochure
3. Advertising and Marketing, Communication with Applicants and Prospects
•Knowledge of Ta lent Pool and Passive Recruitment
4. Initial Screening and Review
5. Search Committee Briefing to Facilitate Selection of Semifinalists
6. Evaluation of Semifinalist Candidates with Summary Profile Write-Ups
• Written Questionnaires
• Depending on firm: Recorded Online Interviews
• Media Searches
7. Search Committee Briefing to Facilitate Selection of Finalists
8. Evaluation of Finalist Candidates
• Comprehensive Background Investigation Reports and References
9.Interview Process of Semi-Finalists/Finalists
• Interview Panels, Community and Employee Forums, Specific One on Ones
10. Negotiations and Hiring Process/Use External Counsel for Contract
3Development of Recruitment and Selection Timeline
4.1
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10495 : Recruitment and Selection of City Manager)
August 4:
•Selection process for Interim concludes and Council considers a resolution for
appointment
•Council considers a resolution for recruitment and selection of the full-time City Manager
4Next Steps
Upcoming Council Meetings and Actions
4.1
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10495 : Recruitment and Selection of City Manager)
THANK YOU!
4.1
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (10495 : Recruitment and Selection of City Manager)