HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 10/03/2000 - RESOLUTION 2000-127 EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO PROPO AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 31
DATE: October 3, 2000
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL Greg Byme/
STAFF: John F. Fischbach
SUBJECT:
Resolution 2000-127 Expressing Opposition to Proposed Amendment 24 Amending the Colorado
Constitution by the Addition of a New Article to Be Entitled "Citizen Management of Growth".
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The Resolution carries no direct financial impact to the City. Passage of the Amendment at the
November election would result in unanticipated planning costs in order to comply with the
provisions of the Amendment. The City Attorney believes that because the proposed amendment
is poorly crafted, substantial litigation will result statewide, but it is unknown whether the City
would be involved as a litigant.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This Resolution expresses the City Council's opposition to the passage of Amendment 24 to the
Colorado Constitution.
BACKGROUND:
A coalition of environmental and planning groups has placed a proposed constitutional amendment
on the November ballot(Amendment 24)entitled the Citizen Management of Growth Initiative. The
Amendment would place certain procedural and functional requirements or restrictions on Colorado
cities and counties that exceed a stated population. Fort Collins and Larimer County would clearly
be subject to the requirements.
The success of the initiative is clearly related to the failure of the Colorado General Assembly to act
on statewide standards for growth management. The initiative's proponents plainly stated their
intent to pursue this action if the various bills calling for mandatory planning and growth
management failed. Neither Senator Sullivant's bill,nor the CMIJCCI coalition bill was successful.
At its core,the Amendment would prohibit local governments from approving any development that
was not located in a Committed Area or a Growth Area, with several specific exceptions.
DATE: October 3, 2000 2 ITEM NUMBER: 31
Committed Areas are to be established by the City Council prior to December 31, 2001, based on
three criteria contained in the Amendment(see Attachment 1). These Committed Areas contain land
that is the subject of a pending application, infill sites, or where development has already begun.
They may be the subject of development approvals immediately after their designation, without a
vote of the people.In a prior action on August 15,2000,the City Council adopted Resolution 2000-
109 clarifying that Fort Collins will interpret "valid development application" as at least an ODP
under the second of these criteria.
If a local government plans to grow beyond its Committed Areas,Growth Areas are to be established
by a vote of the people,after being proposed by the City Council(see Attachment 1,page 3). These
Growth Areas are to include lands that can be served by roads, and central water and sewer, within
ten years following their adoption. They would have to be contiguous to a Committed Area or
previously approved growth area.The Growth Area Maps must be approved at general elections in
November. The first such opportunity would be November 2001. Any subsequent changes to
Growth Areas would need to be approved by the voters at a November election.
The proposed Growth Areas must be described to the voters in Growth Impact Disclosures which
map the areas,state the generalized land uses proposed,and describe the effects of proposed growth
on a number of public services and facilities(see Attachment 1,page 4). If approved by the voters,
then local government would be free to review and approve development applications in the area.
In evaluating the proposed Amendment, staff has considered not only the effects of its passage on
Fort Collins, but also to a lesser extent the likely effects on other jurisdictions, and upon growth
management statewide. The following Pro/Con analysis is offered for Council's consideration:
Pros
i
The City of Fort Collins has supported legislative changes to mandate local land use planning at the
last three General Assemblies. Specifically, in the last session, the Council supported Senator
Sullivant's Responsible Growth Act, and Mayor Pro Tem Wanner testified in Denver. While
significantly different from the prior legislative proposals, this Amendment would mandate a
minimal level of local planning,based on paying for three key urban services(central water,central
sewer, and roads).
Counties and Cities would both be subject to the provisions of the Amendment, if the county
population exceeds 25,000. (There are "opt out" provisions for certain counties, not including
Larimer.) Thus, the playing field would be leveled somewhat, by requiring county Growth Areas
to be provided with these key urban services.
Jurisdictions with competing Growth Areas would be required to coordinate and cooperate, or risk
invalidation of their Growth Areas.
i
Jurisdictions would be required to provide a significant amount of information to local voters about
the planning elements of the proposed Growth Areas, and effects of new development in them on
the community.
DATE: October 3, 2000 3 ITEM NUMBER: 31
The Amendment could reduce the incidence of fiscal annexation, where communities overreach to
annex attractive commercial or industrial lands. These are frequently flagpole annexations,and the
land involved bears little relationship to the annexing jurisdiction. Services are difficult to provide.
Communities would be required to consider the fiscal impacts of growth decisions.
The need for growth management in Colorado is clear, and consistently tops the list of issues of
concern in polls.
Quality of life provides significant economic benefits to the State's economy. Protecting that quality
of life through planning and growth management may enhance Colorado's ability to attract clean
industry.
Cons
Two criticisms of the Amendment are based on governance considerations. First, the Amendment
will be constitutional,not legislative. It will be difficult to change when flaws are detected,because
amendments will require a vote of the people of the state. Second, it removes an important class of
decisions from the prerogative of local elected bodies.
The Amendment does not"grandfather"or ratify prior plans or intergovernmental agreements that
achieve essentially the same outcomes that it is seeking. Thus,the Fort Collins Growth Management
Area adopted in 1997 with City Plan and the Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County
would cease to have much validity. New, presumably smaller, growth areas will have to be
established.
The planning process mandated in the Amendment takes ten years of capital spending as its
foundation. This is at variance with accepted municipal planning practice, and may or may not be
related to reasonable population or employment growth projections for a city. This ten-year horizon
is less than the 20-year planning period contained in City Plan,and less than what is typically found
in municipal comprehensive plans.
The establishment of Growth Areas is limited to November elections. Failure of a proposal in an
election would require waiting twelve months before proposing a new map to the voters. It is
reasonable to expect that this will disrupt the flow of development applications to meet anticipated
market demands in some housing markets. Rises in housing prices can reasonably be expected to
follow.
Voters must also approve amendments to Growth Areas. Fort Collins has amended the Structure
Plan (similar to a Growth Map) nine times since adoption in 1997. These amendments have been
in response to property owner zone change actions, and City Council adoption of neighborhood
plans. This suggests that either (1) these changes would have had to be voted on, or (2) a growth
map would have to be less specific than our current Structure Plan to allow minor boundary shifting,
routine updates, and zoning adjustments.
The treatment of special districts under the Amendment is ambiguous, even contradictory. In
Section 6, it states that Development undertaken by special districts (among others) "shall also be
in accordance with the growth area map" (see Attachment 1, page 5). At the same time,
Development is defined in Section 2 to exclude public utilities. Also, Section 9(5) exempts
DATE: October 3, 2000 4 ITEM NUMBER: 31
"publicly owned facilities necessary for the pubic health...." (see Attachment 1, page 6).
Exempting key urban service providers whose facilities are at the heart of the Growth Area
designations appears to be a serious flaw.
The Amendment will serve as a wellspring of litigation because of its complicated and ambiguous
provisions. In addition to the "special districts" conundrum mentioned above, the Amendment
creates questions regarding the development of schools. Development is defined as "commercial,
residential, or industrial' which would seem not to include schools, hospitals,etc. Yet, in Section
6 the Amendment requires"development undertaken by school districts [to be] in accordance with
the growth area map"unless exempted by the City under Section 9(5).
No dispute resolution process is provided,even though coordination among jurisdictions is required.
No agency is required to establish a procedure. In areas where no spirit of regional cooperation
exists, the courts will likely be the forum for disputes.
The Amendment does not provide any funding for local planning efforts required by its provisions.
The Colorado Department of Local Affairs has estimated a statewide financial impact on local
jurisdictions of$60 million. The proponents of the Amendment dispute this figure. Fort Collins
staff estimates that there will be local costs in the neighborhood of$500,000. (This is significantly
less that the DOLA estimate.) If this estimate is accurate, it will disrupt the work programs and
budgets in City departments, and progress on the Council Policy Agenda.
Staff is concemed that the Amendment,in practice,may actually stimulate rather than retard sprawl.
In communities where the negative impacts of growth are felt most acutely,voters will be less likely
to approve Growth Areas. Voters may be more willing to accept Growth Areas in surrounding
smaller communities and unincorporated areas. This likely failure to curb sprawl was cited by the
CML Board in their opposition (Attachment 4).
The retroactive nature of the valid development application to establish committed areas is already
generating undesirable responses in the land markets. Some property owners are filing simultaneous
applications for annexation to more than one community. This will obviously result in less than
optimal growth management.
The Amendment preempts"any inconsistent provision of this constitution"including the home rule
provisions of the Colorado Constitution. The City has the right to protect its constitutional home
rule powers.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
The following attachments provide additional background information.
Attachment 1: Text of the proposed Amendment.
Attachment 2: Q&A format provided by the proponents of the Amendment, which offers
explanations to many questions that have been raised since the language was
finalized.
Attachment 3: Summary of the Amendment published in the Colorado Municipal League
newsletter.
Attachment 4: Text of the Resolution the CML Board adopted in opposition.
RESOLUTION 2000-127
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED AMENDMENT 24
AMENDING THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION BY THE ADDITION OF A
NEW ARTICLE TO BE ENTITLED "CITIZEN MANAGEMENT OF GROWTH"
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins, like the State of Colorado, is facing unprecedented
growth in population; and
WHEREAS,this population increase has placed extraordinary pressure on the state's natural
resources and infrastructure, due to the rapid expansion of the state's urban areas; and
WHEREAS, the need for regional planning and growth management has resulted in
numerous legislative proposals, both at the state and local levels; and
WHEREAS, the Colorado State Legislature has been unable to agree upon statewide
legislation that would begin to address the myriad of growth-related problems facing the residents
of the state and has even been unwilling to bring the question of such legislation out of committee
and before the full legislature for debate; and
WHEREAS, in the absence of statewide standards for growth management, a coalition of
. environmental and planning groups has initiated proposed Amendment 24 to amend the Colorado
Constitution by the addition of a new Article to be entitled "Citizen Management of Growth" (the
"Amendment"), which Amendment would impose certain procedural and functional requirements
or restrictions upon Colorado municipalities and counties with regard to the development of land;
and
WHEREAS, the City has supported various legislative attempts to mandate local land use
planning and, as exemplified by the City Comprehensive Plan ("City Plan") and the Land Use Code
enacted by the City in 1997,the City strongly supports careful,measured and managed growth; and
WHEREAS, even though the Council generally supports the concept of measured and
managed growth,the Council believes that the Amendment is not in the best interests of the citizens
of the City or the State for the following reasons:
A. The Amendment would preempt "any inconsistent provision of this Constitution"
including the home rule provisions of the Constitution, which provisions the City has long fought
to protect;and because of its preemption powers,the Amendment would remove an important class
of decisions from the prerogative of local elected bodies.
B. The Amendment would not respect prior planning efforts of municipalities and
counties, and accordingly,portions of City Plan,and particularly the Intergovernmental Agreement
with Larimer County regarding the Fort Collins Growth Management Area, would cease to have
much validity and new,presumably smaller growth areas would have to be established, if at all,by
voter approval.
C. The Amendment would require jurisdictions to plan ten years of capital spending in
support of growth, which is at variance with accepted municipal practice. (The City has developed
City Plan on a twenty-year planning period schedule.)
D. Under the Amendment, growth areas could only be established through November
general elections. Limiting the establishment of growth areas to annual elections would disrupt the
flow of development applications to meet anticipated market demands in certain housing markets
which would result in inflationary pressure on housing prices.
E. Since voter approval would have to be obtained prior to any amendment of a growth
area map, boundary adjustments could only be made annually, following voter approval, and the
Amendment is unclear as to whether zoning adjustments and proposed land uses could be shifted
without voter approval.
F. The Amendment is ambiguous and contradictory in its handling of special districts,
school districts and others and, if approved by the voters, would serve as a well-spring of litigation
because it defines development to include only"commercial,residential or industrial construction",
specifically excluding public utilities from the term"development"while at the same time requiring
that development undertaken in growth areas by political subdivisions of the state, special districts
and school districts, among others, must be in accordance with the growth area maps, unless
exempted by the local government having jurisdiction.
G. The Amendment, containing internally conflicting provisions as described in
paragraph F above,is a proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution. The conflicts and flaws
contained in the Amendment would be extremely difficult to correct because changes to the
Constitution require a vote of the people of the state.
H. Although cooperation would be required under the Amendment,no dispute resolution
process would be provided,and dispute resolution would likely occur in the courts,subjecting many
municipalities and counties to expensive litigation.
I. The Amendment would constitute an unfunded mandate in that it would provide no
funding source to support local planning efforts that would be required if the Amendment passes.
Staff estimates that the cost that would be incurred by the City in attempting to implement the
Amendment would be approximately one-half million dollars, which cost would disrupt the work
programs in City departments and would disrupt progress on the City Council's Policy Agenda.
J. The Amendment may, in practice, stimulate rather than retard sprawl by pushing
growth onto less populated areas on the Eastern Plains and requiring connecting infrastructure from
such new communities to the Front Range.
• K. The retroactive nature of the Amendment's provisions regarding the establishment
of"committed areas,"hinging upon the filing of a"valid development application," has and would
continue to generate undesirable responses in land markets by reason of property owners'filing of
simultaneous applications for annexation to more than one community.
L. Passage of the Amendment is likely to encourage growth in areas of the state that are
receptive to lower quality,expansive development that would meet only the minimal requirements
of the Amendment, while development would be less likely to occur in areas of the state that are
more concerned about the negative impacts and costs of development. Such growth patterns,if they
occur, would have a negative effect upon the state's natural resources.
M. There are other kinds of statewide growth management mechanisms that have been
implemented in other jurisdictions, such as adequate public facilities programs, that should be
considered as models for statewide legislation in Colorado in place of the more drastic,cumbersome
and potentially counterproductive measures proposed by the Amendment.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the City Council hereby expresses its opposition to Amendment 24.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 3rd day of October,
A.D. 2000.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
•
Attachment 1
THE RESPONSIBLE GROWTH INITIATIVE
. (FINAL VERSION SUBMITTED TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE ON 4/21/00)
ARTICLE XXVIII
CITIZEN MANAGEMENT OF GROWTH
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO:
The constitution of the state of Colorado is hereby amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW
ARTICLE to read:
Section 1. Purpose. THE PEOPLE OF COLORADO FIND THAT RAPID, UNPLANNED
AND UNREGULATED GROWTH THROUGH DEVELOPMENT AND SUBDIVISION OF LAND
IS A MATTER OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE AND CONCERN, BECAUSE IT IS CAUSING
SERIOUS HARM TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE BY CONSUMING LARGE
TRACTS OF OPEN SPACE AND FARM AND RANCH LANDS, SCENIC VISTAS AND
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC SITES; IMPOSING UNFAIR TAX BURDENS ON
EXISTING RESIDENTS; OVERBURDENING POLICE PROTECTION, EMERGENCY
SERVICES, SCHOOLS, ROADS, WATER SUPPLIES, AND OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES AND
SERVICES, CREATING INCREASED LEVELS OF TRAFFIC CONGESTION, CAUSING
UNHEALTHY LEVELS OF AIR AND WATER POLLUTION; HARMING WII.DLIFE,
BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEMS; AND IMPAIRING THE ABILITY OF CITIES, CITY AND
COUNTIES, COUNTIES, AND TOWNS TO MAINTAIN COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND
PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS. THE PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE IS TO REQUIRE CITIZEN
MANAGEMENT OF GROWTH, BY PROVIDING VOTERS WITH INFORMATION
CONCERNING GROWTH IMPACTS, BY PROVIDING VOTERS WITH CONTROL OVER
GROWTH AREAS IN THEIR COMMUNITIES, AND BY REQUIRING COORDINATION
AMONG LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITH RESPECT TO PROPOSED GROWTH AREAS. THIS
ARTICLE SHALL PRE-EMPT ANY INCONSISTENT PROVISION OF THIS CONSTITUTION,
STATE STATUTE, LOCAL ORDINANCE, OR OTHER PROVISION OF LAW.
Section 2. Definitions. AS USED IN THIS ARTICLE, UNLESS THE CONTEXT
OTHERWISE REQUIRES:
(1) "CENTRAL WATER AND SEWER SERVICE" MEANS THE PROVISION OF
POTABLE WATER AND DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE BY MEANS OF WATER SUPPLY
PIPES LEADING FROM A WATER TREATMENT PLANT OR COMMUNITY WELL
AND SANITARY SEWER PIPES LEADING TO AN EFFLUENT TREATMENT
PLANT THAT IS NOT A FREESTANDING PACKAGE PLANT.
(2) "COMMITTED AREA" MEANS AN AREA OF LAND WHICH HAS BEEN
COMMITTED TO DEVELOPMENT, IN THAT THE LAND MEETS ONE OR MORE
OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA:
(a) AS OF THE DATE ON WHICH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BECOMES
SUBJECT TO THIS ARTICLE, ALL OF THE LAND IS CONTAINED WITHIN
A RECORDED SUBDIVISION OR TOWNSITE AND AT LEAST 50% OF THE
LOTS IN SUCH SUBDIVISION OR TOWNSITE (I) HAVE HAD PERMANENT,
PRIMARY STRUCTURES CONSTRUCTED ON THEM OR (II)HAVE HAD
CENTRAL WATER AND SEWER SERVICES EXTENDED TO THEM AND
ALL LOTS ARE OR SHALL BE SERVED BY CENTRAL WATER AND
SEWER WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT IS COMPLETE; OR
(b) A VALID DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION AS TO SUCH LAND, THE
APPROVAL OF WHICH WOULD RESULT IN DEVELOPMENT THAT SHALL
BE SERVED BY CENTRAL WATER AND SEWER SERVICES, HAS BEEN
SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AS OF THE
DATE ON WHICH THE 2000 GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT WAS
CERTIFIED BY THE COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE; OR
(c) THE LAND HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AS
AN AREA FOR DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT AND IT(i)
DIRECTLY ABUTS, EXCEPT FOR INTERVENING DEDICATED PUBLIC
STREETS OR ROADS, AREAS MEETING THE CRITERIA OF PARAGRAPH
(a) OF SUBSECTION (2) HEREOF ALONG 100% OF ITS PERIMETER, OR
ALONG AT LEAST 50% OF ITS PERIMETER;AND BY PERMANENTLY
PROTECTED OPEN SPACES, FEDERAL LANDS, OR BODIES OF WATER
ALONG THE REMAINDER OF ITS PERIMETER.
(3) "DEVELOPMENT" MEANS COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL, OR INDUSTRIAL
CONSTRUCTION OR OTHER ACTIVITY.WHICH CHANGES THE BASIC CHARACTER
OR THE USE OF THE LAND SO AS TO PERMIT COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL OR
INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION. "DEVELOPMENT" SHALL NOT INCLUDE THE
CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, OR REPLACEMENT, OF
FACILITIES FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS, PUBLIC UTILITIES, MINING OF
MINERALS AND CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND
PRODUCTION, OR FOR THE DIVERSION, STORAGE, TRANSPORTATION, OR USE
OF WATER WITHIN THE STATE OF COLORADO.
(4) "GROWTH AREA" IS AN AREA SHOWN ON A GROWTH AREA MAP
APPROVED BY THE VOTERS AS AN AREA WITHIN WHICH DEVELOPMENT MAY
OCCUR.
(5) "LOCAL GOVERNMENT" MEANS ALL STATUTORY, CHARTER AND HOME
RULE CITIES AND TOWNS, HOME RULE AND STATUTORY COUNTIES, AND CITIES
AND COUNTIES.
(6) "REGULAR ELECTION" MEANS AN ELECTION HELD ON THE FIRST
TUESDAY AFTER THE FIRST MONDAY IN NOVEMBER IN EVEN-NUMBERED
YEARS, OR AN ELECTION HELD ON THE FIRST TUESDAY IN NOVEMBER IN ODD-
NUMBERED YEARS.
(7) "SUBDIVISION" MEANS THE DIVISION OF AN AREA OF LAND OR A
DEFINED LOT OR TRACT INTO TWO OR MORE DEFINED LOTS OR TRACTS.
s 4
(8) "VALID DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION" MEANS AN APPLICATION THAT
SUBSTANTIVELY MEETS ALL OF THE RULES FOR SUBMISSION APPLICABLE TO A
PROPOSAL AND THAT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS TIMELY AND COMPLETE BY THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT REGULATING THE USE OF LAND COVERED BY THE
APPLICATION.
Section 3. Permitted Development. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, UNLESS EXEMPTED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SUBSECTION (1) OR (2) OF SECTION 4 OF THIS ARTICLE, SHALL
ONLY APPROVE DEVELOPMENT (a) WITHIN COMMITTED AREAS, (b) WITHIN GROWTH
AREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH VOTER-APPROVED GROWTH AREA MAPS, OR (c) IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXCEPTIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 9 OF THIS ARTICLE.
Section 4. Growth Area Maps.
(1) THIS ARTICLE SHALL APPLY TO ALL COUNTIES AND CITY AND COUNTIES
WITH A POPULATION GREATER THAN 10,000 RESIDENTS AS SHOWN BY THE MOST
RECENT DECENNIAL CENSUS, OR IF MORE THAN FIVE YEARS HAVE PASSED SINCE
THE LAST CENSUS DATE, THEN THE POPULATION AS SHOWN BY A PROJECTION
PREPARED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS OR ITS SUCCESSOR AS OF THE
BEGINNING OF THE FIFTH YEAR FOLLOWING THAT CENSUS DATE. THE GOVERNING
BODY OF ANY COUNTY WITH A POPULATION OF LESS THAN 25,000 RESIDENTS MAY
SUBMIT A REFERRED QUESTION TO THE VOTERS EXEMPTING FOR A MAXIMUM
PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS THE ENTIRE COUNTY AND ALL LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
. WITHIN IT FROM ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ARTICLE. UPON VOTER APPROVAL OF
SUCH AN EXEMPTION, THIS ARTICLE SHALL NOT APPLY TO SAID COUNTY AND ALL
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITHIN IT FOR THE PERIOD APPROVED BY THE VOTERS. SAID
FOUR-YEAR PERIOD MAY BE RENEWED OR EXTENDED BY A SUBSEQUENT REFERRED
QUESTION.
(2) THIS ARTICLE SHALL ALSO APPLY TO EVERY CITY OR TOWN WITH ANY
PORTION OF ITS CORPORATE LIMITS LOCATED IN ANY COUNTY TO WHICH THIS
ARTICLE APPLIES. CITIES OR TOWNS WITH FEWER THAN 1,000 RESIDENTS SHALL NOT
BE REQUIRED TO PREPARE A GROWTH AREA MAP, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE
GOVERNING BODY OF A CITY OR TOWN OF FEWER THAN 1,000 RESIDENTS SHALL NOT
APPROVE ANY DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD CAUSE THE CITY'S OR TOWN'S
POPULATION TO EXCEED 1,000 UNTIL THE VOTERS OF THAT CITY OR TOWN HAVE
APPROVED A GROWTH AREA MAP WITH RESPECT THERETO AS REQUIRED BY THIS
ARTICLE.
(3) EVERY LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUBJECT TO THIS ARTICLE SHALL
DELINEATE ITS COMMITTED AREAS NOT LATER THAN DECEMBER 31, 2001 OR WITHIN
ONE YEAR OF BECOMING SUBJECT TO THIS ARTICLE, WHICHEVER OCCURS LATER.
(4) A GROWTH AREA MAP SHALL INCLUDE A MAP AND TEXT DESCRIBING A
PROPOSED GROWTH AREA AND SHALL IDENTIFY THE GENERAL LOCATIONS OF EACH
• PROPOSED LAND USE AND THE GENERAL RANGE OF DEVELOPMENT DENSITIES
WITHIN SUCH GROWTH AREA. NO PROPOSED GROWTH AREA MAY BE DESIGNATED
ON A GROWTH AREA MAP UNLESS THE DEVELOPMENT IN SUCH AREA SHALL BE
SERVED BY A CENTRAL WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM AND ROADS, WHICH CAN BE
CONSTRUCTED CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE BORROWING, TAXING, AND
SPENDING LMTATIONS, WITHIN TEN YEARS FOLLOWING VOTER APPROVAL. FOR
EVERY CITY, CITY AND COUNTY, OR TOWN, EACH PROPOSED GROWTH AREA SHALL
ABUT ALONG ONE SIXTH OR MORE OF ITS PERIMETER TO A COMMITTED AREA OR TO
ONE OR MORE GROWTH AREAS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE VOTERS
OF THE PROPOSING CITY, CITY AND COUNTY, OR TOWN. EACH GROWTH AREA MAP
AND ITS TEXT:
(a) SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GROWTH IMPACT DISCLOSURES
SET FORTH IN SECTION 5 OF THIS ARTICLE;
(b) SHALL BE DEVELOPED WITH CITIZEN PARTICIPATION, INCLUDING,
PRIOR TO BEING REFERRED FOR VOTER APPROVAL, AT LEAST ONE
PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR
EQUIVALENT BODY, AND AT LEAST ONE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE
THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE PROPOSING LOCAL GOVERNMENT
UPON THIRTY DAYS' PUBLISHED NOTICE-;AND
(c) SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH GROWTH PROPOSED BY OTHER LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS, IN THAT GROWTH AREA MAPS (I) SHALL BE
DEVELOPED IN COOPERATION WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF EACH
COUNTY IN WHICH THE PROPOSED GROWTH AREA IS LOCATED AND
ANY OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT THAT SHARES A COMMON
BOUNDARY WITH THE PROPOSED GROWTH AREA; AND (II) SHALL NOT
CONFLICT WITH OR OVERLAP THE GROWTH AREA MAP THAT
ANOTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS PROPOSING FOR APPROVAL AT
THE SAME ELECTION OR WHICH HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
BY THE VOTERS OF ANOTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
Section 5. Voter Approval and Growth Impact Disclosures. THE GOVERNING BODY OF
EACH LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROPOSING A GROWTH AREA SHALL REFER EACH
PROPOSED GROWTH AREA MAP TO A POPULAR VOTE AT A REGULAR ELECTION.
(1) THE BALLOT TITLE AND SUBMISSION CLAUSE FOR THE REFERENDUM
SHALL BRIEFLY SUMMARIZE THE PROPOSED GROWTH AREA WITHOUT ARGUMENT
OR PREJUDICE, AND SHALL ASK WHETHER THE PROPOSED GROWTH AREA MAP
SHALL BE ADOPTED.
(2) THE PROPOSING LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHALL PROVIDE GROWTH
IMPACT DISCLOSURES THAT DESCRIBE THE IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT ALLOWED
BY THE PROPOSED GROWTH AREA MAP, THE GROWTH AREA MAP AND THE
ASSOCIATED GROWTH IMPACT DISCLOSURES SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED TO VOTERS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 (3). THE
GROWTH IMPACT DISCLOSURES SHALL DESCRIBE:
(a) THE ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSED GROWTH AREA, INCLUDING, IF
APPLICABLE, OPEN SPACES AND PARKS, NEW PUBLIC FACILITIES
AND INFRASTRUCTURE, INCLUDING LAW ENFORCEMENT,
EMERGENCY AND HEALTH SERVICES, RECREATIONAL FACILITIES,
ROADS, ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION, SCHOOLS, FIRE
PROTECTION FACILITIES, WATER AND SEWER SERVICES, THE INITIAL
AND ONGOING COSTS FOR SUCH FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE,
AND THE PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCES FOR THESE COSTS; NUMBER
OF HOUSING UNITS, INCLUDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, AND
ANY LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVENUE SHARING ARRANGEMENTS;
AND
(b) THE ANTICIPATED EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED GROWTH, INCLUDING-
PROJECTED POPULATION INCREASE; TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
IMPACTS WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE GROWTH AREA; PROJECTED
EFFECT UPON REGIONAL AIR QUALITY; WATER SUPPLY NEEDED AND
THE ANTICIPATED SOURCES AND COST OF THE WATER SUPPLY; AND
HOW THE PROPOSED GROWTH AREA MAP CONFLICTS OR
COORDINATES WITH GROWTH AREA MAPS EITHER APPROVED BY, OR
BEING PROPOSED TO, THE VOTERS OF ADJACENT LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS.
(3) ALL GROWTH IMPACT DISCLOSURES SHALL BE BASED UPON THE
BEST GENERALLY AVAILABLE DATA ROUTINELY USED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT
PLANNERS IN THIS STATE IN THE PREPARATION OF MASTER PLANS AND
COMPREHENSIVE PLANS.
. Section 6. Allowed Actions within Growth Area. ALL DEVELOPMENT, SUBDIVISION OF
LAND, CHANGES IN LAND USE OR DENSITY, AND CONSTRUCTION OR EXTENSION OF
CENTRAL WATER OR SEWER SYSTEMS OR ROADS ON LAND THAT IS WITHIN A VOTER-
APPROVED GROWTH AREA SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GROWTH AREA
MAP. DEVELOPMENT UNDERTAKEN BY OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THE
STATE, ENTERPRISES, SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS, SPECIAL DISTRICTS, TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS, OR SCHOOL DISTRICTS, SHALL ALSO BE N
ACCORDANCE WITH THE GROWTH AREA MAP.
Section 7. Development within Committed Areas. DEVELOPMENT OR SUBDIVISON OF
LAND WITHIN A COMMITTED AREA MAY BE COMPLETED WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL
IF THE DEVELOPMENT IS COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED PLANS, AND
ANY APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES.
Section 8. Amendment to Growth Area Maps. ANY LOCAL GOVERNMENT MAY REFER
AN ISSUE TO THE VOTERS TO AMEND AN APPROVED GROWTH AREA MAP AT A
REGULAR ELECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN THIS
ARTICLE.
Section 9. Lands Outside Committed Areas and Growth Areas. NO DEVELOPMENT OR
SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE APPROVED FOR LAND NOT INCLUDED IN A
COMMITTED AREA OR AN APPROVED GROWTH AREA, EXCEPT THAT A LOCAL
GOVERNMENT MAY APPROVE OR ALLOW, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS LAND USE
RULES AND REGULATIONS:
(1) DEVELOPMENT WHICH (a) DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY FURTHER LOCAL
GOVERNMENT APPROVALS OR(b)REQUIRES ONLY THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING
PERMIT;
(2) DEVELOPMENT OR SUBDIVISION OF LAND CONSISTENT WITH A
VALID DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION WHICH HAD BEEN FILED AS OF THE DATE ON
WHICH THE 2000 GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT WAS CERTIFIED BY THE COLORADO
SECRETARY OF STATE;
(3) THE CREATION OF NO MORE THAN THREE LOTS OF NO MORE THAN
TWO ACRES EACH TO ACCOMMODATE RESIDENCES OF IMMEDIATE FAMILY
MEMBERS OF AN AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY OWNER;
(4) A DIVISION OF LAND THAT IS NOT SUBJECT TO ITS CONTROL AS A
SUBDIVISION OF LAND BASED ON STATUTES IN EFFECT AT THE TIME THE LAND IS
SUBDIVIDED;
(5) PUBLICLY OWNED FACILITIES NECESSARY FOR THE PUBLIC HEALTH,
SAFETY, OR WELFARE;
(6) A DIVISION OF LAND THAT IS PERMITTED BY STATUTE AS A RURAL
CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ARTICLE;
(7) NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF LESS THAN TEN THOUSAND
SQUARE FEET TO PERMIT RETAIL OR SERVICE USE WHERE NO OTHER RETAIL OR
SERVICE USES ARE LOCATED WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE SITE; AND
(8) COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, OTHER THAN
CONFINED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS OR RELATED FACILITIES, THAT PROVIDES
ONLY GOODS OR SERVICES TO SUPPORT NEARBY AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS, IN
AN AREA WHERE THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL SITES WITHIN
ONE MILE.
Section 10. Private Property Rights. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION IS INTENDED TO
AFFECT OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS AFFORDED TO PRIVATE PROPERTY.
Section 11. Interpretation. THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED TO
EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES SET OUT IN SECTION 1. ANY LAWS ENACTED IN
DEROGATION OF THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED.
Attachment 2
�` � �,n ;�� � mk a r°r 4V R�'•�1��u� � 4 W8x i fi4 I� r b9�Y'i ,a sun re W2Pr�h �.
, 3m
COTi,,rRavrx
r
Growth Area Maas
What does a Growth Area Map include? Can open space be designated on a
Growth Area Map?
Growth Area Maps are generalized land use maps showing general land uses and
ranges of proposed development densities. They do not require the level of detail
found in site plans or engineering/utility maps. Those local governments that
want to create more detailed maps and to include open spaces, public utilities, or
public improvements could do so.
What are the differences between a Growth Area Map that a city or county would
prepare under the initiative and a comprehensive plan?
Growth Area Maps differ from comprehensive plan maps in that less detail may
• be required. Comprehensive plan maps often show road and open space
networks, as well as major public facilities, that are not required on Growth Area
Maps. Comprehensive Plans also cover a much broader range of issues than
would need to be covered in planning or Growth Impact Disclosures.
Can cities propose Growth Area Maps that would include land coverage outside
their current jurisdictions?
Yes. The initiative does not address annexation at all, and does not limit Growth
Area Maps to include only land within municipal boundaries. If land outside of
current municipal boundaries is included in a Growth Area Map, it could later be
annexed pursuant to existing annexation law. A municipality could also annex
land that isn't denoted on a Growth Area Map. However, that land couldn't be
developed until it was included as part of a Growth Area Map approved by voters.
Municipalities that wish to submit a Growth Area Map including land outside
their boundaries should ensure that the Growth Area Map is not inconsistent with
those of other local governments, since inconsistent Growth Area Maps would be
subject to legal challenge.
Who is eligible to vote on a proposed Growth Area Map?
Each Growth Area Map is submitted to a vote of the electors within the local
government that puts it on the ballot. If submitted by a city, it would be a vote of
1
all electors in the city. If submitted by a county, it would include all of the
residents of the county—including those living within municipalities.
Would all development stop in a city or county if voters chose to reject the proposed
Growth Area Map?
No. The initiative allows for growth to continue in Committed Areas at any time —
even before a Growth Area Map is submitted to the voters, or after a proposed
Growth Area is defeated. However, commercial, industrial, or residential
development could not take place in a proposed Growth Area unless the voters
approve it.
How often can Growth Area Maps be adjusted or updated?
Growth Area Maps can be adjusted or updated once each year at the November
election.
Committed Areas
Does land within an incorporated municipal boundary automatically qualify as a
committed area?
No. Land within an incorporated municipal boundary does not automatically
qualify as a Committed Area. There could be incorporated lands that are not
Committed Areas, and growth could not take place on these lands until they are
proposed as a Growth Area and approved by the voters.
How will the initiative affect a city's or county's ability to manage development
within a committed area?
Once a Growth Area is approved, development in that area would be subject to
the city or county's standard land use regulations — including zoning and
subdivision. The initiative makes voter approval for growth outside of
Committed Areas a prerequisite for growth, but does not replace or rescind any
existing controls once voter approval is gained. Development within the
approved Growth Area must be consistent with the general land uses and densities
shown on the approved Growth Area Map and with any growth impact
disclosures made to the voters during the election process.
Would every single application to a locality seeking some type of building or
development permission have to be referred to the electorate for voter approval?
No. Once voters have approved a Growth Area Map, further votes would not be
required to issue permits and approvals consistent with that map and the growth
impact disclosures. The initiative only requires a vote on the Growth Area Map
itself. Applications seeking permission for development in previously Committed
Areas would also remain unaffected.
2
Why don't counties have the same contiguity requirement for new development to
which cities are subject? Won't this encourage sprawl type growth in more rural,
undeveloped areas?
Counties do not have a contiguity requirement for Growth Areas, because some
existing Committed Areas may not be contiguous with a municipality, and
because it may make sense to approve future Growth Area Maps that are not
consistent with existing areas. For example, it may be reasonable to approve an
expansion of an unincorporated town with a central water and sewer system rather
than to approve the expansion of a city.
The initiative addresses the possibility of future sprawl by requiring that Growth
Areas be developed with central water and sewer systems — which will encourage
more compact development forms.
What is the intention of the requirement that development within committed areas
be served by central water and sewer systems and roads within ten years following
voter approval?
The initiative does not require that Growth Areas actually be served by water and
sewer systems within 10 years after approval. Instead, it requires that the
development be planned for central water and sewer systems and that no land be
• included in the Growth Area Map if it could not be served with central water and
sewer systems within 10 years under Colorado's current taxing and spending and
special district laws. The intent is to require that Growth Area Maps not be based
on unrealistic assumptions about how much money will be available to fund
expensive utility systems. The requirement for central water and sewer systems
was included in the initiative to address the increasing depletion of groundwater
supplies, the contamination of groundwater supplies by septic tanks and other
pollution sources, as well as to encourage the concentration of new growth around
more dense development.
Costs
What localities will be affected by the initiative? What about smaller communities
that are growing slowly, or don't have the resources to do intensive planning?
Won't the planning and election processes that the initiative requires cities and
counties to undertake cost these localities significant amounts of money?
The initiative covers counties with over 25,000 population, and cities and towns
with over 1,000 population within those counties. All counties with less that
10,000 population (including all of their cities and towns) are exempt. Towns of
less than 1,000 in the bigger counties are only required to delineate their
Committed Areas. In addition, the electors in any county with a population
between 10,000 and 25,000 may vote to exempt themselves from the
• requirements of the initiative for periods of 4 years at a time.
3
Based on their current populations the following counties (and their cities) are
subject to the measure: Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Delta, Denver, Douglas,
Eagle, El Paso, Fremont, Garfield, Jefferson, La Plata, Latimer, Mesa, Montrose,
Morgan, Pueblo, and Weld. Voters in the following counties may vote to exempt
themselves from the measure's requirements for a period of four years: Alamosa,
Chaffee, Elbert, Grand, Gunnison, Las Animas, Logan, Moffat, Montezuma,
Otero, Park, Pitkin, Prowers, Rio Grande, Routt, Summit, and Teller. All other
counties are currently exempt from the measure's requirements.
In the short run, the initiative requires that covered local governments map their
Committed Areas within about one year after this November's election. In many
cases, it will be clear what areas meet the definition of a Committed Area. In
other cases, planners may need to examine utility line maps or subdivision maps
to determine exactly which areas are committed. This is a routine planning
activity that most local governments will be able to accomplish without the use of
outside consultants.
Other costs created by the initiative only occur when a local government wants to
propose a Growth Area Map. In that case, it will incur the costs of preparing a
general land use and density map for the area (or reviewing and endorsing one
submitted by private landowners in the area), and for analyzing the potential
impacts of the proposed development in adequate detail to make the required
growth impact disclosures to the electors. The initiative specifies that this
analysis can be made at a level of detail adequate for comprehensive planning --
i.e., it does not require the type of detailed site-specific analysis that many local
governments use during site planning for specific development proposals. The
initiative does not restrict local governments from requesting or requiring that
private parties that would benefit from approval of a Growth Area Map pay for
the election and disclosure costs for a proposed Growth Area Map.
Several national studies have determined that more compact growth results in
infrastructure construction and maintenance savings that significantly outweigh
the direct costs of additional planning and approvals. In addition, for
communities covered by the initiative that have less resources, Governor Owens'
proposed Office of Smart Growth could provide grants to assist with their
planning process.
Government Powers & Relations
How will the initiative affect existing intergovernmental agreements?
The initiative does not exempt land use decisions based on prior
intergovernmental agreements. Parties to those agreements might be subject to a
legal challenge if they approve development inconsistent with the initiative, and it
is not clear how Colorado's courts would decide those cases. In most cases,
4
• intergovernmental agreements provide mechanisms to amend the agreement, and
it may be wise to revisit those agreements in light of the initiative.
What avenues exist for a city or county to resolve disputes with another locality
concerning proposed growth areas?
The drafters of the initiative did not want to create a bureaucracy or another level
of government in order to oversee compliance with its terms. It contains
incentives for local governments to consult with each other before placing Growth
Area Maps on the ballot. If local governments fail to resolve a dispute affecting
their Growth Area Maps, their ballot issues could be invalidated by legal
challenge. No formal dispute resolution process is specified by the initiative. In
addition, during the past several years, the state legislature has considered several
bills incorporating alternative dispute resolution procedures for local
governments, and it could decide to enact such a procedure in the future.
How would local governments' eminent domain power be affected by the initiative?
The initiative does not affect eminent domain powers of local governments.
What is a "valid development application"? Does the initiative change the powers
of local governments to decide what types of applications are needed to begin
different development approval procedures?
The initiative does not affect local governments' ability to decide what constitutes
a"valid development application", or to change that decision over time.
If an applicant files a "valid development application" for a rezoning prior to
September 13, 2000, does that application also cover subsequent procedures for
subdivision or site plan approval on the land?
The initiative does not affect local government's ability to decide whether zoning,
subdivision, and site planning are all part of a single approval procedure, or
whether they are separate procedures.
Miscellaneous
How will Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) be affected by the
initiative from the standpoint of county approval?
Under current Colorado law, counties define whether CAFOs are agricultural
operations or commercial/industrial operations. If a county defines a CAFO as an
agricultural operation, its approval would be completely unaffected by the
initiative. If a county defines a CAFO as a commercial/industrial operation a new -
CAFO would have to be located in a Growth Area approved by voters.
Consequently, counties will continue to hold authority over the approval of
CAFOs.
5
Why does this initiative propose a bottom-up approach for managing growth as
opposed to leaving it in the hands of city and county professional planners and
decision makers?
While many professional planners have been recommending stronger approaches
to growth management for many years, many of those decisions have not been
followed by elected officials, and the result has been unacceptable levels of
sprawl. Colorado needs a new approach to growth management that increases the
chances reasonable growth management plans will be implemented that reflect the
wishes of the state's citizens.
Will the initiative permit wells and septic tanks to continue to be used for both rural
and"suburban developments?
The initiative would allow well and septic systems to be used for development on
lots of 35 acres or more, or on any type of development exempted in Article 9. It
would not allow well and septic ranchette developments unless they are in a
Committed Area or they only need a building permit to proceed. It would
probably not allow other types of well and septic development.
How will levels of affordable housing be affected?
Housing prices fluctuate according to the law of supply and demand. Many
communities in Colorado are currently experiencing expensive and rising housing
costs because Colorado's intense population growth is causing a huge demand for
housing. Due to the single subject limitations on Colorado ballot initiatives, the
Responsible Growth Initiative focuses on citizen management of growth and is
not designed to solve the current affordable housing crisis — but it also won't
cause major increases in housing prices. In fact, by redirecting growth into
existing urban areas and discouraging costly, sprawling development, the
initiative promotes a more compact pattern of development that will benefit the
development of affordable housing and decrease the burden of infrastructure costs
on local taxpayers. The initiative also specifically requires local governments to
tell voters what impacts proposed growth areas will have on affordable housing so
that residents can make informed decisions about growth in their communities.
In addition, it is useful to look at how housing prices have been affected in other
communities that have adopted responsible growth policies. Recent research
indicates housing costs throughout the country have been rising due mainly to the
increased costs of homebuilding, not the increased costs of land. There are many
determinants besides land costs that affect the prices of houses, including land
improvements, home design, home construction, and financing. The Oregon
Building Industry Association, the Marion-Polk Building Industry Association,
the Oregon Association of Realtors, local governments, and others studied the
role of these factors for Oregon's housing market. According to their findings, the
6
price of land accounts for only about one-seventh of the price of new homes in
• Portland, and about 3% in Salem and Eugene-Springfield. (1000 Friends of
Oregon, Myths & Facts about Oregon's Urban Growth Boundaries;
www.friends.ore). This means that 86% of the price of a house in Portland and
97% of the price of a house in Salem or Eugene has little to do with the supply of
land — despite the fact that Oregon passed its stringent statewide land use law
more than 25 years ago. (1000 Friends of Oregon).
Additionally, there's evidence that implementing growth management laws
actually reduces housing costs. Smart growth practices have been shown to
reduce housing costs thanks to the increased availability of housing options
besides large-lot detached homes as well as the cost-effectiveness of utilizing
existing infrastructure (such as roads and sewer lines) instead of building anew.
Rutgers University Professor Robert Burchell found that average unit costs would
be 6-10% lower if better growth management practices were put in place in
communities in Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, and New Jersey. (Transit
Cooperative Research Report 59, 1998). Currently, without New Jersey's
statewide planning act, each new home would cost $12,000415,000 more.
(Rutgers University, Impact Assessment of New Jersey Interim State
Development and Redevelopment Plan, 1992).
What impact will the initiative have on transportation issues?
The initiative has no direct requirement for transportation planning. However, if a
Growth Area Map is proposed, the local government will need to disclose the
transportation impacts of the proposal (at a comprehensive planning level of
analysis). Also, the requirement that Growth Areas be served by central water
and sewer will tend to produce more compact growth, which will increase the
need to invest in existing roads and transit systems, rather than building more
roads to serve less dense development. Ultimately, by increasing the densities of
future land development the initiative should make light rail and other transit
systems more feasible.
•
7
Attachment 3
Val.26.Me. 15
lury 21.2000
cm
CML on the Web: www.cml.org
citizen growth management
ballot issue summarized
by CaroHnne While, StaffAttarney
S uamm
v = = On July 3, the Supreme Court up- This measure adds a new article to
held the ballot title, 'The Citizen the Colorado Constitution entitled
Management of Growth,"for proposed "Citizen Management of Growth." In
Initiative 256.Proponents are now general,the article, which applies only
'�— gathering signatures to place the mea- to counties with populations of greater
sure on the ballot for November.They than 10,000 residents(and their con-
must gather approximately 64,000 sib stituent municipalities) limits the cir-
growth-iniriamie natures by Aug. 7 to make the ballot. cumstances under which new develop-
A summary of the initiative follows. ment may occur to three categories:
Va te A chart showing which municipali- ■Land within "committed areas,"
calgo�eS ties fall into which of the measure's where development has already oc-
categories is on page curred, or has been
Where does your seven.Municipalities Workshop or is being
Community fall? with populations of processed on the
•
page less than 1,000 are preparing for the day of certification
exempt from prepay- Citizen's Growth Initiative el the n ballot,
general
G
ing Growth Area election ballot, and
Maps.Municipalities where the develop-
within counties of Friday, Aug. 11, 1-4 p.m. ment would be
less than 10,000 At CIVIL served by central
population are 1144 Sherman in Denver. water and sewer
exempt entirely. Free but service.
Municipalities within seating is limited. 0 Land within
• r counties between Growth Area
10,00o and 25,000 in Register early: (303) 831-6411. Maps" prepared by
population may be the local govern-
exempt,if the county votes to exempt ment and submitted to the electorate
itself on a countywide basis for four for voter approval. If the map is not
{� h years. Finally, municipalities with approved, development may not occur.
AI IO�aU� populations of 1,000 or more in coup- Significant preparation and analysis
ties with populations of 25,000 or responsibilities are imposed upon local
greater are not exempt in any way. governments in preparing the maps
housing
The League has not taken a position and taking them to election.
DOH sets statewide on the initiative, but continues to ■Exceptions to the measure are pro-
monitor its progress and analyze its vided. including previously approved
workshops. implications. Our growth committee but unbuilt projects and seven other
• page Q will meet in mid-August to consider specific exceptions.
the issues and make a recommendation By its terms,the measure is de-
to the board. In late August,the board clared to be applicable to all general-
will meet and adopt a position. SMSWAWV continued on pave
Classified Corner �"°"°a"' Comin edfrompageI 'Developmepnt" does not include the
construction,operation.maintenance.
purpose local govemments: cities, repair or replacement of facilities for
FOR SALE cities and counties.statutory towns telecommunications,public utilities.
For sale by the city of Greenwood and home-rule municipalities. mining of minerals and construction
Village, one 1996 Elgin Pelican P, AppA0111fy and campllance materials,oil and gas exploration and
three-wheel sweeper, serial number The measure applies to all counties production.or for the diversion,stor-
P2001 D. Please refer to our and with populations greater than 10,000 age,transportation or use of water.
number 8901.00015,081 (Hours residents, including city-counties such Cameimed areas
2,091) Bids will be received no later as Denver and Broomfield. Included A committed area is defined as land
than July 28 at 2 p.m. Bids can be as well is every municipality "with any which
h on the been committed ctive ef themea-
faxed to(303) 706-1795 or bids can portion of its corporate limits located develop-
be mailed to 10001 E. Costilla Ave., in any county to which this article ap- Iment by meeting one or more of three
Greenwood Village, CO 80112.Mark plies." Municipalities with fewer than criteria:
1,000 residents are not required to pre- 1 1.The land is within a recorded
the envelope:Attn: Fleet Services. pare a Growth Area Map unless ap- subdivision or town site and at least 50
Contacts: Shawn Khankan,fleet proval of a development would cause percent of the lots have either had pri-
manager, (303) 708-6125 or their population to exceed 1,000. mary structures built or water and
skhankan@greenwoodvillage.com An exemption is provided for coun- sewer service extended to them,and
or Julie Lafasciano,fleet staff ties with populations of less than all lots will be served by central water
assistant, (303) 708-6124 orjfafas- 25,000 residents,who may submit a and sewer;or
cian0@greenw00dvillage.com. referred question to the voters exempt- 2.A pending development applica-
ing that county lion with respect to
The town of Snowmass Village is and all of the mu- i9i
the land has been
selling two 1993 Bluebird Mini- nicipalities within submitted as of the
it for periods no[ date the 2000 gen-
Buses. For information contact Chip eral election ballot
Foster, (970) 923-2543 or email: to exceed four was certified,but
CfOSter@tOSv.COm. Ye All local gov- only to the extent
emments are re- the property is or
FILING SYSTEM AVAILABLE will be served by
The city of Northglenn has an open- quired rr delineate central water and
shelf bucket filing system available their committed sewer,or
free of charge. Equipment consists areas not later than 3 The land di-
Dec. 31,2001, or .
of 1 stand-alone 45"cabinet; 1 dou- within one year of becoming subject to rectly abuts,with at least 50 percent of
ble-face 90"cabinet; and 1 stand- the article,whichever occurs last. its Perimeter,land meeting criteria
alone 90" (missing "L"bracket)cabi- Development within committed areas number 1 above,and along the re-
net. Contact Diana Lentz, city Clerk, may take place without any further mainder of its perimeter by open
(303) 450-8755 for information. voter approval "if in accordance with space,federal lands or bodies of water;
approved plans and any applicable and the land has been identified for
regulations and guidelines." development.
Allowed development The fact that land is within the mu-
nicipal boundary currently or in the
WL �7�- . r.� The basic premise is that develop- future does not qualify it as a commit-
''' "" ' ment(defined as any commercial,resi-
Published biweekly by the Colorado Municipal League ntial or industrial construction "or ted area unless it also meets one of the
for Colorado's municipal officiais.iCSPS 075-590). de I three criteria above.
Periodical Postage Paid ar Denver.Colorado other activity which changes the basic p�..�.
Communications Manager:Allison Lockwood character or use of the land to permit m VwW ams
Research Assoaiare Ianel HeR such uses")is permitted only within: While the definition and use of the
POSTMASTER:Send address change form 3579 to Committed-area concept permits con-
Colorado Slunicipal league.I I"Shervun Sr. 1• a Committed area.
Denver.CO SO_03--2307;(303)331-bad 1.FAX(303) 2. a voter-approved Growth Area tinued development in areas that have
8e0-8175 hlap; or been finally approved for development
Subscriptions ro C}/L Nnvr/rver are otTered as a portion 3• under one of the exceptions in or are in the process of such approval,
o!member dun.Cou!or nonmembers u S-a00 a ynr. Section 9. the Growth Area blap process is de-
2 CML Newsletter July21,2000
signed to regulate new growth. [TABOR]. The contents of the disclo- of the 2000 general election ballot.
"Growth area" is defined as an area sures are detailed: 1 3.The creation of no more than
shown on a Growth Area Map ap- Major elements of the proposed three lots of no more than two acres
proved by the voters. growth area, including a long list of each to accommodate residences for
A Growth Area Map must be pre- items such as open space.parks, pub- immediate family members of an agri-
ored and submitted to the voters be- lic facilities and infrastructur ,e,roads, cultural property.
e any new development may be schools. fire protection. water and 4. Subdivision of land that is not
permitted, other than in committed ar- sewer, funding sources, number of subject to subdivision control under
eas or areas that qualify under one of housing units including affordable state law at the time the subdivision is
the Section 9 exemptions. The ! housing and revenue arrangements. approved.
Growth Area Map must include a map 1 The measure does not describe who 5. Construction of publicly owned
and text describing the area,the gen- bears the costs of this preparation. facilities for health,safety and welfare
eral locations of land use and a range The anticipated effects of the pro- needs.
of development densities. No land- posed growth including,among other 6. Division of land that is permitted
may be included within a Growth Area
Map "unless central water and sewer
services and roads can be extended to r yet a
the area" within the constraints of
applicable borrowing, taring and
spending limitations, within 10 years
following approval.
Growth areas in municipalities must
abut along one-sixth or more of their
perimeter either a committed area or a .
previously approved growth area. The --
measure does not define how the one-
sixth contiguity is to be calculated.
The one-sixth contiguity requirement
,Ikpplies to municipal growth areas but
t counties.
Growth Area Maps and their text
must be submitted to public notice and
d n.,
hearing before a planning commission
and the elected local governing body _ f;
and are required to be "consistent with
growth proposed by other local gov-
ernments." Growth Area Maps may
not "conflict with or overlap the things,population, transportation, traf- as a cluster development as of the ef-
Growth Area Map that another local fic,air and water qualiy. fective date of the initiative.
government is proposing for approval Apparently any substantial variation 7.Nonresidential development of
at the same election or which has been in the development from the Growth less than 10,000 square feet of land for
previously approved by another local Area Map and the proposal approved retail or service uses,where there are
government." by voters requires approval at a subse- no similar uses located within one
The measure outlines disclosure quent election. mile.
and election procedures for obtaining Section 9 exceptions 8. Commercial or industrial devel-
voter approval of Growth Area Maps. The measure provides eight specific opment providing goods and services
The growth election must be held at a exceptions in addition to the ones lo- to support nearby agricultural opera-
November election. The proposing lo- rated elsewhere: tions (other than confined animal
cal government is required to prepare 1. Development of land requiring feeding operations).■
a ballot title and submission clause no further approvals,other than build-
and detailed "growth impact disclo- ing permits.
sures," which are then sent to voters 2. Development or subdivision un-
s a part of the notices distributed der a valid development application
ursuant to Article X, Section 20(3)" that was pending as of the certification Related stories continue on page 6
July 21,2000 CML Newsletter 3
Municipalities <1,000 i Municipalities in counties 10,000- 25,000
Only required to delineate Committed Areas(unless considering Can exempt selves for four years by countywide vote
application that would boost population>1,000)
Aguilar' Fraser' Montezuma'
Aguilar Grover Pierce Alamosa Frisco Mt.Crested Butte'
Alma Hartman Pitkin Alma Granada' Oak Creek'
Antonito Haswell Poncha Springs Aspen Granby Peetz'
Arriba Hillrose Pritchett Blue River' Grand Lake' Pitkin'
Bethune Holly Ramah Branson' Gunnison Poncha Springs'
Black Hawk Hooper Raymer Breckenridge Hartman Rocky Ford
Blanca Hot Sulphur Springs Red Cliff 1 Buena Vista Hayden Salida
Blue River Hotchkiss Rico Cheraw' Holly' Silverthorne
Bonanza City Hugo Rockvale Cokedale' Hooper' Simla'
Boone Ignacio Romeo Cortez Hot Sulphur Snowmass Village
Bow Mar Iliff Rye Craig Springs' South Fork'
Branson Jamestown Saguache Crested Butte Iliff' Starkville'
Brookside Keenesburg San Luis Cripple Creek Kim' Steamboat Springs
Calhan Kim Sanford Crook' Kiowa' Sterling I
Campo Kiowa Sawpit Del Norte Kremmling Swink'
Central City Kit Carson Sedgwick Dillon' La Junta Trinidad
Cheraw La Jere Seibert Dinosaur' Lamar Victor'
Coal Creek La Vela Severance Dolores Mancos Wiley'
Cokedale Lake City Sheridan Lake Elizabeth Manzanola' Winter Park'
Collbran Lakeside Silver Cliff Fairplay' Marble' Woodland Park
Crawford Larkspur Silver Plume Fleming' Merino' Yampa'
Creede Log Lane Village Silverton Fowler Monte Vista 'town of less than 1,000
Creston Manassa Simla
Crook Manzanola South Fork
Crowley Marble Starkville 'Municipalities in counties over 25,000
De Beque Merino Stratton Cannot exempt selves from any requirements(excludes box 1 towns)
Deer Trail Moffat Sugar City
Dillon Montezuma Swink Arvada Federal Heights Mead
Dinosaur Morrison Timnath Ault Firestone Milliken
Dove Creek Mountain View Two Buttes Aurora Florence Mintum
Eads Mountain Village Victor Avon Fort Collins Montrose
Eckley Mt.Crested Butte Vilas Basalt Fort Lupton Monument
Empire Naturta Vona Bayfield Fort Morgan Morrison
Fairplay Norwood Walden Bennett Fountain Nederland
Flagler Nucla Walsh Berthoud Frederick New Castle
Fleming Nunn Ward Boulder Fruda Northglenn
Foxfield Oak Creek Westcliffe Brighton Gibrest Olathe
Fraser Olney Springs Wiggins Broomfield Glendale Orchard City
Garden City Ophir Wiley Brush Glenwood Springs Palisade
Genoa Otis Williamsburg Canon City Golden Palmer Lake
Granada Ouray Winter Park Carbondale Grand Junction Paonia
Grand Lake Ovid Yampa _ Castle Rock Greeley Parachute
Green Mountain Paoli Cedaredge Greenwood Village Parker
Falls Peetz Cherry Hills Village Gypsum Platteville
Colorado Springs Hudson Pueblo
Columbine Valley Johnstown Rifle
Municipalities in counties <10,000 Commerce City Kersey Sheridan
Exempt from all requirements(excluding those in box 1) j Crawford La Salle Silt
I Dacono Lafayette Superior
Akron Idaho Springs Ridgway 1 Delta Lakewood Thornton
Arriba Julesberg Saguache Denver Larkspur Vail
Burlington Las Animas Springfield Durango Littleton Ward
Center Leadville Telluride Eagle Lochbuie Wellington
Cheyenne Wells Limon Wray Eaton Lone Tree Westminster
Empire Meeker Yuma Edgewater Longmont Wheat Ridge
Georgetown Ordway Englewood Louisville Williamsburg
Haxtun Pagosa Springs Erie Loveland Windsor
Holyoke Rangely Estes Park Lyons
Evans Manitou Springs
July 21,2000 CML Newsletter 7
Attachment 4
• RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO AMENDMENT 24
WHEREAS,Amendment 24 would establish as ambiguous and complicated land use
regulatory system;
WHEREAS,Amendment 24 would be extremely costly and difficult for local
communities to implement; and
WHEREAS, as written the Amendment is unlikely to achieve the proponents'
announced goal of curbing sprawl; and
WHEREAS, as written the Amendment erodes local control;
NOW,THEREFORE,be it resolved that:
The League oppose Amendment 24; and
• The League is authorized to utilize private source revenues consistent with the League's
position, provided such expenditures, along with expenditures for other ballot issues, does not
exceed private source revenues available to the League as of 12/31/99 nor cause the League to
exceed its overall budget for 2000.
(Adopted by CM. Executive Board 9/23/00)
•
7n •i r.i ronnocne -nu voj nnnuai nLIJTnTAIRII on nu cc.cn ra.i nnn� n7 nnu