HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 01/03/2012 - COMPLETE AGENDAKaren Weitkunat, Mayor
Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Mayor Pro Tem Council Chambers
Ben Manvel, District 1 City Hall West
Lisa Poppaw, District 2 300 LaPorte Avenue
Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3
Wade Troxell, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
Gerry Horak, District 6 on the Comcast cable system
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Steve Roy, City Attorney
Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and
will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Assisted hearing devices are available to
the public for Council meetings. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance.
REGULAR MEETING
January 3, 2012
Proclamations and Presentations
5:30 p.m.
A. Proclamation Declaring January 2012 as Colorado Radon Action Month.
B. Proclamation Declaring January 3, 2012 as City Park Day.
Regular Meeting
6:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER.
2. ROLL CALL.
Page 2
3. AGENDA REVIEW:
• City Manager Review of Agenda.
• Consent Calendar Review.
This Review provides an opportunity for Council and citizens to pull items from the Consent
Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this Calendar be “pulled” off the Consent
Calendar and considered separately.
N Council opportunity to pull Consent Calendar items.
(will be considered under Item No. 17)
N Citizen opportunity to pull Consent Calendar items.
(will be considered under Item. No. 19)
4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
5. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FOLLOW-UP
This is an opportunity for the Mayor or Councilmembers to follow-up on issues raised during Citizen
Participation.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar consists of Items 6 through 13. This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council
to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of
the Consent Calendar. The Consent Calendar consists of:
! Ordinance on First Reading that are routine
! Ordinances on Second Reading that are routine
! Those of no perceived controversy
! Routine administrative actions.
Individuals who wish to make comments regarding items remaining on the Consent Calendar or wish to
address the Council on items not specifically scheduled on the agenda must first be recognized by the
Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem. Before speaking, please sign in at the table in the back of the room. The
timer will buzz once when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. The timer will buzz again
at the end of the speaker’s time. Each speaker is allowed 5 minutes. If there are more than 6 individuals
who wish to speak, the Mayor may reduce the time allowed for each individual.
! State your name and address for the record.
! Applause, outbursts or other demonstrations by the audience are not allowed
! Keep comments brief; if available, provide a written copy of statement to City Clerk
Page 3
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the December 6, 2011 Regular Meeting.
7. Postponement of Second Reading of Ordinance No. 183, 2011, Authorizing the Lease of City-owned
Property at 430 North College Avenue and 100 Willow Street to the Colorado State University
Research Foundation to January 17, 2012.
Staff is requesting postponement of Second Reading of Ordinance No. 183, 2012, until January 17,
2012. There were portions of the Lease Agreement that caused concern with the City Council at its
December 20, 2011 meeting. Staff from the City and Colorado State University Research Foundation
need to discuss these areas of concern and agree on changes to the lease. Several of the key team
members will be out of the office for the holiday season. This does not leave enough time to meet
and complete negotiations prior to the meeting of January 3, 2012.
8. First Reading of Ordinance No. 001, 2012, Appropriating General Fund Reserves for Additional City
Contribution to the Poudre Fire Authority Budget for the Year 2012 for Operations and Maintenance.
This Ordinance outlines the contribution from the City of Fort Collins to the Poudre Fire Authority
(PFA) for the Southwest Enclave Annexation in the amount of $158,009 to contribute funding for
operating and maintenance of the Poudre Fire Authority.
9. First Reading of Ordinance No. 002, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General
Fund for the Police Services Victim Services Team.
The Fort Collins Police Services Victim Services Team has been awarded a 12-month grant in the
amount of $30,000 for the period from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012, by the Eighth Judicial
District Victims Assistance and Law Enforcement (V.A.L.E.) Board to help fund services provided by
this team. These funds will be used for part of the salary for the victim advocate who provides crisis
intervention services during weekday hours and is housed in the Victim Services office. These funds
will also pay for some of the operational expenses needed to provide 24-hour a day, 7-day a week
services to victims of crime in the community.
10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 003, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Transportation
Services Fund for the Construction of the East Harmony Road Maintenance Improvements - College
Avenue to Timberline Road.
The proposed project will provide congestion relief and rehabilitate the pavement on East Harmony
Road from College Avenue to Timberline Road by completing the following major work items: turn
lane construction, utility relocations, asphalt overlay and restriping. The lane configurations from
College to Boardwalk will look similar to the current striping. The Boardwalk to Timberline stretch will
be restriped to a six-lane configuration.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 004, 2012, Amending Section 14-72(b)(6) of the City Code to Correct
an Error in the Procedures for Review of Applications for Demolition or Relocation of Historic
Structures.
This is an amendment to Section 14-72(b)(6) of the City Code correcting an error regarding a citation
cross-reference to requirements for the final Landmark Preservation Commission hearing needed in
the event that the Landmark Preservation Commission fails to make a decision within 60 days of the
submittal of these requirements. As the City Code currently stands, this error requires the Landmark
Preservation Commission to make a decision regarding a historic structure demolition application
upon the submittal of only one part of a submittal requirement outlined in 14-72(2)(b). This
amendment corrects the error and requires the Landmark Preservation Commission to make a
decision pursuant to fulfillment of all the submittal requirements.
Page 4
12. Resolution 2012-001 Adopting an Updated Policy for the Review and Approval of Easements on City
Natural Areas and Conserved Lands.
The City of Fort Collins Natural Areas and Open Lands Easement Policy was adopted by Resolution
2001-094. To date, approximately forty right-of-way easements have been granted by the City under
this Policy. The Natural Areas program (NAP) is proposing revisions to the Policy to address:
1. Compensation and mitigation requirements
2. Review and approval of projects proposed within existing easements
3. Above-ground features associated with buried utility cables and pipelines
4. Specific types of facilities
5. Review and approval of projects within new or existing utility easements on lands conserved
with Conservation Easements
6. Oil and Gas and Minerals Exploration and Production
7. Public Information and Review Process.
13. Resolution 2012-002 Authorizing a First Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement between
the Poudre River Public Library District, the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County.
In December 2007 the City Council approved an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between the Fort
Collins Regional Library District (later renamed the Poudre River Public Library District), the City and
Larimer County. That agreement addressed a range of items, including the transfer of City-owned
assets and library operations to the newly formed Library District, use of remaining library impact fees,
and the availability of City support services to the District at District expense.
This amendment to the IGA adds Project Management as a service the City will provide to the District
and provides a detailed scope of project management services. It also clarifies that in the event that
the City receives a request for a refund of City Impact Fees held in the Public Library Fund, the District
will reimburse the City for the full amount of any such refund.
END CONSENT
14. Consent Calendar Follow-up.
This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent
Calendar.
15. Staff Reports.
16. Councilmember Reports.
17. Consideration of Council-Pulled Consent Items.
Page 5
DISCUSSION ITEMS
The method of debate for discussion items is as follows:
! Mayor introduces the item number and subject; asks if formal presentation will be made
by staff
! Staff presentation (optional)
! Mayor requests citizen comment on the item (five-minute limit for each citizen)
! Council questions of staff on the item
! Council motion on the item
! Council discussion
! Final Council comments
! Council vote on the item
Note: Time limits for individual agenda items may be revised, at the discretion of the Mayor, to ensure
all citizens have an opportunity to speak. Please sign in at the table in the back of the room.
The timer will buzz when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. It will buzz again
at the end of the speaker’s time.
18. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 182, 2011, Amending Section 15-483 of the City Code So as to
Eliminate the Eight Ounce Limitation on the Amount of Medical Marijuana That Can Be Distributed
by Licensees to Other Licensed Medical Marijuana Centers. (staff: Jerry Schiager, Ginny Sawyer,
Medical Marijuana Staff Team; 5 minute staff presentation; 15 minute discussion)
All medical marijuana businesses in Fort Collins must cease operation by February 14, 2012. This
Ordinance, adopted on First Reading on December 20, 2011 by a vote of 6-1 (nays: Troxell) will allow
existing businesses to sell more than 8 ounces of product to another licensed business outside the
City limits in an effort to eliminate inventory by February 14, 2012.
19. Consideration of Citizen-Pulled Consent Items.
20. Other Business.
21. Adjournment.
Every Council meeting will end no later than 10:30 p.m., except that: (1) any item of business commenced
before 10:30 p.m. may be concluded before the meeting is adjourned and (2) the City Council may, by
majority vote, extend a meeting until no later than 12:00 a.m. for the purpose of considering additional items
of business. Any matter which has been commenced and is still pending at the conclusion of the Council
meeting, and all matters scheduled for consideration at the meeting which have not yet been considered
by Council, will be continued to the next regular Council meeting and will be placed first on the discussion
agenda for such meeting.
urban renewal authority
Karen Weitkunat, President City Council Chambers
Kelly Ohlson, Vice-President City Hall West
Ben Manvel 300 LaPorte Avenue
Lisa Poppaw Fort Collins, Colorado
Aislinn Kottwitz
Wade Troxell
Gerry Horak Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
on the Comcast cable system
Darin Atteberry, Executive Director
Steve Roy, City Attorney
Wanda Krajicek, Secretary
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and
will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for
assistance.
URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY MEETING
January 3, 2012
(after the Regular Council Meeting)
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Roll Call.
3. Resolution No. 041 Authorizing the Adjustment of Line Items Pursuant to the Redevelopment
Agreement Between the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority City of Fort Collins and 1908 North
College, LLC for the North College Marketplace. (staff: Christina Vincent, Mike Beckstead; 15 minute
staff presentation; 1 hour discussion)
In September 2008, an application for financial assistance by 1908 North College, LLC, through
Loveland Commercial (Developer) was approved by the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Board for
tax increment financing (TIF) assistance for the North College Marketplace project (Project). The
amount of TIF awarded was not to exceed $8,000,000 for all public improvements. At the time of the
executed Redevelopment Agreement with the URA, Exhibit C of that agreement detailed the Eligible
Costs associated with the Public Improvements. As stated in the Redevelopment Agreement, the
Developer must come back to the URA Board to move funds from one line item category to another
with reasonable approval from the Board, with the exception of the Contingency line item which can
be approved administratively by the Executive Director. The Developer has requested that the cost
savings of approximately $1,265,000 from the Off Site Street Infrastructure line item (College/Willox
Intersection improvements) be transferred to the On Site Utilities line item for cost overruns related
thereto.
January 3, 2012
The Off Site Street Infrastructure funds were allocated and loaned by the City to the URA in May 2009
for the purpose of constructing the College Avenue and Willox Lane intersection as a Capital
Improvement Project (CIP). These intersection improvements, including the roundabout on Willox
Lane, were completed in October 2010. As stated above, the Developer has requested the cost
savings from this line item category be transferred to pay for cost overages within the On Site Utilities
line item and has submitted documentation supporting its request.
The parties have gone through many months of negotiation to come to an agreement acceptable to
both parties to bring forward to the URA Board for consideration. Staff and the Developer have
agreed, subject to approval of the Authority Board, to share the cost savings from the Off Site Street
improvements that will reimburse the Developer for certain cost overages, pay related interest
charges within the $8,000,000 original appropriation, incentivize the project to continue building as
planned, and allow the URA to retain a portion of the cost savings. Additionally, the Developer will
absorb approximately $711,000 in eligible, but unreimbursed public improvement costs as part of this
proposal.
4. Other Business.
5. Adjournment.
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, exposure to radioactive radon gas is the leading cause of lung cancer among
people that have never smoked, and the second-leading cause of lung cancer overall; and
WHEREAS, radon-induced lung cancer claims the lives of more than 20,000 United States
citizens every year, approximately 1,400 of those cancer deaths are in Colorado alone; and
WHEREAS, elevated radon levels are found in three quarters of Fort Collins homes posing
a serious health threat to residents, and any home may have elevated radon – even if neighboring
homes do not; and
WHEREAS, elevated levels of radon can be effectively reduced for the price of typical
home repairs; and
WHEREAS, all Fort Collins citizens who have not yet tested their homes for radon are
encouraged to do so - and to reduce any elevated radon levels found - in order to protect their
families from the serious health risks associated with radon; and
WHEREAS, radon testing is easy and inexpensive, and Fort Collins residents can easily test
their homes with low-cost test kits available at the Fort Collins Senior Center and the Fort Collins
Development Review Center.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
proclaim January 3, 2012, as the official start of
“FORT COLLINS RADON ACTION MONTH”
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 3rd day of January, A.D. 2012.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, on this date 100 years ago, January 3, 1912, City Park was officially named
by the City’s Park Commission; and
WHEREAS, City Park was the first community park developed in Fort Collins and is the
cornerstone of a remarkable park system; and
WHEREAS, for 100 years, City Park has been a center for family gatherings, cultural affairs
and community celebrations; and
WHEREAS, in 1992, City Park was designated by the Parks and Recreation Board as the
City’s Arboretum representing over two-hundred different species of trees; and
WHEREAS, in 2007, City Park was designated as an Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary; and
WHEREAS, City Park has historically been the home of the City’s annual 4th of July
celebration and many other community events; and
WHEREAS, City Park’s, unique and fascinating history has defined the community’s
character while linking several generations of thankful residents and visitors.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
proclaim January 3, 2012 as
CITY PARK DAY
in Fort Collins and hereby encourage all residents to join the City in celebrating the 100 years of
City Park throughout 2012.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 3rd day of January, A.D. 2012.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
DATE: January 3, 2012
STAFF: Wanda Krajicek
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 6
SUBJECT
Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the December 6, 2011 Regular Meeting.
December 6, 2011
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, December 6,
2011, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Horak, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell
and Weikunat.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Daggett.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated there were no changes to the published agenda.
Citizen Participation
Shane Miller, 4325 Mill Creek, objected to the Public Participation Rule of Procedure changes.
Justin Smith, Larimer County Sheriff, spoke on behalf of Concerned Citizens of Fort Collins and
discussed the state medical marijuana regulations.
Dawn Danini, Team Fort Collins, expressed concern about the use of medical marijuana.
Gary Young, Street Media, supported larger “wrap” advertising on Transfort buses.
Mark Wanger, 2948 Silverwood, asked about electric demand rates.
Jennifer Reish, Fort Collins resident, discussed relocation costs for Bender Mobile Home Park
residents and encouraged additional support for the residents.
Willow Fitzgerald, Fort Collins resident, encouraged additional support for the Bender Mobile
Home Park residents.
Rana Charlet, 2276 South Colorado Avenue, Loveland, Occupy Northern Colorado member, stated
the organization’s members will be attending local government meetings and will be volunteering
throughout the community.
Rich Chrisler, Occupy Northern Colorado member, discussed the vision of the organization’s
members.
168
December 6, 2011
David Palmer,3017 Parkview Court, encouraged additional support for the Bender Mobile Home
Park residents.
Lauren (no last name given), Fort Collins resident, encouraged additional support for the Bender
Mobile home Park residents.
Debra Goodsen, 2025 North College Avenue, former resident of the Bender Mobile Home Park,
discussed the costs her family incurred to move and requested the City’s assistance with those costs.
Cheryl Distaso, 135 South Sunset, Fort Collins Community Action Network, encouraged additional
support for the Bender Mobile Home Park residents.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, discussed Larimer County foreclosure rates and housing costs
and encouraged additional support for the Bender Mobile Home Park residents.
David Bell, 1909 Sequoia Street, encouraged additional support for the Bender Mobile Home Park
residents.
Ray Martinez, 4121 Stoneridge Court, Concerned Citizens of Fort Collins, supported police
oversight of full closure of all medical marijuana facilities by February 14, 2012.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
City Manager Atteberry stated the medical marijuana facility closure discussion is scheduled for
next week’s work session.
Councilmember Horak requested an update on the Bender Mobile Home Park. Karen Cumbo,
Director of Planning, Development, and Transportation Services, stated staff is continuing to work
with Larimer County, Neighbor to Neighbor, and other agencies to identify resources and
procedures to address the situation. Council will be considering financial assistance at its December
20 meeting.
Councilmember Troxell thanked the members of Concerned Citizens of Fort Collins who spoke.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked for clarification regarding changes to the Public Participation portion
of Council meetings. City Manager Atteberry clarified there have been no changes other than
disallowing speaking relating to quasi-judicial land use issues.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated the City will do its part with respect to the Bender Mobile Home Park
residents, despite the fact that the property is in the County. He stated the electric rate structure has
built-in solutions for homes with all electric heat.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked that Public Participation policies be discussed at some point in the
near future. City Manager Atteberry replied the item should be discussed in early 2012.
169
December 6, 2011
Councilmember Horak requested a long term policy for relocation of the Bender Mobile Home Park
residents be discussed at the December 20 meeting.
Councilmember Horak requested a discussion regarding the Transfort advertising proposal. City
Manager Atteberry stated his understanding is there has been little Council interest in pursuing
additional advertising on the exterior of City buses.
Councilmembers Troxell and Kottwitz supported examining the idea of additional advertising.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson opposed commercialization and clutter of public spaces and stated he would
support Transfort budget reductions should the additional advertising become a reality.
Councilmember Horak and Mayor Weitkunat supported examining the idea of additional advertising
during the budget process.
Councilmember Poppaw stated Council already had a discussion about additional advertising and
suggested the discussion be part of the overall 2013-2014 budget discussion.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the November 9, 2011 Adjourned Meeting
and the November 15, 2011, Regular Meeting.
7. Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2011, Amending the Zoning Map of
the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Courtney Annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
This property contains 3.13 acres located east of Ziegler Road and south of East Horsetooth
Road and was annexed on November 15, 2011. The property is Lot 3 of the Strobel M.R.D.
and is addressed as 3256 Nite Court, which is at the east end of Charlie Lane. The property
is developed and is in the FA1 - Farming District in Larimer County. Ordinance No. 152,
2011, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 15, 2011, places this annexation
in the UE – Urban Estate Zoning District.
8. Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 2011, Amending the Zoning Map of the
City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Leistikow Annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
The parcel is 18.04 acres located east of Timberline Road and south of Trilby Road and was
annexed on November 15, 2011. The property is a portion of the Leistikow Amended Minor
Residential Division as approved in Larimer County and addressed as 6732 South
Timberline Road. Ordinance No. 154, 2011, unanimously adopted on First Reading on
November 15, 2011, places the property in the U-E, Urban Estate Zone District, in
conformance with the City’s Structure Plan Map and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan.
170
December 6, 2011
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 157, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the General Fund for the Natural Resources Radon Program and Authorizing the Transfer
of Funds Previously Appropriated in the Natural Resources Operating Budget.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 15, 2011, appropriates
$11,725 that has been granted by Colorado Department of Health and Environment. It also
transfers a matching amount of $11,725 from the 2011 General Fund and combine these
funds in a Radon Program account. The Program will carry out radon risk-reduction
activities identified in the current City Budget.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 158, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the General Fund for Police Services’ Restorative Justice Program and for the Transfer
of Funds Previously Appropriated in the Police Services Project Budget.
Ordinance No. 158, 2011, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 15, 2011,
appropriates a grant in the amount of $30,000 from the Juvenile Accountability Incentive
Block Grants fund for salaries associated with the continued operation of Restorative Justice
Services, which includes the RESTORE program for shoplifting offenses, and the
Restorative Justice Conferencing Program for all other offenses. An $3,333 cash match is
required and will be met by appropriating funds from the police operating budget designated
for Restorative Justice Services.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 159, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
General Fund for Transfer to Various City Funds for Tree and Branch Cleanup Expenses.
Due to the snowstorm on October 25 and 26, 2011, the City has incurred unanticipated costs
associated with the tree and branch cleanup. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First
Reading on November 15, 2011, appropriates the incremental costs (direct costs) associated
with the cleanup effort but not covered in the operating budget. This includes personnel
overtime and planned "work for other departments" costs that cannot be recouped, as well
as other incremental costs associated with contractors, equipment rental, fuel, etc., that are
uniquely and directly related to the snowstorm cleanup.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 160, 2011, Amending Chapter 7.5 of the City Code to
Increase the Amounts of the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees So as to Reflect Inflation
in Associated Costs of Services.
The City Code provides for automatic annual adjustments to the capital improvement
expansion fees and the neighborhood parkland fee based on an inflation index (CPI). Also,
to account for rising construction costs, the City adjusts the street oversizing fees to reflect
changes posted in the Engineering News Record (ENR). The CPI has increased 3.8% and
the ENR has increased 7.55%. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading
on November 15, 2011.
171
December 6, 2011
13. Public Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 161, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of
the City Code Relating To Utility Connection Fees And Miscellaneous Charges.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 15, 2011, increases
the after-hours service connection fees from $46.00 to $85.35 for customers who request
utility connection after normal business hours. It also establishes a trip charge of $19.65 for
special requests during normal business hours.
The Ordinance establishes a monthly meter reading charge of $11.00 for those customers
who opt out of the Advanced Meter Fort Collins program. The fee recovers additional costs
incurred by the Utilities for a manual meter reading once the advanced metering
infrastructure is in place.
14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 162, 2011, Amending the Land Use Code Related to the
Point of Measurement for the Establishment of Buffer Zones for Streams.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 15, 2011, amends the
Land Use Code, Section 3.4.1(E), that identifies where the buffer zone should begin
regarding rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches. The proposed revision addresses the current
requirement that this point of measurement be from “bankfull discharge.” Instead, the term
“top of bank” is recommended as the most appropriate term for this point of measurement.
15. Items Relating to Stormwater, Water and Wastewater Development Construction Standards.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 163, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City
Code to Establish and Provide for Technical Revision of Water Utilities
Development Construction Standards for the Water, Wastewater and Stormwater
Utilities.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 164, 2011, Adopting Water Utilities
Development Construction Standards for the Water, Wastewater and Stormwater
Utilities.
Fort Collins Utilities maintains construction standards adopted by City Council for
stormwater, water and wastewater improvements installed within new residential and
commercial developments within the respective City service areas. These standards require
the use of specific materials, methods and products to insure uniformity within the systems
and to standardize various components. These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First
Reading on November 15, 2011, combine these standards into a unified document that is
more convenient for engineers and contractors to use and more easily updated in the future.
The definition of Water Utilities Development Construction Standards and the provision
relating to technical revisions have been amended in Ordinance No. 163, 2011, to provide
consistency in language used under similar circumstances.
172
December 6, 2011
16. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 165, 2011, Designating the MacDonald/Cooke House and
Detached Garage, 424 West Olive Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter
14 of the City Code.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 15, 2011, designates
the MacDonald/Cooke House and Detached Garage, located at 424 West Olive Street as a
Fort Collins Landmark. The owners of the property, Brian Cooke and Lisa Viviani, are
initiating this request.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 168, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Project.
This Ordinance appropriates unanticipated revenue of $163,068 from the Discovery Science
Center ($160,625) and LaFarge ($2,443) for the Museum Exhibit Capital Project.
18. Items Relating to Bobcat Ridge Natural Area.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 169, 2011, Authorizing the City Manager to Enter
into a Grant Contract with History Colorado, the Colorado Historical Society for
Funds to Restore Two Historic Structures at Bobcat Ridge Natural Area.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 170, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in
the Natural Areas Fund Project to Restore Two Historic Structures at Bobcat Ridge
Natural Area.
The State of Colorado awarded the City a grant of $93,392 from the State Historical Fund
to fund 75% of the estimated cost of $124,523 to restore two historic structures at Bobcat
Ridge Natural Area: the 1888 pioneer barn and log chicken house. To accept the grant and
proceed with the project the City must enter into a contract with History Colorado. The
contract requires a twenty-year covenant on the property surrounding the barn and chicken
shed, which states that the City will agree to maintain the buildings, once restored, for
twenty years and will not alter anything on the property without express written permission
of History Colorado.
The City also received a $24,000 grant from the Pulliam Charitable Trust to provide most
of the 25% in funds necessary to match the funds received from the State. Natural Areas
Program funds will be used to fund the remaining $7,131 necessary to fully fund the project.
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 171, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in
the General Fund for the Exterior Rehabilitation of the Seckner Brothers Building at 216
Linden Street.
This Ordinance appropriates unanticipated revenue in the amount of $73,890 for the exterior
facade rehabilitation of the Seckner Brothers Building, 216 Linden Street. The City was
awarded a State Historical Fund grant in the amount of $35,000. Matching funds totaling
173
December 6, 2011
$36,890 are provided by the Downtown Development Authority ($25,890), a City-funded
Zero-Interest Loan ($6,100) and the remainder by the building’s owners, Irwin and Judith
Winterowd. The City will only be responsible for administering the grant, which will be
carried out by Community Development and Neighborhood Services staff. Staff time
allocated to administration will be reimbursed by the grant.
20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 172, 2011, Adopting the 2012 Classified Employees’ Pay
Plan.
The City of Fort Collins 2012 Pay Plan establishes a pay range structure for employee
compensation. It is the framework that sets the minimum and maximum pay for City
positions. The methodology used by the City is based on compensation best practices. The
2012 Pay Plan uses average actual salary data collected from public and private sector
markets for benchmark positions to determine pay range midpoints within occupational
groups. Ranges for non-benchmark jobs are established using a point factor system that is
calibrated against the benchmark jobs.
21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 173, 2011, Amending the City Code Concerning the
Issuance of Special Event Permits by the Local Licensing Authority.
Legislators passed Senate Bill 11-066, which authorizes a local licensing authority to issue
special event permits to qualifying organizations and political candidates without sending
the application to the state authority for approval. The proposed amendments to the City
Code will authorize the local licensing authority to approve special event permit applications
locally without obtaining state approval as allowed under Senate Bill 11-066. Additionally,
there is a proposed increase of $25 in the local application fee to help defray some of the
costs associated with the local application process, which generally exceed the proposed fee
of $50 per day of permitted event.
22. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 174, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the
City Code to Adopt and Provide for Technical Revision of the Fort Collins Stormwater
Criteria Manual.
The Stormwater Repurposing effort was initiated at a City Council work session in October
2008. The intent of this effort was to review the City’s stormwater program in its entirety,
and explore new or reformed methods of water quality and quantity management in each of
the City’s stormwater basins. The program review was broken down into 14 categories, with
one specifically identifying the need to update the Stormwater Criteria Manual. Adoption
of the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) Criteria Manual will set the
standard for the City of Fort Collins. Exception language that identifies key aspects specific
to the City will be adopted into the City Code concurrently with this action.
174
December 6, 2011
23. First Reading of Ordinance No. 175, 2011, Designating the Bartlett/Goeke House and
Attached Garage, 160 Yale Avenue, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of
the City Code.
The owner of the property, Judith Goeke, is initiating this request for Fort Collins Landmark
designation for the Bartlett/Goeke House and Attached Garage at 160 Yale Avenue. The
residence is eligible for designation as a Landmark under Designation Standard 3, for its
architectural significance to Fort Collins. A 1950s Split-Level home, it is a early example
of this housing type within Fort Collins, and exhibits a high level of physical integrity
relative to the seven aspects of integrity: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship,
association, and feeling.
24. First Reading of Ordinance No. 176, 2011, Designating the Chestnut/ Wombacher
Residence, Attached Three-Car Garage, and Historic Freestanding Fireplace, 331 South
Shields Street/1200 West Magnolia Street, as Fort Collins Landmarks Pursuant to Chapter
14 of the City Code.
The Chestnut/Wombacher Property, at 331 South Shields Street, is eligible for designation
as a Fort Collins Landmark under Standard 3, for its architectural significance to Fort
Collins. The house and attached three-car garage embody distinctive characteristics of the
Tudor Revival style, prevalent in the 1920s and 1930s. Notable features include the stucco
exterior, with randomly placed decorative large rock; the large chimney; steep, multi-gabled
roof lines; a classic sloped gable or “cat-slide” entryway; and two and three light casement
windows. The house contains two separate apartments in the basement. The property also
contains a freestanding historic brick and stone fireplace, dating to the period of
construction.
25. First Reading of Ordinance No. 177, 2011, Designating the Lewis and Mae Tiley/Joanne F.
Gallagher Residence and Attached Garage, 2500 South College Avenue, as a Fort Collins
Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
The owner of the property, Joanne Gallagher, is initiating this request for Fort Collins
Landmark designation for the Lewis and Mae Tiley/Joanne F. Gallagher Residence and
Attached Garage, at 2500 South College Avenue. The residence with attached garage is
significant under Designation Standard (2) for its association with Mae, Lewis, and Bill
Tiley, Fort Collins developers who platted and developed several post-World War II
residential subdivisions, including the South College Heights subdivision where this
property is located; and under Designation Standard (3), as an architecturally significant
example of a mid-1950s Ranch type home. This property retains a very high level of
integrity relative to the seven aspects of integrity: location, setting, design, materials,
workmanship, association, and feeling.
175
December 6, 2011
26. Resolution 2011-104 Adopting the Annual Revenue Allocation Formula to Define the City
of Fort Collins’ Contribution to the Poudre Fire Authority Budget for the Year 2012 for
Operations and Maintenance
This Resolution establishes a Revenue Allocation Formula between the City of Fort Collins
and the Poudre Fire Authority to contribute funding for operating and maintenance of the
Poudre Fire Authority.
27. Resolution 2011-105 Extending the Time Period for Completion of the Annual Performance
Review of the City Attorney.
The City Council has not yet conducted with the 2011 annual performance evaluation of the
City Attorney because the City Attorney has been out on medical leave and temporarily
unavailable. In order to provide additional latitude for completion of the performance
evaluation process, the Resolution authorizes the Council Leadership Team to work with the
City Attorney to determine an appropriate time for that process to move forward.
28. Resolution 2011-106 Adopting the 2011 Update to the Three Mile Plan for the City of Fort
Collins.
This is the annual update to the Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins. The Three-Mile
Plan is a policy document that is required to ensure that the City complies with the
regulations of the Colorado Revised Statutes.
29. Resolution 2011-107 Amending the Rules of Procedure Governing the Conduct of City
Council Meetings.
This Resolution amends the rules of procedure that govern the conduct of City Council
meetings by moving consideration of items pulled from the Consent Calendar by a member
of the City Council to earlier in the Order. In addition, the Resolution clarifies the point in
the Order of Business at which items may be pulled off of the Consent Calendar for
individual consideration.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
7. Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2011, Amending the Zoning Map of the
City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Courtney Annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
8. Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 2011, Amending the Zoning Map of the
City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Leistikow Annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
176
December 6, 2011
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 157, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the General Fund for the Natural Resources Radon Program and Authorizing the Transfer
of Funds Previously Appropriated in the Natural Resources Operating Budget.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 158, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the General Fund for Police Services’ Restorative Justice Program and for the Transfer
of Funds Previously Appropriated in the Police Services Project Budget.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 159, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
General Fund for Transfer to Various City Funds for Tree and Branch Cleanup Expenses.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 160, 2011, Amending Chapter 7.5 of the City Code to
Increase the Amounts of the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees So as to Reflect Inflation
in Associated Costs of Services.
13. Public Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 161, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of
the City Code Relating To Utility Connection Fees And Miscellaneous Charges.
14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 162, 2011, Amending the Land Use Code Related to the
Point of Measurement for the Establishment of Buffer Zones for Streams.
15. Items Relating to Stormwater, Water and Wastewater Development Construction Standards.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 163, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City
Code to Establish and Provide for Technical Revision of Water Utilities
Development Construction Standards for the Water, Wastewater and Stormwater
Utilities.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 164, 2011, Adopting Water Utilities
Development Construction Standards for the Water, Wastewater and Stormwater
Utilities.
16. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 165, 2011, Designating the MacDonald/Cooke House and
Detached Garage, 424 West Olive Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter
14 of the City Code.
35. Public Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 166, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of
the City Code to Revise Electric Rates, Fees and Charges.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 168, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Project.
177
December 6, 2011
18. Items Relating to Bobcat Ridge Natural Area.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 169, 2011, Authorizing the City Manager to Enter
into a Grant Contract with History Colorado, the Colorado Historical Society for
Funds to Restore Two Historic Structures at Bobcat Ridge Natural Area.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 170, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in
the Natural Areas Fund Project to Restore Two Historic Structures at Bobcat Ridge
Natural Area.
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 171, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in
the General Fund for the Exterior Rehabilitation of the Seckner Brothers Building at 216
Linden Street.
20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 172, 2011, Adopting the 2012 Classified Employees’ Pay
Plan.
21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 173, 2011, Amending the City Code Concerning the
Issuance of Special Event Permits by the Local Licensing Authority.
22. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 174, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the
City Code to Adopt and Provide for Technical Revision of the Fort Collins Stormwater
Criteria Manual.
23. First Reading of Ordinance No. 175, 2011, Designating the Bartlett/Goeke House and
Attached Garage, 160 Yale Avenue, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of
the City Code.
24. First Reading of Ordinance No. 176, 2011, Designating the Chestnut/ Wombacher
Residence, Attached Three-Car Garage, and Historic Freestanding Fireplace, 331 South
Shields Street/1200 West Magnolia Street, as Fort Collins Landmarks Pursuant to Chapter
14 of the City Code.
25. First Reading of Ordinance No. 177, 2011, Designating the Lewis and Mae Tiley/Joanne F.
Gallagher Residence and Attached Garage, 2500 South College Avenue, as a Fort Collins
Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
33. First Reading of Ordinance No. 178, 2011, Amending the Land Use Code Regarding Digital
Signs and Pole Signs.
34. First Reading of Ordinance No. 179, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General
Fund for Transfer to the Transit Services Fund and Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue
in the Transit Services Fund for the Safe Ride Home Weekend Bus Service.
178
December 6, 2011
City Manager Atteberry withdrew from the discussion of the Consent Calendar due to a conflict of
interest.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt and approve
all items on the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Kottwitz, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Staff Reports
Jim Szakmeister, Police Captain, gave a presentation regarding graffiti in the Fort Collins
community. He discussed gang-related graffiti versus tagging, which is considered an art form.
Wayne Sterler, Utilities Health, Safety and Security Manager, discussed the City’s abatement
process, which includes a graffiti hotline and the ability to report incidents on-line, and noted the
number of graffiti incidents has increased dramatically.
Szakmeister discussed the tracking procedures and the Police Services graffiti training policies.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if incidents and abatements are to become separate tallies.
Szakmeister replied “reports” are incidents reported via the graffiti hotline and “incidents” have
been abated. Graffiti incidents will remain under the “criminal mischief” category but will be
designated specifically as graffiti incidents.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson requested a quarterly report on the “iCare” program to aid in determining
its effectiveness. Josh Jones, Management Intern, reported that the program was recently launched
as a means for City employees to report items such as potholes, broken street lights, and graffiti
around town. City Manager Atteberry stated the program will be more widely advertised among
employees in the near future and committed to a quarterly report.
City Manager Atteberry stated the City was recently honored by the American Association of
Marketing and Communication Professionals with the Marketing and Communications Platinum
award for the 2010 Fort Collins Community Scorecard.
Councilmember Reports
Mayor Weitkunat stated she recently attended the Fort Collins Loveland Airport Steering Committee
meeting at which the concept of “wingless flight” was discussed, wherein passengers would be able
to check in at the local airport and be bused to DIA for flights. The Federal Aviation Administration
has stated the Airport is understaffed and internship opportunities will fill that need.
179
December 6, 2011
Ordinance No. 178, 2011,
Amending the Land Use Code Regarding Digital
Signs and Pole Signs, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In response to Council feedback, staff has prepared an ordinance amending current Land Use Code
regulations for digital signs and freestanding pole signs. With respect to digital signs, the
recommended Code changes address such things as brightness, color, design, and location.
Additional design criteria to enhance the appearance of pole signs are also proposed.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The continuing proliferation of digital signs within the community may begin to impact the overall
aesthetic environment. Given these concerns, staff conducted an evaluation of the existing sign code
regulations pertaining to digital signs. Fort Collins has been a leader in regulating signage to
create a visually pleasing urban environment and staff determined that while the current standards
provide a framework for effective regulation, improvements can be made.
A principle of the City’s sign code is to protect health, safety, and welfare by regulating the design,
construction, and placement of signs in the city in a manner that provides a reasonable balance
between the right of a business or an individual to identify itself and to convey its message and the
right of the public to a safe and aesthetically pleasing environment.
The City’s first comprehensive sign code was adopted in 1971 and required that all signs not in
compliance with the new regulations be made conforming by 1977. Many sign code amendments
have been adopted since 1971, most of them minor in nature. However, major amendments were
adopted in 1994, and because of the comprehensive nature of the changes the City Council allowed
a 15 year amortization period for business owners to bring their signs into compliance. That
amortization period ended in 2009, with numerous businesses electing to replace their previously
existing nonconforming signs with conforming digital signs or conforming pole signs.
At the August 9, 2011 City Council work session, City staff presented an overview of issues
regarding the following:
• the adequacy of the City’s current sign regulations to address the increasing number of
digital signs in the community now and into the future, and
• adding design criteria to improve the aesthetic appearance of pole signs.
After considering various options at the work session, Council requested staff come return with an
ordinance for consideration that continues to allow digital signs, but with additional regulations,
and an ordinance that includes additional design criteria for pole signs.
180
December 6, 2011
Digital Signs
Digital signs (signs that display words, symbols, figures or images that can be electronically or
mechanically changed by remote or automatic means) began appearing in Fort Collins in the early
2000s and it was appropriate at that time to consider regulating this form of sign in the community
to protect the visual welfare of the city. In response, the City adopted a digital sign ordinance in
2006 to regulate the size, brightness, method of display, and color of such signs.
There are approximately 1,500 permitted on-premise freestanding signs (signs not attached to a
building) currently in the city. In 2009 at the conclusion of the amortization period, about 40 of the
non-conforming signs were converted to digital signs. This number has doubled to approximately
80, and represents 30% of all new freestanding signs erected since 2009. Looking ahead over the
next twenty years, based upon this rate of increase, many additional signs could be converted to
digital.
To address the anticipated proliferation and the renewed concerns about brightness and aesthetics,
it is appropriate to evaluate this type of sign and its relationship to the economic and aesthetic
environment of Fort Collins now and into the future. Staff believes that the current standards
provide a framework for effective regulation, but improvements can be made that will help to more
effectively balance the right of a business to convey its message with the right of the public to enjoy
an aesthetically pleasing streetscape.
City staff held a series of meetings with stakeholders before and after the August 9, 2011 City
Council work session. These meetings have resulted in a number of proposed changes to the current
digital sign regulations. Key elements of the changes are:
• Brightness levels
The current regulations do not contain specific maximum brightness levels. The proposed ordinance
requires that automatic dimming software and solar sensors maintain a maximum brightness of 0.3
foot candles over the ambient light conditions at any time of day or night. The permit application
must contain written certification from the sign manufacturer that the light intensity has been factory
pre-set not to exceed this level. Additionally, something that will be unique to Fort Collins is that
the permit holder and the business manager, business owner, or property manager must be present
at the time the City inspects the sign for compliance. This will offer an opportunity for City staff to
explain the regulations and how the brightness level will be inspected for future compliance and
enforcement.
• Color
Staff believes full-color displays limited to just the logo or ‘brand’ of the business could be
acceptable given the proposed brightness controls and other proposed regulations. However, the
City Attorney advised staff that only allowing the logo or brand without allowing pictures of
products or other images would be unlawful. Staff believes that allowing full color displays of
products and images that could change as frequently as once per minute would be detrimental;
therefore, staff is recommending that the current full-color ban be kept. Also with regard to color,
181
December 6, 2011
staff is recommending that red should once again be allowed as an acceptable color for
monochrome displays. The proposed brightness controls and tighter pixel spacing for new signs
make red an acceptable color.
• Design criteria
In order to ensure that digital signs do not detract from the aesthetic appearance of streetscapes,
the recommended ordinance requires that an electronic module not exceed 50% of the area of the
sign face, that it is integrally designed as a part of the larger sign face or structure, that it is not the
predominant element or uppermost portion of the sign, and that it is not allowed on a pole sign.
Another significant criterion is that there would be a maximum pixel spacing of 16 mm for all new
digital signs capable of allowing a selection of more than one color (but not more than one color
displayed at a time) and a maximum spacing of 19 mm for signs that are manufactured as
monochrome-only. The industry is moving toward closer pixel spacing and this is a cutting-edge
criteria intended to ensure that future signs will display a sharper image of higher quality. Most
existing digital signs in the City have pixel spacing between 19 mm and 35 mm.
• Location and number of signs
The ordinance limits the number of digital signs to not more than one wall sign or one monument
sign per street abutting any property or development, requires that such signs be at least 100 feet
apart, and prohibits them on walls of downtown buildings that are located within the boundaries
of the Portable Sign Placement Area Map (See Attachment 9). Signs that are located inside a
building and visible from a street or sidewalk will be subject to compliance with all of the
regulations pertaining to method of display, flashing, color, etc.
• Compliance dates
The current code allows a fifteen year period in which signs made nonconforming by code
amendments must be brought into compliance. This fifteen year period was enacted as part of the
1994 sign code revisions. Because those revisions were very comprehensive, affecting most signs
that existed in the city at that time, the City Council determined that a very generous compliance
period was appropriate.
The proposed amendments recommended with this ordinance affect only a small portion of all
existing signs. Therefore, staff believes that it is not appropriate to apply the fifteen year time limit
to existing digital signs. Instead, this ordinance establishes several compliance dates of different
duration for signs that are made nonconforming by the new regulations. Staff is proposing that
signs which can be corrected by simply flipping a switch (e.g., interior window signs), will have
thirty days in which to comply with the new regulations. Signs that will require more substantial
modifications, but not removal or structural modifications, will have four years. Signs that require
removal or structural changes will have eight years. However, as required by existing code
provisions, such signs will have to be brought into compliance sooner than the applicable date if
the use of the property changes or if the premises promoted by the sign comes under new ownership
182
December 6, 2011
or tenancy and the sign is proposed to be changed for the purpose of displaying the new name or
other new identification of the premises.
Pole Signs
The sign code allows for two types of freestanding signs (signs not attached to a building). A
ground sign (also known as a monument sign), is a type of freestanding sign that consists of a sign
face or cabinet that is mounted on top of a base, the width of which is at least 80% of the width of
the sign cabinet, i.e, a 10-foot wide sign cabinet mounted on a base that is at least 8-foot wide. A
pole sign, on the other hand, is often a sign cabinet mounted on top of one or two exposed poles,
with considerable air space between the sign and the ground. Pole signs are generally not as
attractive as ground signs, and in fact the sign code contains regulations that are intended to
encourage the use of ground signs as the preferred type of sign. (See Attachment 10 for pictures of
monument signs and pole signs).
The completion of the 2009 sign compliance project resulted in a number of the previous
nonconforming pole signs being replaced with ground signs. However, some existing pole signs
were simply lowered rather than replaced. The number of pole signs in the city really didn’t
decrease as a result of the 15 year compliance period, and there may have actually been a slight
increase in the number of such signs since some of the nonconforming signs that were ground signs
were replaced with new pole signs. As a result, opportunities to increase the number of more
aesthetically pleasing ground signs in the city through replacement did not materialize.
In order to ensure that there will be fewer new or remodeled signs supported by simply one or two
exposed poles, a Code amendment is necessary. The amendment will require that pole signs be
designed in a manner that will result in a more substantial and interesting design, helping to ensure
that they will contribute to the aesthetic appearance of the streetscape. This can be accomplished
by limiting the amount of air space between the top of the sign and the ground to not more than
40%. This added design criteria for pole signs will further the purpose of the sign code to enhance
the visual streetscape of the city.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Business owners have strongly expressed that the advertising flexibility offered by digital signs is
an important factor that contributes to increased sales and the success of local businesses. Owners
installed digital signs at great expense in reliance on the regulations adopted in 2006 and the
proposed revisions will allow many of these signs to remain without the need for expensive
modifications or removal.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The primary environmental concern associated with signs in the community is their impact on the
visual environment of Fort Collins. With regard to digital signs, it is important to be proactive in
considering regulations in order to manage the potential expansion of these signs throughout the
city. Staff and the Planning and Zoning Board believe that the recommended changes will improve
183
December 6, 2011
upon the existing standards through better and more enforceable brightness standards and through
standards that will improve the design and visual appearance of digital signs and pole signs.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its regular meeting on November 17, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 6-0 to
recommend that City Council adopt the Ordinance amending the Land Use Code.
The Board’s motion to recommend approval contained a provision that the design criteria in Sec.
3.8.7(M)(4)(e) be amended by removing the words “or uppermost portion”. This change has the
effect of allowing an electronic message center to be placed as the uppermost portion of the sign as
long as it is an integral part of the overall design of the sign. Staff agrees with this change, and the
language in the recommended ordinance has been amended.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
A number of outreach meetings have been held with stakeholders and the public to seek feedback
on the issues. Staff focused outreach on five main stakeholder groups: sign industry
representatives, Chamber of Commerce, sign owners, small business owners, and the general public.
Feedback regarding pole sign design criteria was also solicited at the meetings, but the major focus
and interest was on digital signs. Most of the outreach meetings were conducted prior to the August
9, 2011 City Council work session, with an additional 4 meetings held after the work session.
Prior to August 9, 2011, feedback was also solicited on the City of Fort Collins’ Facebook and Your
Voice websites (70 total responses). Outreach included basic overviews of the current sign code,
open-ended questions about the use and effectiveness of digital signs, thoughts on current and
potential new regulations, sign trends, and the impact of digital signs on the streetscape both now
and in the future. The majority of these respondents believed that current standards did a good job
of regulating these signs and that continued allowance of them wouldn’t have a negative impact.
(See Attachment 7 for individual responses).
In general, the sign industry representatives, Chamber of Commerce Local Legislative Affairs
Committee, and sign owners do not support significant change to the City’s current Code. The
groups strongly stressed the benefit to businesses that digital signs offer, including ease of
promoting on multi-tenant locations, employee safety, less reliance on banners, and the ability to
be timely with messaging. There was also comment that the City’s current Code does not allow for
more attractive signs by only allowing monochrome pixel type signs. It was noted that industry
trends and technology improvements are leading to more digital signs in the future, and they will
have higher resolution and messaging capabilities. (See Attachments 2, 3, and 4 for summary
minutes of the meetings).
The Cityworks Alumni group and the members of the Planning and Zoning Board generally agreed
that there is not much of a problem with the digital signs as currently allowed. However, they were
supportive of adjustments to the Code to ensure quality standards with the anticipated increase in
the number of such signs. They felt that continued use would not have a detrimental affect on the
184
December 6, 2011
streetscapes into the future as long as the signs are regulated with regard to frequency of change,
no animation, limits on the percent of a sign that can be digital, etc. The majority of both groups
expressed that such signs offered businesses additional flexibility. Some suggested that the City
should allow the use of full-color displays rather than just restricting to monochrome. (See
Attachment 6 for summary minutes of the CityWorks meeting).
What little feedback there was on the pole sign issue was about evenly split between those who
believe the signs are fine the way they are and those that believe the additional design criteria would
be beneficial.
Meetings:
April 5 and July 7 – Industry representatives
April 22 – Chamber of Commerce Local Legislative Affairs
April 27 – Sign owners
May 11 – Two public open houses
July 7 – CityWorks alumni group
July 22 – Planning & Zoning Board work session
August 9 – City Council work session
September 27 – Digital sign demonstration display
September/October – Four meetings with the Chamber of Commerce/Fort Collins Sign Coalition
(representatives from the Chamber, sign industry, and business owners)
November 10 – Planning & Zoning Board work session
November 17 – Planning & Zoning Board public hearing
Web tools:
Your Voice
City’s Facebook page”
Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer, stated concern has arisen regarding the rapid expansion
of digital sign permit requests.
Peter Barnes, Zoning Supervisor, discussed the historical nature of the City’s sign codes, including
the most recent digital sign code of 2006, which does not contain any specific information regarding
dimming levels. At the August 9, 2011 Work Session, staff received direction to prepare an
ordinance that allows the continued use of digital signs with additional standards to better regulate
design and esthetic impact. Key elements of the ordinance include the establishment of specific,
measurable, and enforceable brightness levels. The permit process will require that the brightness
level be factory preset. Red lettering will be allowed in monochrome message displays; however,
full color displays would remain prohibited. Barnes discussed the portable sign boundary map and
pole sign design criteria. Several outreach meetings were held resulting in most respondents
expressing support for making code adjustments to ensure quality standards as the number of digital
signs increases.
185
December 6, 2011
Ann Hutchison, Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce, supported the proposed changes and
encouraged future consideration of full color signs.
James Carpentier, International Sign Association and Colorado Sign Association, supported the
proposed changes but expressed concern with the limit on color regulations and pixel requirements.
Mayor Weitkunat asked staff to address the concerns raised by Mr. Carpentier. Barnes replied only
four colors have been allowed on digital signs since 2006 and this Ordinance proposes to add red
as a fifth color. The limit on colors reduces the possibility of several signs becoming overwhelming
in one’s field of vision. In terms of pixel spacing, the proposal is effective in getting high resolution
signs with better legibility.
Mayor Weitkunat noted no restrictions are proposed for colors for static signs.
Councilmember Troxell asked how staff has determined the current regulations have worked well.
Barnes replied businesses have provided no feedback indicating otherwise.
Councilmember Troxell stated he would prefer more color options.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson requested that staff examine sign sizes irrespective of the safety aspect prior
to Second Reading and requested examining the placement of sign additions within the overall sign,
as discussed at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting.
Councilmember Troxell asked about using background colors on digital signs. Barnes confirmed
the message is required to be a single color and the background may be another color, though it must
be one of the approved colors.
Mayor Weitkunat asked about future monitoring of the effectiveness of the regulation. Barnes
replied staff is proposing a monitoring program to analyze the regulation effectiveness after two
years as part of the plan and policy review schedule. Deputy City Attorney Daggett stated Council
could add that requirement to the Ordinance.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked about the variations in shades of allowed colors. Barnes replied
shades are allowed.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 178, 2011, as amended, on First Reading.
Councilmember Troxell asked if a graphic identity could be placed on a digital sign. Barnes replied
it could be, if it were monochrome.
Councilmember Manvel commended staff for work on the item and the resulting Ordinance.
Councilmember Troxell supported the proposed two year review.
186
December 6, 2011
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson commended staff for work on the item and the resulting Ordinance.
Councilmember Kottwitz requested an examination of including additional colors prior to Second
Reading.
Mayor Weitkunat commended staff on outreach to businesses and also requested an examination
of including additional colors.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(**Secretary’s note: The Urban Renewal Authority work session scheduled after the Council
meeting was rescheduled to January 24, 2012.)
(**Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Items relating to the Safe Ride Home Program, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 2011-108 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Contract with the Board
of Governors of the Colorado State University System for the Benefit of the Associated
Students of Colorado State University to Create the Safe Ride Home Weekend Bus Service.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 179, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
General Fund for Transfer to the Transit Services Fund and Appropriating Unanticipated
Revenue in the Transit Services Fund for the Safe Ride Home Weekend Bus Service.
Fort Collins Police Services (FCPS) has had recent discussions with the Associated Students of
Colorado State University (ASCSU) about creating an additional transportation option for people
leaving the downtown area on weekend nights. In this partnership Police Services hopes to
accomplish important goals of reducing the number of people and the associated problems in the
downtown area and increasing traffic safety by giving people an additional option for leaving
downtown safely and decreasing the number of drivers who have been drinking during this
timeframe. The available transportation is unable to meet the demand for transportation during this
timeframe. ASCSU has an interest in providing this service for students and is willing to invest
funds from student fees to address this need. By combining available funding, these parties are able
to provide this service to all members of our community for a modest fare. The proposal is to enter
into a one year contract between ASCSU and Transfort to provide two fixed bus routes on Friday
and Saturday nights, every weekend during the term of the Agreement, from 11:30 PM to 2:30 AM.
187
December 6, 2011
An ongoing assessment will be conducted to determine the effectiveness of this project, any potential
improvements, and explore opportunities for long-term funding.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
One of the most challenging issues for the District One officers of FCPS is the safe management of
approximately 4,000 people who exit the many liquor licensed businesses in the downtown area at
bar closing time. The existing transportation options for people leaving the downtown area at this
time primarily consist of taxis and the Ram Ride program supported by ASCSU. These available
transportation options do not meet the demand at this time. This creates a situation where people
either stay in the area, which contributes to the difficulty of managing the behavior of this number
of people, or may choose to drive after drinking. Additionally, ASCSU has an interest in providing
safe transportation for students during this timeframe.
FCPS and ASCSU have developed a positive relationship in addressing issues where complementary
interests exist, such as with the Party Registration program and the Community Welcome.
Discussions about transportation options downtown began recently, and mutual interests were
identified. This proposal involves providing four buses that will run two dedicated routes to areas
where a high volume of students and other residents who frequent the downtown area live. The pilot
program will operate on Friday and Saturday nights between the hours of 11:30 PM and 2:30 AM.
Extensive surveying conducted by ASCSU and FCPS has indicated strong support for this service.
In addition, many of the bars downtown have expressed an interest in this program and have
proposed purchasing tickets for this service in advance and providing them to bar patrons.
The funding for this pilot program for 2012 will include $50,000 from FCPS Camera Radar funds,
$34,000 from ASCSU student fees, fares generated by a proposed one-dollar per ride fare and
potential advertising revenues generated by this service. FCPS generates revenue from Camera
Radar, which is used to support traffic safety initiatives and other police-related needs. This project
is a good use of this non-tax funding source as it provides safe transportation for people leaving the
downtown area who may have been consuming alcohol. In addition, this service provides an
environmentally beneficial public transportation option during this high traffic timeframe. Even
with the preliminary surveying that shows a very positive response to this service, it is difficult to
estimate the actual ridership. For this reason, the contract for this service will be written to allow
for the cancellation of the contract before the year is completed. FCPS has committed to making
up any shortage in the cost of this service from the same funding source if funds generated do not
pay the remaining costs for the contract.
This Resolution authorizes the City Manager to enter into a contract with ASCSU to provide this
service and the Ordinance appropriates $34,000 in revenue from ASCSU in two payments during
2012. The service will be provided by a private company under contract with Transfort and using
existing Transfort buses.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
FCPS will contribute $50,000 from existing funds that have been generated by fines paid for
Camera Radar tickets with the understanding that additional funds may be necessary to complete
188
December 6, 2011
the payment of the contract. This partnership includes funding from ASCSU student fees in the
amount of $34,000 to be paid in two payments. Additional funding will be generated from fares paid
by users of this service and advertising revenues generated. This service will provide employment
for drivers from a private company that will be contracted by Transfort for this purpose.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The environmental impacts of this pilot project are expected to be positive by providing mass
transportation service to hundreds of people who may otherwise be traveling by automobiles.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
A survey of people leaving the downtown area during this timeframe was conducted by ASCSU and
FCPS. In addition, a Student Voice Survey was conducted electronically by ASCSU. These surveys
showed that 94% of the people surveyed liked the idea of providing public transportation during this
timeframe. This survey data also helped to determine the best routes for this service. At a meeting
with bar owners and managers this concept was presented, and there was strong support.”
Jerry Schiager, Police Services, discussed the pilot project joint venture between ASCSU and the
City to provide public transportation from the downtown area on weekend nights.
Chase Eckert, ASCSU Director of Governmental Affairs, discussed a survey of CSU students
regarding where students actually live in town, whether or not they would pay for late night
weekend bus service, and the hours the service would be most needed. The survey found most
students were willing to pay a fee at the time of service and 94% supported the idea of late night
weekend bus service. The current Ram Ride program currently operates about 19 vehicles per night
and functions like a free taxi service for students. Adding the bus route would create one of the
largest and most comprehensive safe ride programs in the country.
Schiager discussed the pilot proposal which is to run four buses on two dedicated routes which
would result in only 15 minute maximum waits. The routes would reach the most dense residential
areas on Friday and Saturday nights for one year, potentially beginning in January 2012. The initial
cost estimate for the program is $119,500, $34,000 of which has been committed by ASCSU,
$50,000 of which will come from Police Services’ Photo Radar Reserve Fund, and approximately
$25,000 of which will be generated from the riders. Police Services will cover any cost not covered
by the proposed funding mechanisms and the contract will include an escape clause with 30 days
notice.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, expressed concern about equity and expenditure of
community resources.
Shane Miller, 4325 Mill Creek, supported the program but expressed concern that the boundaries
are limited to campus and downtown areas.
Keegan Schultz, Ram Ride Director, supported the program.
189
December 6, 2011
Rachel Schrader, ASCSU Deputy Director of Governmental Affairs, supported the program and
noted the program is available to all citizens as well as students.
Dr. John Hurst, Fort Collins resident, supported the program and noted the cost savings to Police
Services.
Councilmember Poppaw asked why Mr. Eckert presented part of the staff presentation. City
Manager Atteberry replied his presentation was due to the nature of the partnership.
Councilmember Poppaw asked about the cost to Transfort resulting from wear and tear on buses.
Kurt Ravenschlag, Transfort Assistant General Manager, replied the cost estimate of $119,500 does
account for fuel, maintenance, and operator salaries.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked if staff has considered charging more for non-students. Schiager
replied it had been considered but was not part of the proposal for the sake of simplicity. Each rider
will be charged one dollar.
Councilmember Manvel asked about the economics of this proposal versus Ram Ride expansion.
Mr. Eckert replied Ram Ride expansion was not considered as the efficiency of fixed routes
decreases wait times much more dramatically.
Councilmember Troxell supported the program and commended staff for work on the item.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about Transfort “Express Vehicles.” Ravenschlag replied Transfort
has three vehicles which were purchased from the Colorado Department of Transportation after a
program providing transportation along Highway 34 was cancelled.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked how this program addresses the mass exit from downtown bars and
restaurants. Schiager replied the District 1 officers have been working on encouraging a more
staged departure from Old Town.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if this service is enabling and encouraging drinking. Schiager replied
this program should aid in decreasing the cost to the community via Police Services expense
reduction.
Councilmember Kottwitz made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt Resolution
2011-108.
Councilmember Kottwitz stated this service will benefit more than just students.
Councilmember Horak supported the program and noted it will provide safe rides to individuals who
may not have been drinking. He commended the partnership between CSU and the City.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson commended Police Services for its response to his questions and stated he
would support the program based on its innovation.
190
December 6, 2011
Councilmember Poppaw commended the innovation of the program.
Mayor Weitkunat expressed strong support for the innovation and partnership of the program.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kottwitz, to adopt Ordinance
No. 179, 2011, on First Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 166, 2011,
Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise
Electric Rates, Fees and Charges, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This residential energy rate is used to bill about 55,000 residential customers. These customers
include single-family dwellings, individually metered apartments and home occupations. This rate
class also includes a small group (220) of multi-family customers with a single meter. Seventeen
of these customers occupy four-plex or larger units. This rate ordinance increases the residential
energy rate by an average of 6%; however, the percentage of increase varies by season and
customer usage. Option B of the Ordinance was adopted on First Reading on November 15, 2011
by a vote of 4-2 (Nays: Troxell, Weitkunat; Kottwitz absent). If adopted on Second Reading, the rate
will be effective with meter readings after February 1, 2012.
The residential electric rate has three components: (1) a fixed charge, the monthly charge that
recovers the cost of metering, billing, collecting and providing customer service, and all other
customer-related costs; (2) a distribution facilities charge that recovers the cost of operating and
maintaining the distribution substations, poles, wires, conductors, and transformers required to
deliver power to customers, applied on a $/kilowatt hour (kWh or unit of electricity) basis; and (3)
an energy charge that recovers the cost of fuel, purchased power, and all other variable costs
associated with the production of electricity. The energy charge includes both energy and demand
components of purchase power. The new rate will change the structure of the energy charge in two
ways: (1) creating specific pricing for three tiers or blocks of energy use; and (2) creating seasonal
pricing in the summer season billing months of June, July and August.
The fixed charge will increase to $4.48 per bill from the 2011 charge of $3.91. The distribution
facilities charge will increase to $0.0256/kWh from the 2011 charge of $0.0220/kWh. The current
191
December 6, 2011
2011 energy charge is $0.0248. The Ordinance creates three inclining blocks or tiers that will differ
in the summer months of June, July and August from the remaining months of the year.
1. During the summer season billing months of June, July and August, the energy charge per
kWh will be tiered with the following charges:
a. for the first 500 kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: $0.0531 / kWh.
b. for the next 500 kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: $0.0689 / kWh.
c. for all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: $0.1005 / kWh.
The meter reading date will generally determine the summer season billing months; however, no
customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rates.
2. During the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September
through December, the energy charge per kWh will be tiered with the following charges:
a. for the first 500 kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: $0.0482 / kWh.
b. for the next 500 kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: $0.0520 / kWh.
c. for all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: $0.0603 / kWh.
Accommodation for customers with medical needs is planned. Also a pilot time-of-use rate for
electric vehicles will be developed for Council consideration in mid-2012.”
Brian Janonis, Utility Services Executive Director, stated this Ordinance would adopt tiered rates
to encourage conservation per both the Climate Action Plan and the City’s Energy Policy. The rates
include the Platte River Power Authority rate increases and adjustments for the City’s cost of
service.
Patty Bigner, Utility Services, discussed the specific rate changes and stated the new rates would
go into effect February 1, 2012. Accommodations for medical needs and low income assistance are
planned.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, supported tiered rates.
Dana Nance, 4215 Applegate Court, opposed tiered rates.
Doug Fogg, 2924 Silverwood Drive, preferred Option A, or seasonal rates, over tiered rates.
Paul Smith, 1908 Welch Street, supported tiered rates.
Lacy Kechter, Fort Collins resident, supported tiered rates.
John Long, Atmospheric Conservancy Development Director, supported tiered rates.
Shane Miller, 4325 Mill Creek, supported tiered rates.
192
December 6, 2011
Paul McGraw, 1309 Salem Street, questioned the justification of the rate increase and asked if other
PRPA member cities are also raising rates. He asked if smart meters have the capacity for
interruption and what the City will do with the increased revenue from the summer months. He
asked why commercial customers are not dealing with rate increases.
Glen Colton, 625 Hinsdale Drive, supported tiered rates.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, discussed the $11 opt out fee for the Smart Meter program
and opposed rates which do not provide exemptions for low-income residents and other special
populations.
Eric Levine, 514 North Shields, discussed a 2008 task force relating to tiered rates and encouraged
the City to provide further outreach regarding utility bill reduction.
Kevin Cross, 300 Peterson, supported tiered rates and noted houses with all electric heat will
continue to be eligible for the City’s demand rate. Additionally, individuals with medical needs
requiring electricity and electric vehicles will not be affected.
Mayor Weitkunat asked for clarification regarding the rate increase justification with regard to the
6% across-the-board increase mentioned by several speakers. Janonis replied there are two
components to the rate increase justification: the Platte River Power Authority rate increase and the
City’s cost for wholesale power. Additionally, the Utility is starting to reduce the amount taken out
of reserves for capital projects.
Mayor Weitkunat asked if other PRPA member cities are increasing rates. Bill Switzer, Utility Rate
Analyst, replied Loveland is increasing rates 6% across-the-board, not on a cost of service basis.
Mayor Weitkunat asked if smart meters will be able to interrupt service. Steve Catanach, Light and
Power Operations Manager, replied the advanced meters will have the capability to reconnect and
disconnect remotely.
Mayor Weitkunat noted commercial rates will also increase, in the range of 13% to 20%.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson suggested a different process may be needed in terms of answering public
questions.
Councilmember Troxell supported time-of-use rates rather than tiered rates and asked about the
planned date for the roll-out of the Advanced Metering system. Catanach replied staff is examining
delaying mass deployment. The initial roll-out of the test area will begin in February; however, the
message associated with the increased summer billing should not be confused with the message
associated with the Advanced Meters. The deployment may be compressed to a seven month
deployment, following the summer months, rather than an eleven month deployment.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kottwitz, to adopt the original
Option A of Ordinance No. 166, 2011, on Second Reading.
193
December 6, 2011
Councilmember Manvel made a motion to amend, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to replace
Option A with Option B.
Councilmember Manvel supported tiered rates as adopted on First Reading.
Councilmember Troxell stated Option A, or seasonal rates, allows for a more deliberate approach
to energy consumption.
Councilmember Kottwitz supported conservation and the Climatewise Program but supported
seasonal rates over tiered rates.
Mayor Weitkunat stated all residents will see a 6.4% rate increase due to the PRPA rate increase
pass through. Additionally, that increase has been incorporated with other City goals that will
increase rates to a point of negatively affecting individuals. She supported seasonal rates over tiered
rates.
Councilmember Horak argued that nearly 90% of the residential rate customers will have a lower
bill than the average increase from PRPA.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted Fort Collins has some of the lowest electric rates in the country and
supported tiered rates.
The vote on the motion to amend by adopting Option B on Second Reading was as follows: Yeas:
Manvel, Horak, Poppaw and Ohlson. Nays: Weitkunat, Kottwitz and Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kottwitz, to amend Ordinance
No. 166, 2011, by requiring that Council receive a report in September of each year providing the
summer energy and peak daily demand for each customer class, for at least the previous three years,
in order to monitor the impacts of tiered rates.
Councilmember Poppaw asked how much staff time would be required to provide such a report.
Deputy City Attorney Daggett stated the Ordinance could be amended to provide that direction to
the City Manager. An alternative would be for the City Manager to use usual processes for a report
to Council.
Janonis stated current residential meters do not allow demand measurements and asked if
Councilmember Troxell would prefer the analysis to be systemwide. Councilmember Troxell
replied he would like system data as well as peak data for summer months.
Councilmember Manvel opposed the amendment to add the report requirement.
Councilmember Kottwitz withdrew her second to Councilmember Troxell’s motion to amend.
194
December 6, 2011
The vote on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 166, 2011, as presented, on Second Reading, was
as follows: Yeas: Manvel, Horak, Ohlson and Poppaw. Nays: Weitkunat, Kottwitz and Troxell.
Extension of the Meeting
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson, to extend the meeting
past 10:30 p.m. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel and Ohlson. Nays: Poppaw, Troxell, Kottwitz and Horak.
THE MOTION FAILED.
Adjournment
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson, to adjourn to 6:00
p.m., December 13, 2011, to consider a possible Executive Session, and to consider agenda items
36, 37, and 38 as the first Discussion items on the December 20, 2011 regular meeting agenda.
Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
195
DATE: January 3, 2012
STAFF: Bruce Hendee, Ken Mannon
Helen Matson
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 7
SUBJECT
Postponement of Second Reading of Ordinance No. 183, 2011, Authorizing the Lease of City-owned Property at 430
North College Avenue and 100 Willow Street to the Colorado State University Research Foundation to January 17,
2012.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff is requesting postponement of Second Reading of Ordinance No. 183, 2012, until January 17, 2012. There were
portions of the Lease Agreement that caused concern with the City Council at its December 20, 2011 meeting. Staff
from the City and Colorado State University Research Foundation need to discuss these areas of concern and agree
on changes to the lease. Several of the key team members will be out of the office for the holiday season. This does
not leave enough time to meet and complete negotiations prior to the meeting of January 3, 2012.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends postponement to January 17, 2012.
DATE: January 3, 2012
STAFF: Mike Beckstead
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 8
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 001, 2012, Appropriating General Fund Reserves for Additional City Contribution to
the Poudre Fire Authority Budget for the Year 2012 for Operations and Maintenance.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance outlines the contribution from the City of Fort Collins to the Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) for the
Southwest Enclave Annexation in the amount of $158,009 to contribute funding for operating and maintenance of the
Poudre Fire Authority.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
When the City of Fort Collins annexes property, it reduces the amount of revenue brought into the Poudre Valley Fire
Protection District based on the mill levy on such property. The calculated amount of revenue lost from the City's
Southwest Enclave Annexation is $158,009. When the 2012 City Budget was adopted, it did not include any additional
contribution from the City of Fort Collins to Poudre Fire Authority for the City's Southwest Enclave Annexation.
During a PFA Board of Directors meeting on December 14, 2010, it was conveyed that the City would contribute
money to PFA to compensate for the lost revenue to the District from the City's Southwest Enclave Annexation
(Attachment 1). This Ordinance appropriates the dollars the City committed to PFA in the amount of $158,009.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Adoption of the Ordinance will establish the City’s contribution to the Poudre Fire Authority for the Southwest
Annexation in 2012. As previously adopted in Resolution 2011-104, the Revenue Allocation Formula outlined the
City’s contribution to PFA for operations, maintenance and capital needs in the amount of $18,890,451, excluding the
$158,009 contribution for the Southwest Enclave Annexation. Adoption of this Ordinance brings the total 2012 City
contribution to PFA to $19,048,460.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Poudre Fire Authority Board of Directors Meeting Notes, December 14, 2010.
ORDINANCE NO. 001, 2012
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING GENERAL FUND RESERVES FOR ADDITIONAL CITY
CONTRIBUTION TO THE POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY BUDGET FOR
THE YEAR 2012 FOR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
WHEREAS, on December 22, 1981, the City entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement
(the “IGA”) with the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District creating the Poudre Fire Authority (the
“PFA”), which IGA was amended in 1987; and
WHEREAS, the PFA provides fire protection services to all properties within the City limits
and the City has a continuing commitment to provide funding to the PFA for its public safety
services; and
WHEREAS, City Council adopted Resolution 2011-104 to allocate $18,890,451 to the PFA
for operations, maintenance, and capital needs for the year 2012 based on the approved revenue
allocation formula (RAF); and
WHEREAS, the adopted Resolution did not include compensation in the amount of
$158,009 for lost revenue to the PFA from the City’s Southwest Enclave Annexation; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance will appropriate $158,009 from General Fund reserves for the
PFA’s 2012 operations and maintenance budget; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to appropriate
by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from
reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously
appropriated; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to make
supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total
amount of such appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for that fiscal year,
does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the
fiscal year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS, that there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from reserves in the General Fund the
sum of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY EIGHT THOUSAND AND NINE DOLLARS ($158,009) for
additional contribution to the 2012 Poudre Fire Authority Budget.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of
January, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of January, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of January, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: January 3, 2012
STAFF: Melissa Funk
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 9
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 002, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the
Police Services Victim Services Team.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Fort Collins Police Services Victim Services Team has been awarded a 12-month grant in the amount of $30,000
for the period from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012, by the Eighth Judicial District Victims Assistance and Law
Enforcement (V.A.L.E.) Board to help fund services provided by this team. These funds will be used for part of the
salary for the victim advocate who provides crisis intervention services during weekday hours and is housed in the
Victim Services office. These funds will also pay for some of the operational expenses needed to provide 24-hour a
day, 7-day a week services to victims of crime in the community.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Victim Services Team has received funding from the V.A.L.E. grant since the inception of the program in 1996.
Services have been provided to thousands of victims and their family members who have become victims of violent
crime in the community. Council has approved appropriations of the grant revenue every year. Services to the
community would be drastically cut without this grant award.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The City has received a grant in the amount of $30,000, a $4,000 decrease from 2011, from the Eighth Judicial District
Victim Assistance and Law Enforcement (V.A.L.E.) Board to help fund victim services activities. This grant requires
no cash match.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 002, 2012
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUE OF IN THE GENERAL FUND
FOR THE FORT COLLINS POLICE SERVICES VICTIM SERVICES TEAM
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins Police Services has been awarded a grant in the amount
of $30,000 (the “Grant”) for the period from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012 by the Eighth
Judicial District Victims and Law Enforcement (“VALE”) Board to support the Fort Collins Police
Services Victim Services Team (the “Victim Services Team”); and
WHEREAS, the Victim Services Team provides crisis intervention, resources and referral
services to victims of violent crime as well as other traumatic situations; and
WHEREAS, the Grant will be used to fund a part of the salary for the victim advocate who
provides crisis intervention services and to partially pay for operational expenses needed to provide
24-hour a day, 7-day a week services to victims of crime in our community; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to make
supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total
amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for
that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be
received during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the Grant from the VALE
Board to support the Victim Services Team will not cause the total amount appropriated in the
relevant funds to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that
fund during any fiscal year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated grant revenue in the General Fund
the sum of THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($30,000) for expenditure in the General Fund for
the Fort Collins Police Services Victim Services Team.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of
January, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of January, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of January, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: January 3, 2012
STAFF: Rick Richter
Tim Kemp
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 10
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 003, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Transportation Services Fund for
the Construction of the East Harmony Road Maintenance Improvements - College Avenue to Timberline Road.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed project will provide congestion relief and rehabilitate the pavement on East Harmony Road from College
Avenue to Timberline Road by completing the following major work items: turn lane construction, utility relocations,
asphalt overlay and restriping. The lane configurations from College to Boardwalk will look similar to the current
striping. The Boardwalk to Timberline stretch will be restriped to a six-lane configuration.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Council approved this project as part of the 2011 / 2012 Budgeting for Outcomes process. $2.4 million was allocated
from the Harmony Maintenance Fund for the 2011 calendar year. A portion of this money was spent in 2011 on
maintenance, operations and engineering design. The reappropriation of funds to the 2012 calendar year is for the
remainder of $2,182,287 which will be used for construction.
Engineering has been working on the final construction documents in 2011, along with identifying and negotiating right-
of-way and temporary construction easements for the proposed turn lanes. The City is also working with the Union
Pacific Railroad and the Public Utilities Commission for the at-grade crossing west of Timberline Road. A pedestrian
connection will be constructed across the railroad tracks on the north side of Harmony Road with the completion of
this project.
The project will be bid in spring 2012 and constructed in early summer 2012. Staff is seeking to reappropriate the
funds previously approved in 2011 to calendar year 2012.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
In 2006, the City received funding from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) to maintain Harmony Road
and complete a list of capital improvements for the corridor. This project addresses the need for pavement
maintenance for a significant stretch of Harmony Road, which meets the intent of the agreement with CDOT. This
section of roadway is the last major portion of Harmony Road to receive pavement treatment when looking at the limits
from College Avenue to Strauss Cabin Road.
Short and long term benefits include the easing of traffic congestion, improved signal timing and reduced vehicle
delays along the corridor. By implementing these improvements in 2012 to one of the City’s key arterial thoroughfares,
the traveling public will move more efficiently among the businesses throughout the corridor due to the restriping to
six lanes adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad. More extensive and costly future repairs will be avoided by investing
now in extending the life of the pavement.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The project will have a positive impact on long term air quality. Congestion relief will be aided by the six-lane
configuration from Boardwalk to Timberline, along with the addition of three new right turn lanes in this stretch.
Congestion relief will reduce vehicle wait time, thus reducing vehicle emissions.
January 3, 2012 -2- ITEM 10
Another positive environmental factor is that a majority of the pavement already exists. There are very few widening
areas along the two mile stretch, which reduces the footprint of the construction limits.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The Project Team met with business owners adjacent to the project. Public outreach will be intensified prior to, and
during construction of the project.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Location Map
ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE NO. 003, 2012
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
FUND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE EAST HARMONY ROAD MAINTENANCE
IMPROVEMENTS - COLLEGE AVENUE TO TIMBERLINE ROAD
WHEREAS, in 2006, the City received funding from the Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT) to maintain Harmony Road for 20 years and to complete a list of capital
improvements along the corridor; and
WHEREAS, with the 2011-2012 budget process, the City Council approved offer number
146.6 appropriating funds in 2011 for pavement maintenance on Harmony Road from College
Avenue to Timberline Road (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project includes the following major work items: turn lane construction,
utility relocations, and asphalt overlay and re-striping; and
WHEREAS, benefits of the Project include the easing of traffic congestion, improved signal
timing, and reduced vehicle delays along the corridor; and
WHEREAS, City staff has been working on the final design and the Project will be ready
to bid in the spring of 2012; and
WHEREAS, the funds appropriated in the 2011 budget will lapse into the Transportation
Services Fund reserves at the end of 2011; and
WHEREAS, City staff is requesting the reappropriation of $2.4 million to complete the
Project in 2012; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to make
supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total
amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for
that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be
received during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to appropriate
by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from
reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously
appropriated; and
WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the revenue as described
herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Capital Projects Fund to exceed the current
estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during any fiscal year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS, that there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the
Transportation Services Fund the sum of TWO MILLION ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY-TWO
THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY-SEVEN DOLLARS ($2,182,287) for the construction
of the East Harmony Road Maintenance Improvements - College Avenue to Timberline Road..
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of
January, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of January, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of January, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: January 3, 2012
STAFF: Karen McWilliams
Courtney Levingston
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 11
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 004, 2012, Amending Section 14-72(b)(6) of the City Code to Correct an Error in the
Procedures for Review of Applications for Demolition or Relocation of Historic Structures.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is an amendment to Section 14-72(b)(6) of the City Code correcting an error regarding a citation cross-reference
to requirements for the final Landmark Preservation Commission hearing needed in the event that the Landmark
Preservation Commission fails to make a decision within 60 days of the submittal of these requirements. As the City
Code currently stands, this error requires the Landmark Preservation Commission to make a decision regarding a
historic structure demolition application upon the submittal of only one part of a submittal requirement outlined in 14-
72(2)(b). This amendment corrects the error and requires the Landmark Preservation Commission to make a decision
pursuant to fulfillment of all the submittal requirements.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Chapter 14 of the City Code is the City’s preservation ordinance and includes the bulk of regulation on historic
properties. Specifically, Section 14-72 provides the procedure regarding demolition of structures that are individually
eligible for local landmark designation commonly called the Demolition/Alteration Review. According to this section,
if a structure is found to be individually eligible for local landmark designation, an applicant wishing to demolish that
structure must attend a preliminary and then a final hearing with the Landmark Preservation Commission. In order
to schedule the final hearing, an applicant is required to provide:
1. documentation of the history and architecture of the building by completing a Colorado Cultural Resource
Survey Architectural Inventory Form
2. information about the historic character of the immediate neighborhood, so that the impact of the proposal on
the eligibility of other nearby properties may be assessed;
3. final, approved plans for the proposed work.
At the Final Hearing, the Landmark Preservation Commission conducts a public meeting to determine if the
requirements (as stated above) are met, and either approves the application, postpones the application due to
submittal insufficiencies, or may refer the application to City Council for consideration.
The final subsection (6) of Section 14-72 states that if the Landmark Preservation Commission fails to make a decision
within 60 days of the submittal of the requirements for final hearing that the application for demolition will be approved
by default.
The City Code correction for Section 14-72(6) is as follows:
(6) In the event that the Commission has not made a final decision within sixty (60) days of the date
of the submittal of information required pursuant to Subparagraph (2)b.2.(b)(2)b hereof, in detail
acceptable to the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services, then the
Commission shall be deemed to have approved, without condition, the proposed demolition or
relocation.
In conclusion, this amendment corrects the existing error in Section 14-72(b)(6) by stating that the applicant must
submit all three requirements that are outlined in 14-72(2)(b) to the Landmark Preservation Commission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 004, 2012
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING SECTION 14-72(b)(6) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY
OF FORT COLLINS TO CORRECT AN ERROR IN THE PROCEDURES
FOR REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS FOR DEMOLITION OR
RELOCATION OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES
WHEREAS, Section 14-72 of the City Code establishes procedures for the review of
applications for demolition or relocation, under the City’s landmark preservation ordinances; and
WHEREAS, Section 14-72(b)(6) contains an error in a citation of a cross-reference, which
error results in an incomplete and illogical requirement by imposing an obligation upon the
Landmark Preservation Commission to make a decision regarding a demolition application upon the
submittal of only one part of a three-part submittal requirement which is contained earlier in Section
14-72; and
WHEREAS, this requirement can be corrected by changing the cross-reference from
subparagraph (2)b.2. to instead refer to subparagraph (b)(2)b.; and
WHEREAS, the cross-reference to subparagraph (2)b.2. should be a cross-reference to
subparagraph (b)(2)b.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that Section 14-72(b)(6) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read
as follows:
Sec. 14-72. Procedures for review of applications for demolition or
relocation.
. . .
(6) In the event that the Commission has not made a final decision within sixty
(60) days of the date of the submittal of information required pursuant to
Subparagraph (2)b.2.(b)(2)b. hereof, in detail acceptable to the Director of
Community Development and Neighborhood Services, then the
Commission shall be deemed to have approved, without condition, the
proposed demolition or relocation.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of
January, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of January, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of January, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: January 3, 2012
STAFF: John Stokes
Daylan Figgs
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 12
SUBJECT
Resolution 2012-001 Adopting an Updated Policy for the Review and Approval of Easements on City Natural Areas
and Conserved Lands.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Fort Collins Natural Areas and Open Lands Easement Policy was adopted by Resolution 2001-094. To
date, approximately forty right-of-way easements have been granted by the City under this Policy. The Natural Areas
program (NAP) is proposing revisions to the Policy to address:
1. Compensation and mitigation requirements
2. Review and approval of projects proposed within existing easements
3. Above-ground features associated with buried utility cables and pipelines
4. Specific types of facilities
5. Review and approval of projects within new or existing utility easements on lands conserved with Conservation
Easements
6. Oil and Gas and Minerals Exploration and Production
7. Public Information and Review Process.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The City of Fort Collins Natural Areas and Open Lands Easement Policy was adopted by Resolution 2001-94. To date,
approximately forty right-of-way easements have been granted by the City under this Policy. The Natural Areas
program (NAP) is proposing revisions to the Policy to address:
1. Compensation and Mitigation
The City of Fort Collins Natural Areas and Open Lands Easement Policy (Resolution 2001-94, July 17, 2001) (current
Policy) requires the City to be compensated for the value of the right-of-way easement and the costs for processing
and managing the easement. Proposed revisions to the policy will require that compensation be required for the loss
of ecological services and recreation values of the property (ecological goods and services). Compensation for the
value of the land and for damages will continue to be based on fair market value as determined by accepted appraisal
techniques. Compensation for loss in ecological goods and services will be based on values reported in appropriate
professional and technical publications. Compensation for losses in ecological goods and services may be negotiated
to be paid in cash or through the completion of appropriate mitigation measures, either on or off the property impacted
by the easement. Loss in ecological goods and services will be compensated on a weighted, multi-year scale to
capture the time it takes for the ecological goods and services to return to a pre-disturbance condition.
It is important to note that some entities have the authority to condemn City owned lands. NAP will negotiate the value
of the easement as directed by the Policy. However, the final value may be influenced by factors outside the scope
of this Policy and may differ from the methods described in the Policy.
2. New Projects Within Existing Easements
The current Policy is limited to new requests for easements or rights-of-way and is silent on new projects within
easements previously granted by the City or within easements granted prior to City ownership. The revised Policy
addresses new projects within existing easements and states the City take advantage of any opportunity to establish
terms and conditions or specific project plans consistent with the terms of this Policy.
Easements previously granted may not require advance notice to the City for work proposed on a natural area or
conserved land. The revised Policy states that in connection with any work anticipated to take place within an existing
easement, the City will establish a mutually agreed plan for notification and consultation regarding the work. Also, the
January 3, 2012 -2- ITEM 12
City will negotiate with the easement holder to establish a process for advance coordination, scheduling and planning
for avoidance of impacts and mitigation, if necessary.
3. Above Ground Features or Markers
Above ground features or markers associated with buried utilities are addressed in the current Resource Protection
Standards for Easements and Rights-of-Way but not within the governing Policy. The revised Policy requires that any
above-ground features associated with buried utility cables and pipelines will not be allowed on City property unless
required by applicable technical standards for public safety and utility marking or other applicable legal or regulatory
requirements. The location, color and height of any such above-ground features must be approved by the City.
4. Specific Types of Facilities
The revised Policy generally prohibits private streets or other private access, overhead electric lines, and drainage
facilities on City property. However, the Policy does recognize there may be cases where these types of facilities may
be beneficial to the City, and therefore may be allowed in these specific instances.
5. Conservation Easements
The current Policy does not address request for new easements or new projects within easements previously granted
on lands conserved with conservation easements (a conservation easement is a deeded property right that restricts
the development of a property). The owners of private property protected by a conservation easement, which
easement held by the City’s Natural Areas program, may receive requests for right-of-way easements across their
property for roads, utilities and other uses. Notice to the City of the easement request generally is required within the
terms of the conservation easement, and ideally property owners (or entities seeking a new right-of-way) will notify the
Natural Areas program
6. Oil and Gas and Minerals Exploration
The revised Policy recognizes that access, pipeline, and other easements may be requested in connection with the
exploration of oil and gas, and mineral resources. The Policy prohibits granting of these types of easements unless
crossing the City’s land is the only feasible means or unless it is determined to be of benefit to the City property in the
specific circumstance. The Policy also states the most current version of the Natural Areas Programs Best
Management Practices will be incorporated and used in connection with oil and gas exploration activities.
7. Public Information and Review Process
The applicant requesting an easement on City-owned natural area or conserved land will be required to arrange for
a public meeting to describe the project and respond to questions posed by the public. Documentation of the public
meeting will be provided to the City. The public process is in addition to the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board
and City Council review.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
As a condition of approval for any easement or right-of-way, the City requires compensation for the value of the
easement or right-of-way, the administrative costs for processing and managing the easement, and the value in the
loss of ecological services, recreation values, and other intrinsic values of the property. The policy further provides
that staff will seek compensation intended to support on or off-site capitol improvements or land conservation.
A base administrative fee of $1,500 in 2011 dollars will be charged to process easement requests. The fee will be paid
by the Grantee at the time the easement is granted. Staff will track its cost to administer the easement and will bill the
Grantee for any cost in excess of $1,500 at a rate of $100 per hour for staff time. Staff will regularly inform the
applicant of the costs the applicant is incurring during the administrative process.
Following final grading and initial seeding of the disturbed site and acceptance by the City, the NAP will be responsible
for ongoing vegetation management, including weed control, mowing, and reseeding, as needed. The cost for the City
to perform the vegetation management over the next five to ten years is calculated to be three thousand dollars
January 3, 2012 -3- ITEM 12
($3,000) per acre of disturbance based on grassland / shrubland cover types. Vegetation management fees will be
determined for other cover types on a case-by-case basis. The cost of this service will be evaluated and adjusted as
needed.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
All impacts associated with the granting of the easement will be restored. Impacts during construction activities will
be restored to the current version of the Natural Areas and Conserved Lands Resource Protection Standards.
The Policy recognizes the temporary loss in ecological services that will result from granting the easement and requires
Natural Areas to be compensated through cash, mitigation efforts or a combination of both. In general, compensation
and fees will be administered so as to result in a net benefit to the site being impacted.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its December 14, 2011, meeting, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board discussed the proposed Policy
and voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the amended Policy. A memo from the Board has been provided.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City of Fort Collins Natural Areas and Conserved Lands Easement Policy with major changes highlighted
2. Natural Areas and Conserved Lands Resource Protection Standards
3. Guidance Document: Compensation and Mitigation Requirements for Easements on City of Fort Collins
Natural Areas and Conserved Lands (November 2011)
4. Guidance Document: Alternatives Analysis for Easements on City of Fort Collins Natural Areas and
Conserved Lands (December 2011)
5. Work Session Summary, November 30, 2011
6. Land Conservation and Stewardship Board minutes, September 14, October 12 and December 14, 2011
7. Land Conservation and Stewardship Board memo, December 15, 2011
1
ATTACHMENT 1
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
NATURAL AREAS AND CONSERVED LANDS
EASEMENT POLICY
Original Policy Adopted by Resolution 2001 – 94, July 17, 2001
***Note: Changes to original text or new text in this revised policy are highlighted in
green***
PURPOSE:
The purpose of the policy statement is to clarify the policies and procedures of the City of
Fort Collins (“City”) with respect to requests for easements or rights-of-way that affect
publicly owned Natural Areas or other lands that are managed by the Natural Resources
Department; lands owned in part by the Natural Resources Department; and private lands
with Conservation Easements held by the Natural Resources Department. The policy
does not apply to requests for easements or rights-of-way on or across other lands owned
by the City.
APPLICABILITY:
The policy applies to requests for new easements or rights-of-way and to projects within
existing easements, as appropriate, which provide for a wide variety of purposes,
including without limitation, streets, water, sewer, drainage, flood control, electric power,
wind generation, solar generation, pipelines, oil and gas and minerals exploration, and
telecommunications facilities. The policy applies to projects of the City as well as those
proposed by other public entities, such as special Utility Districts, and private parties.
The policy does not apply to trails, parking lots, interpretive features or other facilities
that are proposed as part of the management of public natural areas.
GENERAL POLICY:
Most of the natural areas and other conserved lands addressed by these policies were
acquired by the City with dedicated funds from sales taxes that were approved by the
voters of Fort Collins or Larimer County for the specific purpose of protecting natural
areas and conserved lands. These lands are part of the fabric of the Fort Collins
community, and are viewed as a type of “community facility” intended to meet specific
community goals.
For natural areas, the goal is to “preserve and protect natural areas within Fort Collins
and the Community Growth Management Area to provide habitat essential to the
conservation of plants, animals, and their associated ecosystems and to enrich the lives
of citizens by providing opportunities for education, scientific research, nature
interpretation, art, fishing, wildlife observation, hiking and other activities.”
For other types of conserved lands, e.g., agricultural areas, lands are protected to shape
the physical structure of the community: These lands “provide the community with a
well-defined edge, establish community separators, direct growth, and preserve rural
character.”
2
Requests for easements or rights-of-way that affect natural areas or other conserved lands
must be considered within this context. Accordingly, the general policy is to avoid, to the
maximum extent feasible, granting easements or rights-of-way for activities that will
adversely affect the use of the land for meeting the community’s goals for natural area
protection or community shaping. Where easements or rights-of-way are authorized by
ordinance of the City Council, the general policy is to minimize the impact on the natural
area or the community, to the maximum extent feasible, by limiting the size and visibility
of the area affected, managing construction or other human activities with respect to their
timing, duration, and frequency of occurrence, and restoring affected areas to a condition
that is equal to or better than the condition at the time the easement is granted.
Because the natural areas and other conserved lands owned by the City are in many
instances within an urban context, it is recognized that easements and rights-of-way may
be necessary to allow for the orderly development of the community in accordance with
the adopted Plan Fort Collins (2011). Individual easement requests will be evaluated in
accordance with both the general policy and with the specific policies listed in following
sections.
In addition, many properties owned by the City were subject to easements and rights-of-
way granted by prior owners at the time the City acquired them. In connection with any
work anticipated to take place within an existing easement, the City will establish a
mutually agreed plan for notification and consultation regarding the work. The City will
negotiate with the easement holder to establish a process for advance coordination,
scheduling and planning for avoidance of impacts and mitigation, if necessary.
SPECIFIC TYPES OF FACILITIES:
Public Streets. New public highways, roads, or streets will not be allowed within City-
owned natural areas or conserved lands, except for those specifically identified in the
adopted City Master Street Plan or comparable Master Transportation Plan adopted by
the appropriate governing body in cases where the natural area or conserved land is
located outside of the city limits of Fort Collins. Widening or other street improvement
projects on existing streets within natural areas or conserved lands will be allowed,
consistent with the City Master Street Plan or comparable adopted Master Transportation
Plan. The City will work to influence the alignment and design of any highway, road, or
street improvement so as to avoid or minimize the effect on the natural area or conserved
land.
Private Streets or Other Private Access. Requests by private parties for private streets
or access easements to cross natural areas or conserved lands in order to gain access to a
private parcel of land will not be considered unless crossing the City’s is the only feasible
means of providing access to a legal parcel of land, or unless determined to be beneficial
for the Natural Areas Program in the specific circumstances.
Overhead Electric Power, Telephone, or Cable Lines. New overhead cable lines will
not be allowed within any City-owned natural area or conserved land, unless determined
to be beneficial for the Natural Areas Program in the specific circumstances.
Replacement of existing overhead cables with underground cables will generally be
3
encouraged unless the installation of underground lines will result in adverse impact to
the natural area that is inconsistent with these policies. Use of the latest technology
reasonably available will also be encouraged.
Any change in above ground features (number of poles, pole height, number of wires,
etc) within easements granted by the City or granted prior to City ownership of the land
(to the extent there is an opportunity to negotiate or impose new conditions) will require
review and approval by the City.
Aboveground Structures. New buildings or other structures, including without
limitation, towers, transmitters, receiving stations, tanks, substations, or billboards, other
than those of the City, will not be allowed on City-owned natural areas or conserved
lands. The City will seek and take advantage of opportunities to require or negotiate for
the undergrounding, avoidance or removal of above-ground structures associated with
existing infrastructure.
Underground Utility Cables or Pipelines. Consistent with standard practice within
Fort Collins, underground utility cables (e.g., electric, telephone, fiber optic, etc.) and
pipelines (e.g., gas, water, sewer) will be located within the street and utility right-of-way
adjacent to the natural area or conserved land. In instances where the existing right-of-
way does not conform to the planned future street right-of-way as depicted on the
applicable adopted Master Transportation Plan, cable or pipeline easements will be
located parallel to the existing roadway and within the area encompassed by the future
street and utility right-of-way.
Some larger utility transmission cables or pipelines are not typically placed beneath
streets due to reliability or safety concerns. In instances where the cable or pipeline
cannot safely be placed within the road right-of-way, it will be located as close as
practicable, and parallel to the road right-of-way.
Above-ground features associated with buried utility cables and pipelines will not be
allowed on City property unless required by applicable technical standards for public
safety and utility marking or other applicable legal or regulatory requirements. The
location, color and height of any such above-ground features must be approved by the
City. The City will seek and take advantage of opportunities to require or negotiate for
the undergrounding, avoidance or removal of above-ground structures associated with
existing infrastructure.
Drainage Facilities for Private Development. Drainage facilities that serve new
development (such as detention, retention, or water quality ponds) shall be located on
private land within the development and not on City-owned natural areas or conserved
land. Easements for conveyance facilities will be considered on a case-by-case basis
when the City-owned land is located between the private parcel and the historic receiving
channel or stream. The design of the new flow conveyance must utilize existing
drainages to the maximum extent feasible and must blend into the surrounding terrain;
must not impact the existing geomorphic character of the drainage; and must enhance the
natural habitat features and character of the site.
4
Requests will not be granted for easements by private entities to construct flood control
or drainage structures on natural areas or conserved lands to create developable land by
removing it from the floodplain, unless determined to be beneficial for the Natural Areas
Program in the specific circumstances. Requests will be considered on a case by case
basis for construction of flood control measures to address existing flood hazards that
threaten public health or safety; in these cases, use of the natural area or conserved land
must be the only reasonable alternative to address the flood hazard and the structure or
measure must be designed to minimize the impact to the natural area.
Public Flood Control and Drainage Facilities. The City’s Natural Areas, Storm
Drainage, and Water Quality programs have a strong record of collaboration in the joint
acquisition of land and in the design of projects that meet multiple community needs. To
the maximum extent feasible, planning for storm drainage, water quality and natural areas
and land conservation acquisitions shall continue to be coordinated so that lands needed
for all of these uses are purchased jointly. Innovative approaches shall continue to be
used so that flood control and water quality facilities are designed, constructed, and
managed to maintain or enhance natural area protection values while meeting flood
control, stream stability, and water quality needs. Easements or rights-of-way for flood
control structures or facilities will be considered on natural area or conserved land when
the facility is part of the implementation of an adopted basin-wide master plan (e.g.,
Canal Importation Master Drainageway Plan, Poudre River Master Drainageway Plan).
***New Sections***
Oil and Gas and Minerals Exploration. In connection with the exploration of oil and
gas and minerals resources, access, pipeline, and other types of easements may be
needed. Such requests, will not be considered unless crossing the City’s land is the only
feasible means of providing access to the location on which the oil and gas or minerals
exploration will occur, or unless determined to be beneficial for the Natural Areas
Program in the specific circumstances. Any easement for this type of activity will
incorporate, to the extent applicable, the most current Best Management Practices
requirements developed for use in connection with oil and gas exploration activities.
Conservation Easements. The owners of private property protected by a conservation
easement held by the City’s Natural Areas Program may receive requests for easements
across their property for roads, utilities and other uses. Notice to the City of the easement
request is generally required in the applicable conservation easement, and property
owners should notify the Natural Areas program of any such requests. Staff will consult
with the property owner to evaluate such requests on a case-by-case basis, taking into
account the terms of the conservation easement, the conservation values of the property,
and this Policy, to the extent permissible. In order to complete the appropriate review of
any such requested easement, the City will obtain information regarding the nature,
scope, design, location, timetable and other material aspects of the proposed activity, and
evaluate the proposed activity to determine if it is permissible under, and consistent with,
the applicable conservation easement and the conservation values of the property.
5
The City’s Natural Area Program owns lands protected with conservation easements held
by other entities. Once the City receives a request for an easement across these
properties, the City will notify the owner of the conservation easement. Staff will then
work with the conservation easement owner to evaluate such requests on a case-by-case
basis, taking into account the terms of the conservation easement, the conservation values
of the property, and this Policy, to the extent permissible.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS:
In general, a right of way or easement across a City-owned natural area or conserved land
will only be approved if it is the only reasonable alternative, considering environmental
impacts, impacts to the recreation uses of the natural area by the community, financial
costs, engineering feasibility, public health and safety and other appropriate factors.
Applications for easements or rights-of-way must identify and evaluate the environmental
impact, engineering feasibility, and the cost of alternatives that do not affect the city-
owned natural area or conserved land. Depending on the type of proposal, alternatives
will need to consider both alternative locations for the facility as well as alternative
designs. The number of potential alternatives to be considered will depend on the
location and nature of the proposal, but must be sufficient to allow City staff, the Land
Conservation and Stewardship Board, and City Council to evaluate the cost and
environmental impact of the available alternatives for meeting the intent of the proposal.
Applicants should expect to provide information on the available alternatives at a level of
detail to allow independent review of the conclusions by City staff or outside consultants
retained by the City to assess the easement request.
LAND USE CONSISTENCY:
Applicants for rights of way and easements must demonstrate that any development to be
served by the proposal is consistent with the Plan Fort Collins, the City’s Comprehensive
Plan. Where the purpose of the easement is to provide utility services to areas outside the
land use jurisdiction of the City, the applicant must demonstrate consistency with the
adopted comprehensive plan of the governing jurisdiction, and with any applicable
growth management policies of the City. Applications for easements that facilitate
development or growth that is contrary to the policies of the City will not be approved.
MASTER PLAN CONSISTENCY:
As a condition of approval, the applicant must demonstrate that the requested easement or
right-of-way is consistent with the adopted utility master plan or service plan for the area
where the easement is requested. The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed
project is located and designed appropriately to meet the future needs of the service area
based on the adopted land use plans and/or zoning in the area served. This requirement is
intended to encourage thorough planning, coordination among property owners, and to
avoid multiple requests for easements or premature expansion or modification of the
facility before the end of its normal service life.
COORDINATION WITH OTHER ENTITIES:
Generally, the City will not grant exclusive easements. As a condition of approval, the
applicant must contact other utility service providers in the project vicinity to determine
if they have current or future plans for additional facilities in the area. To the extent
feasible, the planning, design, and construction of facilities shall be coordinated among
6
utility providers to conserve easement corridors and to avoid repeated construction
activities that may affect the natural area or conserved land. Applicants must provide
copies of written requests for utility coordination and the responses received from other
service providers.
COMPLIANCE WITH EXISTING EASEMENTS:
Applicants must demonstrate compliance with the requirements of prior easements on
land subject to this Policy or other City property. Requests for new or additional
easements will not be considered if the applicant has not met the requirements of existing
easement agreements and has failed to make diligent efforts to correct the situation after
notification by the City.
RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS:
As a condition of approval of any easement or right-of-way, the City will impose
appropriate measures to assure adequate resource protection for the natural area or
conserved land. These measures will be determined based on the characteristics of the
proposal and the affected land, but may include, without limitation: field investigations to
determine the presence of sensitive plants and wildlife; siting requirements to minimize
the effect on natural resources; seasonal timing restrictions to avoid impacts to wildlife or
sensitive habitat during critical periods of the year; access restrictions to control times
and locations of access to the easement; construction management measures to ensure
that activities are restricted to designated areas, to control erosion, to limit noise, or other
impacts; restoration requirements to ensure the timely regrading and revegetation of
disturbed areas to a condition consistent with the future management of the area;
mitigation measures to replace resource values lost to the community as a result of the
project; and requirements to minimize the impact to the natural area of ongoing operation
and maintenance of the facility. The City Manager or his or her designee shall develop
and maintain a general list of resource protection standards that are applicable to natural
areas and conserved lands. This list, which is now maintained by the Natural Areas
Program may be modified from time to time based on the experience gained in managing
easements, developing knowledge about the resource values of the City’s natural areas
and conserved lands, and improved knowledge related to best management practices
needed to protect the natural values of the City’s properties and to reflect specific
circumstances or concerns in connection with a particular easement or project.
7
COMPENSATION AND MITIGATION:
As a condition of approval of any easement or right of way, the City will require cash
compensation for the value of the permanent and temporary easements and for the
administrative costs of processing and managing the easement, except where there is
offsetting value and benefit to the Natural Areas Program. In addition, the City will
require compensation for the loss of ecological service values, recreation values, and
other intrinsic values of the property. Compensation for the value of the land and for
damages will be based on fair market value as determined by accepted appraisal
techniques. Compensation for loss in ecological services and recreation use will be based
on values reported in appropriate professional and technical publications. Compensation
for losses in ecological services and recreation use may be negotiated to be paid in cash
or through the completion of appropriate mitigation measures. Additional fees assessed
for other costs associated with processing the easement request and approval process,
overseeing construction activities, and managing the easement following construction
will be based on the estimated actual costs of the service provided. Furthermore, the City
will seek compensation intended to support on or off-site capitol improvements or land
conservation. In general, compensation and fees will be administered so as to result in a
net benefit to the Natural Areas Program.
**New Section**
PUBLIC INFORMATION AND REVIEW PROCESS:
In addition to the formal advisory board and City Council review procedures described
below, any party requesting an easement on City-owned natural area or conserved land
will be required to arrange for a public meeting at which information regarding the
proposed easement and related project will be provided, and at which questions regarding
the easement and related project will be taken. The party requesting the easement shall
be responsible for ensuring that responses are provided to questions asked at the meeting
to the extent practicable, and that such questions and responses and any input received at
the meeting are documented and provided to City staff. The party requesting the
easement shall be responsible for providing timely and meaningful notice to the general
public in advance of any such public meeting.
ADVISORY BOARD AND COUNCIL REVIEW:
Granting an easement or right-of-way conveys a property right, and must be approved by
the City Council by ordinance. The Land Conservation and Stewardship Board will also
review the easement proposal and make a recommendation in its advisory role to the City
Council. City staff will be responsible for working with the applicant on the application
process, reviewing and evaluating the application, and making a recommendation to both
the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board and the City Council. If an easement is
granted by the City Council, staff will be responsible for overseeing and managing the
easement and ensuring that the conditions of the grant are met.
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS AND REVIEW PROCESS:
In addition to this Policy, the City Manager or his designee will establish procedures for
reviewing applications for easements and rights–of-way that affect City-owned natural
areas and conserved lands. These procedures shall establish the fees, necessary steps and
information requirements for the timely consideration of requests for easements or rights-
8
of-way. The City Manager or his or her designee will ensure that easement requests are
presented to City Council for decision in a timely manner.
Page 1 of 6
General Resource Protection Standards
for
Easements or Rights of Way
on
City of Fort Collins (“City”)
Natural Areas and Conserved Lands
Introduction
This document lists the various resource protection standards that may be required as
conditions of granting an easement, license to enter or right-of-way (collectively referred
to in this document as “easements”) on City Natural Areas and other conserved lands,
in order to protect or restore natural resource values. These measures are consistent
with the requirements in the City Land Use Code for Ecological Characterization Studies
and for Resource Protection associated with development projects. The measures will
be evaluated for each easement request and applied as needed, depending on the site
location, characteristics of the site, and on the nature of the easement.
The applicable resource protection standards will be specifically included in the terms of
the easement agreement. They must also be included as notes on the approved
construction plans for the easement request. The easement holder (“Grantee”) must
provide these standards to all contractors who will be doing work for the Grantee within
the easement area. The City may also attach some or all of these requirements as an
addendum to the Grantee’s Development Agreement, if applicable.
These resource protection standards are current as of June 2011. They may be
updated from time to time by the Natural Resources Department based on new
information about the resources of the City’s natural areas or on new information about
best management practices. Applicants must contact the Natural Resources
Department for a current list of standards.
The Grantee is responsible for completing, or requiring its contractors to complete, each
of the following conditions that the City determines is applicable to the Grantee’s
project:
Plans and Permits
Prior to starting any construction on the Project:
1. Submit final plans to the City and ensure that they have been approved and
signed on behalf of the City. Confirm that all permanent and temporary
easements have been approved by City Council and that the easement
documents have been signed by both parties and recorded at the County Clerk’s
Office. Plans must include: 1’-2’ contours; property lines with adjoining property
ownership shown; all wetlands; streams; ditches; riparian areas; prairie dog
colonies; all existing and proposed man made structures; all existing utilities; all
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 2 of 6
needed easements for access, construction staging areas, and construction (limits
of disturbance); construction plans and profiles; restoration plans; and general
notes stating all construction and restoration requirements.
2. Obtain a City Excavation Permit.
3. Perform field investigations and surveys to determine the presence and location of
sensitive plants or animal species and geological or archeological features.
4. Develop an erosion control plan. This plan must comply with the City’s Storm
Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards. Ensure that the erosion
control plan has been approved and signed by the City.
5. Contact the Corps of Engineers to obtain a 404 permit and/or clearance of the
project. Submit two copies of the permit, or the letter of clearance from the Corps,
to the City.
6. Conduct a Preble’s meadow jumping mouse survey according to U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service guidelines. Submit two copies of the report and letter of clearance
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the City.
7. Conduct a Ute ladies’ tresses orchid survey according to U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service guidelines. Submit two copies of the report and letter of clearance from
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the City.
Construction Coordination and Project Acceptance
8. Arrange for the City’s designated representative to attend the pre-construction
meeting to meet the contractors, discuss the importance of the resource protection
requirements, discuss and approve the construction schedule and establish lines
of communication to be used during construction.
9. Maintain ongoing communication with the City’s representative during construction
to communicate progress, changes in schedule, problems, and periodic
inspections.
10. Once the project has been completed, arrange for the City’s representative to
inspect the project site to verify that the project was completed and the site
restored according to the applicable plans and agreements. Once the City
accepts the restoration work, the City will generally take over the vegetation
maintenance, per the specific terms of the easement agreement.
11. Provide the City with Drawings of Record within sixty (60) days after the
completion of the improvements.
Page 3 of 6
Wildlife
12. Raptors: Survey the site to determine if any of the following species are present
and check with the City for information on possible nesting, feeding or roosting
sites.
a. If the site is used as a winter feeding area by large birds of prey,
construction cannot take place from October 15 through March 15 to avoid
disturbing feeding eagles and large hawks, unless otherwise directed by
the City.
b. If a bald eagle and/or ferruginous hawk winter night roost is located near
the proposed easement, construction cannot take place from October 15
through March 15 to avoid disturbing night-roosting eagles and/or hawks.
c. If a Swainson’s hawk nest is located near the proposed easement,
construction cannot take place from April 1 through July 15 to avoid
disrupting the nesting cycle of the hawk.
d. If a red-tailed hawk nest is located near the proposed easement,
construction cannot take place from March 1 through July 15 to avoid
disrupting the nesting cycle of the hawk.
e. If burrowing owls are nesting within 330 feet of the limits of development,
construction cannot take place from April 1 through August 1 to avoid
disrupting the nesting cycle of the owls.
13. If construction will be taking place in or through an area that contains or may
contain prairie dogs, either relocate the prairie dogs or fumigate the burrows
immediately prior to any grading. Relocation of Prairie dogs between February 1
and August 1 is not permitted.
14. Perform the wildlife surveys described below, notify the City of the survey results
and obtain approval of construction schedule prior to starting construction. These
surveys may be done several months prior to construction, but if done more than
30 days prior to construction they must be performed again within 30 days prior to
the start of construction to verify results.
a. The site may contain den sites for red foxes. Conduct surveys to determine
if any foxes are denning within 100 feet of the limits of development. If fox
are found to be denning within 100 feet, then construction cannot take place
during the normal denning and pup-rearing season (February 1 through
October 1).
b. The site may contain den sites for coyotes. Conduct surveys to determine if
any coyotes are denning within 300 feet of the limits of development. If
Page 4 of 6
coyotes are found to be denning within 300 feet, then construction cannot
take place during the normal denning and pup-rearing season (February 1
through October 1).
c. The site may contain den sites for badgers. Conduct surveys to determine if
any badgers are denning within 300 feet of the limits of development. If
badgers are found to be denning within 300 feet, then construction cannot
take place during the normal denning and young-rearing season (January 1
through August 1).
Plants
15. The site may contain plant species listed as rare in Colorado. If a rare plant is
discovered prior to or during construction activities, notify the City. The City may,
in its discretion, require the Grantee to remove all such plants within the limits of
disturbance prior to construction, keep plants alive and replant after construction
is completed, or the City may salvage existing plants and shrubs for transplanting
to other sites.
16. The site may contain native shrubs and/or trees that may be within the limits of
development. Any native shrubs/trees removed to allow construction or
damaged during construction must be replaced on a two-for-one/same species
basis. All replacement shrubs/trees must be 1-gallon container size and must be
warranted to survive for 2 complete growing seasons.
Structures
17. Remove, store, protect and replace any man-made structures (e.g., kiosks,
raptor perch poles, prairie dog barriers and fencing) within the limits of
disturbance.
18. Repair any damage to concrete bike trails, fences, parking lots, or any other
improvements caused directly or indirectly by the construction. Repair/replace
improvements immediately to current City standards, including matching the
color of the concrete.
Field Demarcation
19. Install orange construction fencing to mark the easement limits (limits of
disturbance) on the site. Do not begin any construction activities until the City’s
representative has approved the fence location.
20. Post temporary signs informing the public that this is the Grantee’s project and
indicating the purpose of the project and the Grantee’s phone number. Signs
must be posted at the locations designated by the City.
Page 5 of 6
Erosion Control
21. Have erosion control measures in place and approved by a City representative
prior to any construction.
Grading/Construction
22. For areas with native vegetation, strip topsoil in all areas of excavation to a depth
of 8 inches and stockpile separately. Wetland and upland soils must be
stockpiled separately from each other. Place the topsoil in an 8-inch layer on top
of the subsoil in the corresponding zone immediately following the completion of
construction.
23. For areas with non-native vegetation, strip the top 2 inches of topsoil from the
entire construction easement area and remove the topsoil from the site to
remove the non-native vegetation seed source. Then strip 8 inches of topsoil
from the area to be excavated and stockpile separately. Wetland and upland
soils must be stockpiled separately from each other. Place the topsoil in an 8-
inch layer on top of the subsoil in the corresponding zone immediately following
the completion of construction.
24. Maintain a safe work area and protect the safety and welfare of Grantee’s
employees, contractors or subcontractors, and the general public, including
without limitation providing barricades and safety fences around excavations and
drop-offs left open at the end of a work day. Safety precautions must be in
compliance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations.
25. Compact backfill in trenches to 95% Standard Proctor Density. Test the
compacted soils at 100’ intervals vertically and 2’ intervals horizontally within the
area of excavation to ensure that this requirement has been met. Submit to the
City all laboratory Proctor density results, and a copy of all field compaction tests.
After compaction to final subgrade (8” below finished grade), the top 6 inches of
subsoil must be ripped, and the previously stripped and stockpiled topsoil
materials spread evenly over the excavated areas. Soils in backfilled,
compacted, topsoiled trenches must match the grade of the surrounding
undisturbed areas.
26. Set all manhole covers, valve lids, vaults, etc. below or flush with the finished
topsoil surface. If any improvements are approved for construction above the
final grade, they must be painted with a color approved by the City.
27. Remove the upper sections of all existing manholes to be abandoned and fill the
holes with soil. This soil must be compacted to 95% Standard Proctor Density to
prevent settlement.
Page 6 of 6
28. Remove the upper sections of all existing manholes to be retained, but that are
not flush with the finished topsoil surface, and rebuild to be flush with the topsoil
surface.
29. Bring to grade (match surrounding topography) all settled and eroded areas
along the existing pipeline, if any, to be abandoned during construction of the
new pipeline. Repair any settlement that occurs over the existing pipeline or new
pipelines after completion and acceptance of the project by the City. Any
necessary repairs must be conducted in a manner and at a time directed by the
City. Repaired areas must be restored as per restoration requirements outlined
in this document or in the easement agreement.
30. Areas within the limits of disturbance that have been driven over, compacted or
rutted by equipment must be scarified to a depth of 8” and regraded to original
grade and contours.
31. Meet with the City’s representative to discuss and get approval of the final
grading and the seeding/mulching process prior to reseeding. Seed all disturbed
and topsoiled areas with a seed mix of native species specified by the City. The
seed must be drilled into the soil an appropriate depth for the species in the mix
and existing conditions, using a range drill (not a Brillion). Immediately following
seeding roll the seeded areas with a sheeps foot roller to lightly compact and
imprint the soil. This removes air voids, provides better seed-soil contact and
provides indention’s in the soil that will capture moisture. All seeded areas must
then be hydromulched in accordance with the City’s Storm Drainage Design
Criteria and Construction Standards. Following final grading and initial seeding of
the Construction Easement Area and acceptance by the City, the City will be
responsible for ongoing vegetation management, including weed control,
mowing, and reseeding, as needed, in areas disturbed and seeded in
accordance with this paragraph. The cost for the City to perform the vegetation
management over the next five to ten years is calculated to be three thousand
dollars ($3,000.00) per acre of disturbance based on grassland/shrubland cover
types. Vegetation management fees will be determined on a case-by-case basis
for other cover types.
Any requirements listed above that are not completed in a timely manner may be
corrected by the City at the Grantee’s expense. The City will bill the Grantee for the
cost of the correction plus management costs.
Page 1 of 5
Guidance Document: Compensation and Mitigation Requirements for Easements
on the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas and Conserved Lands.
November 2011
The mission of the Natural Areas Program is to “protect and enhance lands with existing
or potential natural areas values, lands that serve as community separators, agricultural
lands, and lands with scenic values. Protection of natural habitats and features is the
highest priority, while providing for education and recreation for the Fort Collins
community.”
Lands purchased and conserved by the Natural Areas Program (NAP) provide a wide
variety of benefits to the citizens of Fort Collins and Larimer County that include fish and
wildlife habitat, wildlife viewing, recreation opportunities, agricultural products,
community separation and simply the value provided by open space views. Other
benefits include water and air purification, water infiltration, flood control, habitat for
pollinators of crops and natural vegetation, erosion control, and maintenance of
biodiversity. Collectively these benefits are described as ecological goods and services
(also called natural goods and services) and represent resources and processes that are
supplied by natural ecosystems. Ecosystem goods are considered tangible items such as
food, timber, and natural fiber. Ecosystem services are less tangible but just as integral to
a healthy, functioning ecosystem. These services often go unnoticed and include such
items as water purification and flood control.
The conservation community has long recognized that ecological goods and services
have a financial value based in part on the fact they are difficult and costly to duplicate.
Numerous studies published in natural resource and economic literature have delineated
and quantified these ecological goods and services, and others have devised
methodologies for placing a value on the ecological goods and services provided by
conserved lands. NAP has selected a document prepared by the Trust for Public Land
titled A Return on Investment: The Economic Value of Colorado’s Conservation
Easements (see Attachment 1) to establish the value of ecological goods and services on
NAP lands. TPL conducted this analysis to determine Colorado’s return on investments
in conservation easements. As part of this project, TPL estimated the value of ecological
goods and services provided by conserved lands in Colorado based on information
gathered through a literature review of values previously calculated for the major land
cover types featured in the National Land Cover Dataset, created by the U.S. Geological
Survey. Ecological goods and services considered in the analysis include water supply,
flood control, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, aesthetics, carbon sequestration,
dilution of waste water, erosion control, grazing, and agricultural crop production.
While, this synthesis document will be used to establish ecological goods and service
values for NAP conserved lands, NAP recognizes this is a growing field of study and will
continue to pursue opportunities to better define and adjust the values. In all cases,
ecological goods and service values will be adjusted on an annual basis based on the
Denver-Boulder-Greeley CPI-U. Table 1 provides the value per acre per year for the
cover types in Colorado; values are reported in 2011 dollars.
Compensation
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 2 of 5
The Natural Area Program owns and/or manages over 35,000 acres of land within Fort
Collins and in unincorporated Larimer County. As such, NAP is contacted with requests
for easements and rights-of-way that cross conserved lands. The general policy is to
avoid, to the maximum extent feasible, granting easements or rights-of-way for activities
that will adversely affect the use of the land for meeting the community’s goals for
natural area protection and or community shaping. When easements or rights-of-way are
authorized by City Council, efforts will be made to avoid and/or minimize environmental
impacts and NAP will be compensated for the value of the property.
Compensation to the NAP will be based on the property’s fair market real estate value as
determined by accepted appraisal techniques, and the value of the ecological goods and
services lost due or impacted by the project as described below in “Ecological Goods and
Services Calculation.”
Administration and Maintenance Fees
Once a site is disturbed, not only is the value of the natural goods and services lost for a
period of time, but it takes many hours of staff time to administer the restoration of the
disturbed site. A base administrative fee of $1,500 in 2011 dollars will be charged to
process easement requests. The fee will be paid by the Grantee at the time the easement
is granted. Staff will track its cost to administer the easement and will bill the Grantee
for any cost in excess of $1,500 at a rate of $100 per hour for staff time. Staff will
regularly inform the applicant of the costs the applicant is incurring during the
administrative process.
Following final grading and initial seeding of the disturbed site and acceptance by the
City, the NAP will be responsible for ongoing vegetation management, including weed
control, mowing, and reseeding, as needed. The cost for the City to perform the
vegetation management over the next five to ten years is calculated to be three thousand
dollars ($3,000.00) per acre of disturbance based on grassland / shrubland cover types.
Vegetation management fees will be determined for other cover types on a case-by-case
basis. The cost of this service will be evaluated and adjusted as needed.
Ecological Goods and Services Calculations
The length of time needed for ecological goods and services to return to a pre-disturbance
condition is difficult to predict. Since the time necessary for full restoration is difficult to
predict the following assumptions are made: (1) a period of ten years will be used to
estimate the length of time ecological goods and services are lost or reduced (2)
ecological goods and services are lost in full for the first five years and compensated at
one hundred percent (100%) of the assigned value, and (3) ecological goods and services
are partially restored in years six through ten and compensated at fifty percent (50%) of
the assigned value. Payment will be due in full at the time the easement is granted and
will be based on the entire ten year period.
Page 3 of 5
Table 1 provides the per acre per year value for the cover types in this area (from
Sargent-Michaud, J. 2010. A return on investment: The economic value of Colorado’s
conservation easements. The Trust for Public Lands)
Ecosystem Type Fee/Acre/Year
(2011 Dollars)
Mixed Forest $891
Deciduous Forest $890
Evergreen Forest $890
Emergent Herbaceous
Wetland $793
Woody Wetland $793
Scrub/shrub $617
Agriculture $286
Open Water $270
Developed – Low Density
Urban/Open Space $196
Developed – High Intensity
Urban $196
Shortgrass Prairie $88
Grassland/Herbaceous $86
Sagebrush $83
Barren N/A
Altered or Disturbed N/A
Developed –
Oil/Mine/Quarry N/A
Examples of Ecosystem Goods and Services Compensation
Two easements that had been already granted by the NAP were looked at again to use as
examples of how compensation for ecosystem goods and services would affect the fees
assessed to the grantee of the easement.
The first easement revisited was an 0.9 acre easement consisting of a 50 ft. wide
permanent, non-exclusive easement and a 75 ft. temporary construction easement. The
total compensation paid for the easement was $4,662.50, of which $1,500 was for the
Market value of the permanent easement, $400 for the temporary construction easement,
and $2,762.50 for the restoration of the site after the project was completed.
Page 4 of 5
If compensation for ecosystem goods and services (E.G.S.) were in implemented, the
additional compensation would be calculated as follows:
Land Cover
Type Acreage Value/Acre/Yr
Years 1 -5:
Assessed at
100% E.G.S.
Lost
Years 6 -10:
Assessed at
50% E.G.S.
Lost
Total Value of
E.G.S. Lost by
Land Cover
Type
Cultivated
Crops 0.57 $286 $815 $408 $1,223
Developed –
Low
Intensity/Open
Space
0.33 $196 $323 $162 $485
TOTAL $1,708
The $1,708 would be assessed in addition to the $4,662.50 that was originally charged for
a total of $6,370.50.
The second example is a 3.2 acre easement consisting of a 25 ft. permanent, non-
exclusive utility easement and a 30 ft. temporary construction easement. The total
compensation for the easement paid by the grantee was $48,531, of which $25,240 was
for the permanent easement, $6,011 for the temporary construction easement, and
$17,280 for the Restoration Management Fee. With lost E.G.S. lost compensation
calculated, additional compensation would be calculated as follows:
Land Cover
Type Acreage Value/Acre/Yr
Years 1 -5:
Assessed at
100% E.G.S.
Lost
Years 6 -10:
Assessed at
50% E.G.S.
Lost
Total Value of
E.G.S. Lost by
Land Cover
Type
Cultivated
Crops 0.837 $286 $1,197 $598 $1,795
Grasslands/Her
baceous 0.265 $86 $114 $57 $171
Developed –
Medium
Density
.097 $196 $95 $48 $143
Developed –
Low
Intensity/Open
Space
1.58 $196 $1,548 $774 $2,322
Page 5 of 5
On-site or Off-site Mitigation
NAP may select cash or mitigation as compensation for the loss in natural goods and
services. Mitigation projects may occur on or off-site and include such items as:
Habitat or vegetation restoration beyond what is disturbed by the project,
Trail construction or repair
Natural Area Public Facility upgrade or repair
Removal or undergrounding of above ground features.
Preference will be given to mitigation projects that occur within or adjacent to the Natural
Area affected by the easement. If additional acres are restored, preference will be given
to the restoration of the same cover type within or adjacent to the affected Natural Area.
In all cases, the site impacted by the easement project will be restored and the mitigation
project approved by Council.
Page 1 of 2
ATTACHMENT 4
Guidance Document: Alternatives Analysis for Easements on City of Fort Collins
Natural Areas and Conserved Lands (December 2011)
As stated in the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas and Conserved Lands Easement Policy
“In general, a right of way or easement across a City-owned natural area or conserved
land will only be approved if it is the only reasonable alternative, considering
environmental impacts, impacts to the recreation uses of the natural area by the
community, financial costs, engineering feasibility, public health and safety and other
appropriate factors. Applications for easements or rights-of-way must identify and
evaluate the environmental impact, engineering feasibility, and the cost of alternatives
that do not affect the city-owned natural area or conserved land. Depending on the type
of proposal, alternatives will need to consider both alternative locations for the facility as
well as alternative designs. The number of potential alternatives to be considered will
depend on the location and nature of the proposal, but must be sufficient to allow City
staff, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board, and City Council to evaluate the
cost and environmental impact of the available alternatives for meeting the intent of the
proposal. Applicants should expect to provide information on the available alternatives
at a level of detail to allow independent review of the conclusions by City staff or outside
consultants retained by the City to assess the easement request.”
Prior to providing the information required by this section, the Applicant must meet with
a representative of the Natural Areas Program to discuss alternate routes and alternate
designs that must be considered in the Alternatives Analysis.
The following information should be included within the Alternatives Analysis provided
by the applicant.
1. A map of appropriate scale that clearly identifies alternate routes considered for
the easement both on and off City-owned property.
2. A written description of the environmental impacts, engineering feasibility, and
project cost for each alternate route including supporting documentation on
feasibility and costs. The written description shall summarize the wildlife and
vegetation survey information and recreation and wildlife structure information
described in the Plans and Permits, Wildlife, Plant, and Structures sections of the
Resource Protection Standards.
3. A written description of any anticipated recreation impacts that will result from
the City granting of the easement or right-of-way.
4. A map of appropriate scale that clearly identifies the location of the requested
easement or right-of-way on City-owned property (including temporary
construction easements and access easements).
5. A written description of public safety benefits from the use of the City-owned
natural area or conserved land.
Page 2 of 2
6. A written summary describing the environmental impacts, recreation impacts,
cost savings, engineering feasibility, and public safety issues avoided by selection
of the proposed route on City-owned land.
7. A written description of the restoration and/or mitigation plans related to the
project on City-owned land how these activities will benefit the City.
8. A map of appropriate scale showing the location of proposed mitigation activities.
9. A summary of the input received from the public at the required public meeting
and all other input received from the public.
Based upon the information received from the applicant, public input, Land Conservation
and Stewardship Board input, the Policy requirements, and staff research; staff will
analyze the alternatives and make its recommendation to the LCSB and Council for
approval or denial.
ATTACHMENT 5
1
Excerpt – Land Conservation and Stewardship Board
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Utility Easement Policy Discussion
Figgs: The City of Fort Collins Natural Areas and Open Lands Easement
Policy was adopted by Resolution in 2001. To date, approximately forty
easements have been granted by the City under this Policy.
Recently City Council requested staff to review the easement policy and
recommended appropriate changes for adoption by Council. Once
revisions are finalized, staff will present the revised policy to the Land
Conservation and Stewardship Board for their consideration and
recommendation for City Council adoption.
Revisions to the Policy being considered by Natural Areas staff are:
o Fee Structure and Restoration/Mitigation
o Existing easements (previously granted by the City or in place at
the time of acquisition)
o Easements that occur on private lands encumbered by
Conservation Easements
Knowlton: Have you looked at other places like Boulder?
Figgs: That is part of what we are doing as well.
Scharton: We are on the front edge of fee structure and restoration
requirements.
Quayle: Where I work, when restoring the army land, we set up a success
rate area and it has to meet those criteria before transferring the land.
Figgs: We have that as well, and how we typically do it is to allow them
to do their own restoration to our performance standards. The more
common way is once the initial restoration is complete, as long as it is to
our specifications, we would receive payment per acre and we would,
instead of them, manage the site through the restoration standard. We
would then fold that into our day to day management activities.
Stanley: I like the ecosystem service value very much and others will
follow.
Cameron: I like the ecosystem service value also.
Daggett: We have gotten better over time; including specific requirements
for the kinds of things that we have learned are helpful like,
communication, and plan review. Early in the program the easements had
a lot less of this language. We are now watching for opportunities to try
and leverage for instance, if they need a construction easement, it would
give us an opportunity to negotiate something with them, maybe even an
internal easement.
Knowlton: It could also happen that in the future we could acquire a piece
of land that would have an existing easement.
Figgs: There is a second parallel project that Justin Scharton is working on
where we are currently going back and looking at the properties that we
ATTACHMENT 6
2
hold title to and looking at the easements that are in place and figuring out
which ones are in use and which ones can be vacated.
Daggett: We may be able to argue that some of them were abandoned and
now is the time to do this.
Figgs: Even though our policy hasn’t changed since 2001, the resource
protection standards and easements have evolved.
Germany: I agree that you should be looking at this policy and reviewing
the easements that exist and making them more restrictive or specific if at
all possible.
Haines: Could you explain the ecosystem service value.
Figgs: Generally what they are based on is several criteria or several
parameters, anywhere from carbon storage, water purification and
filtration. It applies utilitarian values to land, and it also has values
associated with wildlife habitat.
Stanley: There is a lot of research in this area; it’s not new in terms of
application.
Grimes: How do you quantify it?
Scharton: The Trust for Public Land (TPL) document took research from a
lot of different areas for example, studies from herbaceous wetlands to
agricultural developing and everything in between with the wetlands being
most economically beneficial down to a highly developed altered state.
The quantifying goes by the natural land cover data set, which is an easily
quantifiable GIS tool.
Haines: Do you put a value on opportunity costs, because when you are
watching over these easements you’re not doing other things.
Figgs: We do not and I’ve struggled with that mostly from a restoration
standpoint. How I was trying to get at it was with the ratio of mitigation
of one acre disturbed two acres replaced, and work it into the ecosystem
service formula.
Haines: When this happens on private land how are these things done in
terms of what the private landowner requires?
Figgs: There would be a negotiation between buyer and seller.
Sears: If we can walk away from an easement with the citizens satisfied it
is a win, win situation.
Daggett: Sometimes there is a situation where we are dealing with an
entity that would ultimately have the power to take what they want if we
don’t give it to them. We have to be careful to bring them along so that
they want to cooperate with us and don’t give up.
Haines: A lot of these agencies want to do the right thing too. Is there a
way to build in that approach of saying we’d like to be made whole plus?
Sears: Our goal is that this is as much a win for the Natural Areas program
or the Natural Areas site as it is for the agency.
Daggett: We can explain a rational as to why something makes sense, and
give the party that wants the easements a way to justify internally for
themselves why they should go along with what we are asking.
3
Cameron: The Legacy Land Trust holds the easements over your
properties and when you are looking at making yourself whole, include
making the entity pay for the cost that it takes to make adjustments and
include the Legacy Land Trust and its staff review costs also.
Figgs: That’s a good point, thank you.
Sears: I’m advocating whole plus because, if an agency is going to put a
line across our property as opposed to having to put it under a street, they
are coming out whole plus likely, it will save them a substantial amount of
money from going somewhere other than across or adjacent our natural
areas. They are getting an economic advantage.
Figgs: I will gather up the comments received, and provide a redlined
version of the revised policy hopefully in October. There is an internal
review process that the policy will go through; we will then bring it back
to this Board for recommendation.
Excerpt – Land Conservation and Stewardship Board
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Utility Easement Policy Update/Discussion
Figgs reviewed the Draft Proposed Changes from the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas
and Open Lands Easement policy. This was a discussion item in an effort to gather input
from the Board and finalize the proposed revisions to the Policy. No formal action by the
Board was requested at this time. Staff will bring the Policy back to the Board in
November or December for the Board’s recommendation to Council.
Cameron: When conservation easements are held by others on Natural Areas
property, that entity should be notified when a request is coming in for an easement.
Should that be in the Policy?
Figgs: Yes, I think it should be.
Land Conservation and Stewardship Board
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Excerpt - Utility Easement Policy
Daylan showed the Board a PowerPoint presentation, which included the following:
o Proposed Revisions
o Compensation and Mitigation
o Existing Easements
o Above Ground Features
o Types of Facilities
o Conservation Easements
o Oil and Gas and Minerals
o Public Information and Review
o Financial/Economic Impacts
o Environmental Impacts
o Ecological Goods and Services Values
o Goods and Services Valuation
Quayle: Are there any OSHA requirements that may get in the way?
Figgs: In some case there are. I spoke with Xcel about marking for gas lines,
there seems to be some indication that there are strict requirements on the sign,
but the post may have some flexibility.
Quayle: Are other people doing this or are we setting precedence?
Figgs: Generally we are setting precedence.
There was a discussion by the Board regarding revisions to the language in the Draft
Revisions to the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas and Conserved Lands easement
policy. Daylan will pursue these suggested revisions with the City Attorney’s office.
Knowlton moved that the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board recommend that City
Council approve a resolution to adopt the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas and Conserved
Lands Easement Policy, adopted by resolution 2001-94, July 17, 2001. Cameron second. It
was unanimously approved.
RESOLUTION 2012-001
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ADOPTING AN UPDATED POLICY FOR THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL
OF EASEMENTS ON CITY NATURAL AREAS AND CONSERVED LANDS
WHEREAS, the City has acquired and designated natural areas and open space properties
for the benefit of the citizens of the City, using multiple local, county and state funding sources
intended for the conservation of natural areas and open lands; and
WHEREAS, the City is responsible for managing its natural areas and other conserved lands
in a manner that protects the natural features and functions for which those properties were acquired;
and
WHEREAS, the City from time to time receives requests for easements and other
encroachments on City natural areas and other conserved properties, which requests are typically
reviewed by City Natural Areas Program staff, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board, and
such other interested City staff or advisory boards or commissions as may be appropriate given the
specific circumstances; and
WHEREAS, after staff and advisory board review, easement requests are then presented to
the City Council for approval pursuant to City Code Section 23-111; and
WHEREAS, in July 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution 2001-094, establishing a
policy for review and approval of easements on City natural areas and open lands, in an effort to
document a standardized method of processing and evaluating such requests for easements and
encroachments; and
WHEREAS, as the City has acquired more natural areas and other conserved properties, and
as development pressure in the Fort Collins area has continued to increase, the number and
frequency of requests for such easements and encroachments has steadily increased, and will likely
continue to increase; and
WHEREAS, based on the City’s growing experience with the management and review of
easements on City property, and particularly on natural areas and conserved lands, staff has
developed an updated policy outlining the various requirements, considerations and standards that
will serve as a guideline in the future processing of easement requests, which policy is attached
hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Easement Policy”); and
WHEREAS, at its work session on November 30, 2011, the City Council reviewed a draft
of the Policy; and
WHEREAS, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board discussed and reviewed a draft
of the Policy at its regular meetings on December 14, 2011, and voted to recommend that the City
Council approve the Easement Policy; and
WHEREAS, in light of the comments received by staff from the Land Conservation and
Stewardship Board and from the City Council, staff has refined and added language to the Easement
Policy to clarify and describe expectations regarding certain items, including the addition of a
requirement for a public meeting to be conducted by the party requesting an easement, language
regarding easements related to oil and gas and minerals exploration, and other various items; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the adoption and implementation of the Easement
Policy will provide clear guidelines for City staff and for persons seeking to acquire easements on
City natural area or other conserved property, and will assist with the protection of those properties
and facilitate the effective and efficient processing of requested easements and encumbrances; and
WHEREAS, for the foregoing reasons, the City Council wishes to approve the Easement
Policy.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby approves and adopts the Easement Policy.
Section 2. That the City Council hereby directs the City Manager to receive, review and
present for City Council consideration as appropriate in accordance with the Easement Policy,
requests for easements on City properties acquired with funds dedicated to the acquisition of natural
areas and other conserved property, properties otherwise managed and operated by the City for
natural areas purposes, and properties on which the City has acquired a conservation easement.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 3rd
day of January A.D. 2012.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
1
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
NATURAL AREAS AND CONSERVED LANDS
EASEMENT POLICY
Adopted January 3, 2012
PURPOSE:
The purpose of the policy statement is to clarify the policies and procedures of the City of Fort
Collins (“City”) with respect to requests for easements or rights-of-way that affect publicly
owned Natural Areas or other lands that are managed by the Natural Resources Department;
lands owned in part by the Natural Resources Department; and private lands with Conservation
Easements held by the Natural Resources Department. The policy does not apply to requests for
easements or rights-of-way on or across other lands owned by the City.
APPLICABILITY:
The policy applies to requests for new easements or rights-of-way and to projects within existing
easements, as appropriate, which provide for a wide variety of purposes, including without
limitation, streets, water, sewer, drainage, flood control, electric power, wind generation, solar
generation, pipelines, oil and gas and minerals exploration, and telecommunications facilities.
The policy applies to projects of the City as well as those proposed by other public entities, such
as special Utility Districts, and private parties. The policy does not apply to trails, parking lots,
interpretive features or other facilities that are proposed as part of the management of public
natural areas.
GENERAL POLICY:
Most of the natural areas and other conserved lands addressed by these policies were acquired by
the City with dedicated funds from sales taxes that were approved by the voters of Fort Collins
or Larimer County for the specific purpose of protecting natural areas and conserved lands.
These lands are part of the fabric of the Fort Collins community, and are viewed as a type of
“community facility” intended to meet specific community goals.
For natural areas, the goal is to “preserve and protect natural areas within Fort Collins and the
Community Growth Management Area to provide habitat essential to the conservation of plants,
animals, and their associated ecosystems and to enrich the lives of citizens by providing
opportunities for education, scientific research, nature interpretation, art, fishing, wildlife
observation, hiking and other activities.”
For other types of conserved lands, e.g., agricultural areas, lands are protected to shape the
physical structure of the community: These lands “provide the community with a well-defined
edge, establish community separators, direct growth, and preserve rural character.”
Requests for easements or rights-of-way that affect natural areas or other conserved lands must
be considered within this context. Accordingly, the general policy is to avoid, to the maximum
extent feasible, granting easements or rights-of-way for activities that will adversely affect the
use of the land for meeting the community’s goals for natural area protection or community
2
shaping. Where easements or rights-of-way are authorized by ordinance of the City Council, the
general policy is to minimize the impact on the natural area or the community, to the maximum
extent feasible, by limiting the size and visibility of the area affected, managing construction or
other human activities with respect to their timing, duration, and frequency of occurrence, and
restoring affected areas to a condition that is equal to or better than the condition at the time the
easement is granted.
Because the natural areas and other conserved lands owned by the City are in many instances
within an urban context, it is recognized that easements and rights-of-way may be necessary to
allow for the orderly development of the community in accordance with the adopted Plan Fort
Collins (2011). Individual easement requests will be evaluated in accordance with both the
general policy and with the specific policies listed in following sections.
In addition, many properties owned by the City were subject to easements and rights-of-way
granted by prior owners at the time the City acquired them. The City will take advantage of any
opportunities to establish terms and conditions or specific project plans consistent with the terms
of this Policy in connection with any such prior
In connection with any work anticipated to take place within an existing easement, the City will
establish a mutually agreed plan for notification and consultation regarding the work. The City
will negotiate with the easement holder to establish a process for advance coordination,
scheduling and planning for avoidance of impacts and mitigation, if necessary.
SPECIFIC TYPES OF FACILITIES:
Public Streets. New public highways, roads, or streets will not be allowed within City-owned
natural areas or conserved lands, except for those specifically identified in the adopted City
Master Street Plan or comparable Master Transportation Plan adopted by the appropriate
governing body in cases where the natural area or conserved land is located outside of the city
limits of Fort Collins. Widening or other street improvement projects on existing streets within
natural areas or conserved lands will be allowed, consistent with the City Master Street Plan or
comparable adopted Master Transportation Plan. The City will work to influence the alignment
and design of any highway, road, or street improvement so as to avoid or minimize the effect on
the natural area or conserved land.
Private Streets or Other Private Access. Requests by private parties for private streets or
access easements to cross natural areas or conserved lands in order to gain access to a private
parcel of land will not be considered unless crossing the City’s property is the only feasible
means of providing access to a legal parcel of land, or unless determined to be beneficial for the
Natural Areas Program in the specific circumstances.
Overhead Electric Power, Telephone, or Cable Lines. New overhead cable lines will not be
allowed within any City-owned natural area or conserved land, unless determined to be
beneficial for the Natural Areas Program in the specific circumstances. Replacement of existing
overhead cables with underground cables will be encouraged unless the installation of
3
underground lines will result in adverse impact to the natural area that is inconsistent with these
policies. Use of the latest technology reasonably available will also be encouraged.
Any change in above ground features (number of poles, pole height, number of wires, etc) within
easements granted by the City or granted prior to City ownership of the land (to the extent there
is an opportunity to negotiate or impose new conditions) will require review and approval by the
City.
Aboveground Structures. New buildings or other structures, including without limitation,
towers, transmitters, receiving stations, tanks, substations, or billboards, other than those of the
City, will not be allowed on City-owned natural areas or conserved lands. The City will seek
and take advantage of opportunities to require or negotiate for the undergrounding, avoidance or
removal of above-ground structures associated with existing infrastructure.
Underground Utility Cables or Pipelines. Consistent with standard practice within Fort
Collins, underground utility cables (e.g., electric, telephone, fiber optic, etc.) and pipelines (e.g.,
gas, water, sewer) will be located within the street and utility right-of-way adjacent to the natural
area or conserved land. In instances where the existing right-of-way does not conform to the
planned future street right-of-way as depicted on the applicable adopted Master Transportation
Plan, cable or pipeline easements will be located parallel to the existing roadway and within the
area encompassed by the future street and utility right-of-way.
Some larger utility transmission cables or pipelines are not typically placed beneath streets due to
reliability or safety concerns. In instances where the cable or pipeline cannot safely be placed
within the road right-of-way, it will be located as close as practicable, and parallel to the road
right-of-way.
Above-ground features associated with buried utility cables and pipelines will not be allowed on
City property unless required by applicable technical standards for public safety and utility
marking or other applicable legal or regulatory requirements. The location, color and height of
any such above-ground features must be approved by the City. The City will seek and take
advantage of opportunities to require or negotiate for the undergrounding, avoidance or removal
of above-ground structures associated with existing infrastructure.
Drainage Facilities for Private Development. Drainage facilities that serve new development
(such as detention, retention, or water quality ponds) shall be located on private land within the
development and not on City-owned natural areas or conserved land. Easements for conveyance
facilities will be considered on a case-by-case basis when the City-owned land is located
between the private parcel and the historic receiving channel or stream. The design of the new
flow conveyance must utilize existing drainages to the maximum extent feasible and must blend
into the surrounding terrain; must not impact the existing geomorphic character of the drainage;
and must enhance the natural habitat features and character of the site.
Requests will not be granted for easements by private entities to construct flood control or
drainage structures on natural areas or conserved lands to create developable land by removing it
from the floodplain, unless determined to be beneficial for the Natural Areas Program in the
4
specific circumstances. Requests will be considered on a case by case basis for construction of
flood control measures to address existing flood hazards that threaten public health or safety; in
these cases, use of the natural area or conserved land must be the only reasonable alternative to
address the flood hazard and the structure or measure must be designed to minimize the impact
to the natural area.
Public Flood Control and Drainage Facilities. The City’s Natural Areas, Storm Drainage, and
Water Quality programs have a strong record of collaboration in the joint acquisition of land and
in the design of projects that meet multiple community needs. To the maximum extent feasible,
planning for storm drainage, water quality and natural areas and land conservation acquisitions
shall continue to be coordinated so that lands needed for all of these uses are purchased jointly.
Innovative approaches shall continue to be used so that flood control and water quality facilities
are designed, constructed, and managed to maintain or enhance natural area protection values
while meeting flood control, stream stability, and water quality needs. Easements or rights-of-
way for flood control structures or facilities will be considered on natural area or conserved land
when the facility is part of the implementation of an adopted basin-wide master plan (e.g., Canal
Importation Master Drainageway Plan, Poudre River Master Drainageway Plan).
Oil and Gas and Minerals Exploration. In connection with the exploration of oil and gas and
minerals resources, access, pipeline, and other types of easements may be requested. Such
requests, will not be considered unless crossing the City’s land is the only feasible means of
providing access to the location on which the oil and gas or minerals exploration will occur, or
unless determined to be beneficial for the Natural Areas Program in the specific circumstances.
Any easement for this type of activity will incorporate, to the extent applicable, the most current
Best Management Practices requirements developed for use in connection with oil and gas
exploration activities.
Conservation Easements. The owners of private property protected by a conservation easement
held by the City’s Natural Areas program may receive requests for easements across their
property for roads, utilities and other uses. Notice to the City of the easement request is
generally required in the applicable conservation easement, and property owners should notify
the Natural Areas Program of any such requests. Staff will consult with the property owner to
evaluate such requests on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the terms of the conservation
easement, the conservation values of the property, and this Policy, to the extent permissible. In
order to complete the appropriate review of any such requested easement, the City will obtain
information regarding the nature, scope, design, location, timetable and other material aspects of
the proposed activity, and evaluate the proposed activity to determine if it is permissible under,
and consistent with, the applicable conservation easement and the conservation values of the
property.
The City’s Natural Area Program owns lands protected with conservation easements held by
other entities. Once the City receives a request for an easement across these properties, the City
will notify the owner of the conservation easement. Staff will then work with the conservation
easement owner to evaluate such requests on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the terms
of the conservation easement, the conservation values of the property, and this Policy, to the
extent permissible.
5
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS:
In general, a right of way or easement across a City-owned natural area or conserved land will
only be approved if it is the only reasonable alternative, considering environmental impacts,
impacts to the recreation uses of the natural area by the community, financial costs, engineering
feasibility, public health and safety and other appropriate factors. Applications for easements or
rights-of-way must identify and evaluate the environmental impact, engineering feasibility, and
the cost of alternatives that do not affect the city-owned natural area or conserved land.
Depending on the type of proposal, alternatives will need to consider both alternative locations
for the facility as well as alternative designs. The number of potential alternatives to be
considered will depend on the location and nature of the proposal, but must be sufficient to allow
City staff, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board, and City Council to evaluate the cost
and environmental impact of the available alternatives for meeting the intent of the proposal.
Applicants should expect to provide information on the available alternatives at a level of detail
to allow independent review of the conclusions by City staff or outside consultants retained by
the City to assess the easement request.
LAND USE CONSISTENCY:
Applicants for rights of way and easements must demonstrate that any development to be served
by the proposal is consistent with the Plan Fort Collins, the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Where
the purpose of the easement is to provide utility services to areas outside the land use jurisdiction
of the City, the applicant must demonstrate consistency with the adopted comprehensive plan of
the governing jurisdiction, and with any applicable growth management policies of the City.
Applications for easements that facilitate development or growth that is contrary to the policies
of the City will not be approved.
MASTER PLAN CONSISTENCY:
As a condition of approval, the applicant must demonstrate that the requested easement or right-
of-way is consistent with the adopted utility master plan or service plan for the area where the
easement is requested. The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed project is located and
designed appropriately to meet the future needs of the service area based on the adopted land use
plans and/or zoning in the area served. This requirement is intended to encourage thorough
planning, coordination among property owners, and to avoid multiple requests for easements or
premature expansion or modification of the facility before the end of its normal service life.
COORDINATION WITH OTHER ENTITIES:
Generally, the City will not grant exclusive easements. As a condition of approval, the applicant
must contact other utility service providers in the project vicinity to determine if they have
current or future plans for additional facilities in the area. To the extent feasible, the planning,
design, and construction of facilities shall be coordinated among utility providers to conserve
easement corridors and to avoid repeated construction activities that may affect the natural area
or conserved land. Applicants must provide copies of written requests for utility coordination
and the responses received from other service providers.
6
COMPLIANCE WITH EXISTING EASEMENTS:
Applicants must demonstrate compliance with the requirements of prior easements on land
subject to this Policy or other City property. Requests for new or additional easements will not
be considered if the applicant has not met the requirements of existing easement agreements and
has failed to make diligent efforts to correct the situation after notification by the City.
RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS:
As a condition of approval of any easement or right-of-way, the City will impose appropriate
measures to assure adequate resource protection for the natural area or conserved land. These
measures will be determined based on the characteristics of the proposal and the affected land,
but may include, without limitation: field investigations to determine the presence of sensitive
plants and wildlife; siting requirements to minimize the effect on natural resources; seasonal
timing restrictions to avoid impacts to wildlife or sensitive habitat during critical periods of the
year; access restrictions to control times and locations of access to the easement; construction
management measures to ensure that activities are restricted to designated areas, to control
erosion, to limit noise, or other impacts; restoration requirements to ensure the timely regrading
and revegetation of disturbed areas to a condition consistent with the future management of the
area; mitigation measures to replace resource values lost to the community as a result of the
project; and requirements to minimize the impact to the natural area of ongoing operation and
maintenance of the facility. The City Manager or his or her designee shall develop and maintain
a general list of resource protection standards that are applicable to natural areas and conserved
lands. This list, which is now maintained by the Natural Areas Program, may be modified from
time to time based on the experience gained in managing easements, developing knowledge
about the resource values of the City’s natural areas and conserved lands, and improved
knowledge related to best management practices needed to protect the natural values of the
City’s properties and to reflect specific circumstances or concerns in connection with a particular
easement or project.
COMPENSATION AND MITIGATION:
As a condition of approval of any easement or right of way, the City will require cash
compensation for the value of the permanent and temporary easements and for the administrative
costs of processing and managing the easement, except where there is offsetting value and
benefit to the Natural Areas Program. In addition, the City will require compensation for the loss
of ecological service values, recreation values, and other intrinsic values of the property.
Compensation for the value of the land and for damages will be based on fair market value as
determined by accepted appraisal techniques. Compensation for loss in ecological services and
recreation use will be based on values reported in appropriate professional and technical
publications. Compensation for losses in ecological services and recreation use may be
negotiated to be paid in cash or through the completion of appropriate mitigation measures.
Additional fees assessed for other costs associated with processing the easement request and
approval process, overseeing construction activities, and managing the easement following
construction will be based on the estimated actual costs of the service provided. Furthermore,
the City will seek compensation intended to support on or off-site capitol improvements or land
conservation. In general, compensation and fees will be administered so as to result in a net
benefit to the Natural Areas Program.
7
PUBLIC INFORMATION AND REVIEW PROCESS:
In addition to the formal advisory board and City Council review procedures described below,
the applicant requesting an easement on City-owned natural area or conserved land will be
required to arrange for a public meeting at which information regarding the proposed easement
and related project will be provided, and at which questions regarding the easement and related
project will be taken. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that responses are provided
to questions asked at the meeting to the extent practicable, and that questions and responses and
any input received at the meeting are documented and provided to City staff. The applicant shall
be responsible for providing timely and meaningful notice to the general public in advance of
any such public meeting.
ADVISORY BOARD AND COUNCIL REVIEW:
Granting an easement or right-of-way conveys a property right, and must be approved by the
City Council by ordinance. The Land Conservation and Stewardship Board will also review the
easement proposal and make a recommendation in its advisory role to the City Council. City
staff will be responsible for working with the applicant on the application process, reviewing and
evaluating the application, and making a recommendation to both the Land Conservation and
Stewardship Board and the City Council. If an easement is granted by the City Council, staff
will be responsible for overseeing and managing the easement and ensuring that the conditions of
the grant are met.
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS AND REVIEW PROCESS:
In addition to this Policy, the City Manager or his designee will establish procedures for
reviewing applications for easements and rights–of-way that affect City-owned natural areas and
conserved lands. These procedures shall establish the fees, necessary steps and information
requirements for the timely consideration of requests for easements or rights-of-way. The City
Manager or his or her designee will ensure that easement requests are presented to City Council
for decision in a timely manner.
DATE: January 3, 2012
STAFF: Wendy Williams
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 13
SUBJECT
Resolution 2012-002 Authorizing a First Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement between the Poudre River
Public Library District, the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In December 2007 the City Council approved an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between the Fort Collins Regional
Library District (later renamed the Poudre River Public Library District), the City and Larimer County. That agreement
addressed a range of items, including the transfer of City-owned assets and library operations to the newly formed
Library District, use of remaining library impact fees, and the availability of City support services to the District at
District expense.
This amendment to the IGA adds Project Management as a service the City will provide to the District and provides
a detailed scope of project management services. It also clarifies that in the event that the City receives a request for
a refund of City Impact Fees held in the Public Library Fund, the District will reimburse the City for the full amount of
any such refund.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Fort Collins Regional Library District (the District) was approved by the voters in November 2006 and funded with
three mills of property tax. Subsequently, a District Board of Trustees was selected and ratified by the Council and
County Commissioners. In December 2007 the City Council approved an intergovernmental agreement between the
District, the City and Larimer County. That agreement addressed a range of items, including the transfer of City-owned
assets and library operations to the new Library District, use of remaining library impact fees, and the availability of
City support services to the District at District expense. A copy of the existing IGA is included as Attachment 1.
Under the IGA the City provides a number of support services to the District, including but not limited to financial,
human resources, purchasing, facilities maintenance and technology services. The IGA provides that the City will
make these services available to the District and the District will pay the City’s cost in providing the services. The
District is requesting the City amend the IGA to add Project Management as a service the City will provide to the
District, and to include a detailed scope of those desired Project Management services.
The amendment also adds Section 2.1.3 to the IGA, stating that the City and the District may amend Exhibit B-2 to
modify these City support services without requiring the County’s prior approval or signature. The District will,
however, notify the County of any such amendments.
Finally, the former City Code provision that provided for library impact fees allowed for a refund if the fees were not
expended within the time period allowed in the Code. The amendment clarifies that in the event that the City receives
a request for a refund of City impact fees held in the Public Library Fund, the District will reimburse the City for the full
amount of any such refund. This will facilitate the transfer of these funds should that be necessary.
The Library District Board approved this amendment at its meeting on December 12, 2011, and the District will arrange
for review and approval by the County.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The District compensates the City for all services provided.
January 3, 2012 -2- ITEM 13
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Intergovernmental Agreement Among Fort Collins Regional Library District, City of Fort Collins, Colorado and
The County of Larimer, Colorado.
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION 2012-002
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE POUDRE RIVER PUBLIC LIBRARY DISTRICT,
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND LARIMER COUNTY
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Section 24-90-107(3)(h) of the Colorado Revised Statutes, the City,
Larimer County and the Poudre River Public Library District (formerly known as the Fort Collins
Regional Library District) (“District”) entered into an intergovernmental agreement dated December
18, 2007, which sets forth the rights, obligations and responsibilities, financial and otherwise, of the
City, the County and the District (the “IGA”); and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1 of the IGA states that the City will provide administrative and
support services to the District at cost, and Exhibit B to the IGA describes in more detail the services
that the City will make available to the District; and
WHEREAS, in addition to the services currently listed in Exhibit B to the IGA, the District
would like the City to provide Facilities Project Management services for the District for projects
such as the Main Library expansion; and
WHEREAS, City and District staff are also proposing to amend the IGA to allow the City
and District to modify in the future the list of services the City provides to the District without
requiring the approval or signature of the County, but with notice to the County of any such changes;
and
WHEREAS, from 1996 until 2010 the City collected a Library Capital Improvement
Expansion Fee (the “Library Impact Fee”); and
WHEREAS, the IGA required the City to transfer to the District any revenue remaining from
the Library Impact Fee following completion of the Southeast Branch Library; and
WHEREAS, Section 7.5-24 of the City Code permits the owners of properties for which
impact fees were paid to request a refund of such payments if the fees are not appropriated by the
City Council for expenditure within seven years from the date of payment of such fees and expended
by the City for the approved purposes within ten years of the date of payment; and
WHEREAS, the District has agreed to amend the IGA to state that should the City receive
an application for a refund of the Library Impact Fee, the District will reimburse the City for any
City-approved refunds of the Library Impact Fee; and
WHEREAS, a copy of a proposed First Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement
incorporating the IGA amendments described herein is attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit
“A” (the “Amendment”); and
WHEREAS, the District Board approved the Amendment at its regular meeting on December
12, 2011.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the First Amendment to Intergovernmental
Agreement in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, with such additional terms and
conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines are necessary or
appropriate to protect the interests of the City; provided, however, that the City’s execution of the
Amendment is contingent upon the Larimer County Commissioners taking appropriate action to
approve the execution of the Amendment by the County.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 3rd
day of January A.D. 2012.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
EXHIBIT “A”
FIRST AMENDMENT TO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
(“Amendment”) is made and entered into by and between THE POUDRE RIVER PUBLIC
LIBRARY DISTRICT, formerly known as the Fort Collins Regional Library District
(“District”), the CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO (“City”), and LARIMER COUNTY,
COLORADO (“County”) and is effective on the date last signed below.
RECITALS
1. Pursuant to § 24-90-107(3)(h), C.R.S., the District, City and County entered into
an Intergovernmental Agreement dated December 18, 2007, which sets forth the rights,
obligations, and responsibilities, financial and otherwise, of the City, the County and the District
(the “IGA”).
2. Section 2.1 of the IGA states that the City will provide administrative and support
services to the District at cost, and Exhibit B to the IGA describes in more detail the services that
the City will make available to the District.
3. In addition to the services presently listed in Exhibit B, the District would like the
City’s Operations Services Department to provide Facilities Project Management services for the
District, and the parties wish to amend Exhibit B to specifically list Project Management as a
service the City will provide to the District, and to simplify such changes in the future.
4. Section 2.2.3.4 of the IGA provides that residual City Impact Fee revenue will be
transferred to the Public Library Fund following completion of the Southeast Branch Library.
The District hereby acknowledges that Section 7.5-24 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins
provides for the refund of impact fees if a refund is requested and certain refund requirements are
met.
5. In order to facilitate the transfer of the City Impact Fee revenue, the parties desire
to amend the IGA to provide that the District will reimburse the City for any City-approved
refunds of the City Impact Fee.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. That Section 2.1 of the IGA is amended by the addition of a new Section 2.1.3, as
follows:
Section 2.1.3 Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 8.7 below,
the City and the District may amend Exhibit B to add, delete or modify City
Support Services without the County’s prior approval or signature being
required. The District will notify the County of any such amendments and
provide a copy of the final signed amendment for the County’s records.
EXHIBIT “A”
2. That Exhibit B to the IGA is hereby replaced with new Exhibits “B-1” and “B-2”
as attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
3. That Section 2.2.3.4 of the IGA is amended to read in its entirety:
Section 2.2.3.4 Any revenue remaining from the City Impact Fee
following completion of the Southeast Branch Library will be transferred to the Public
Library Fund and must be expended only on new capital improvements, located within
the City of Fort Collins, as designated in the District’s Strategic Plan (as defined in
Section 4.1, below), and only to the extent necessary to offset new development by
providing and maintaining for the City’s citizens a level of library facilities, equipment
and materials that is comparable to that which existed when the City Impact Fee was
imposed. Capital improvements not meeting these requirements will be funded by the
District from a source other than the City Impact Fee. In the event that the City receives
one or more requests for a refund of the City Impact Fee and any such refund is approved
and paid by the City in accordance with Section 7.5-24 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins, the District will reimburse the City for the full amount of any such refund.
3. All terms and conditions of the IGA remain in full force and effect except as
modified by this Amendment.
EXHIBIT “A”
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO
___________________________________ ____________________________________
Chairman Date
ATTEST: Approved as to form:
Larimer County Attorney
POUDRE RIVER PUBLIC LIBRARY DISTRICT
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
___________________________________ ____________________________________
President Date
ATTEST: Approved as to Form:
Secretary Seter & Vander Wall, P.C.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
____________________________________
Mayor Date
ATTEST: Approved as to Form:
City Clerk City Attorney
EXHIBIT “A”
Exhibit B-1
City Support Services
and
Determination of “Cost”
Accounting – Treasury
Maintain accounting records, prepare journal entries, provide banking and investment
services, provide summary and detail transaction reports, provide accounting assistance
as needed, notify District staff of any areas of concern noted. Charges based on
processing costs for the Finance Department including assigned accounting staff.
Accounts payable
Process and mail or make electronic payment vendor payments in compliance with
procedures in effect for the City and adopted by the District. Process District employees
purchasing card transactions and prepare and provide reports to District staff of
purchasing card activity. Record transactions as directed by District staff. Assist in
resolving errors and discrepancies. Prepare 1099 forms for applicable Library vendors.
Provide all forms and supplies needed for the accounts payable function. Maintain
documentation of transactions in compliance with established archive requirements.
Charges are based on the proportion of District activity compared to citywide activity
based on number of receivings.
Payroll
Process biweekly payroll and distribute paychecks or direct deposit advises to District
staff for distribution to District employees. Assist in transaction analysis as requested.
Provide all forms and supplies needed for the accounts payable function. Process payroll
tax deposits, benefits payments and other withholdings when due Prepare quarterly and
annual payroll tax deposit forms, employee W-2’s and remittance forms. Maintain
documentation of payroll records in compliance with established archive requirements.
Charges are based on the proportion of District activity compared to citywide activity
based on number of number of employees.
Human Resources
Provide all human resource services including maintenance and access of personnel files,
application posting, acceptance and processing, drug and background investigations,
benefits management, employee training and the Wellness Program. This includes access
to exercise rooms and participation in special programs such as the Well Days Incentive
Program, health fairs, blood drives and flu shots. Charges are based on the proportion of
District activity compared to citywide activity based on number of employees.
Purchasing
Process purchase orders, requisitions and other documents needed to acquire vendor
goods and services. Assist in issuing and evaluating District bids and requests for
proposals (RFP’s). Provide all forms and supplies needed. Allow District to participate
EXHIBIT “A”
in City bids and RFP’s where appropriate (such as custodial services). Maintain
purchasing records in compliance with established archive requirements. Charges billed
on per PO/bid/RFP activity of $150/PO, $75/MO,$1500/bid-RFP, $750/contracts not
relative to bid for RFP. City shall assign warranties to District, if any.
Operations – Facilities
Provide maintenance and repair of District-used facilities as requested and approved by
District staff. Charges billed per work order. Materials and outside labor billed at cost.
City labor billed at rates established for City departments as listed in the City’s budget
manual.
Provide project management services as requested and approved by District staff.
Charges billed per hour. Materials and outside labor billed at cost. City labor billed at
rates established for City departments as listed in the City’s budget manual. Project
management scope of duties is listed on Ex. B-2.
Custodial services will be provided by the City-approved vendor. Charges for these
services are based on the proportion of District activity compared to citywide activity
based on building square footage but an administrative fee of $3,000 for contract
management.
MIS
Provide specific technology services that support other City of Fort Collins service
providers (including MIS support of financial and Human Resources systems; provision,
access and support of voice, data and other telecommunications networks; Internet
access services; web services; email and calendaring (groupware) services; consultation
and others as specified in this agreement. Services provided by the City are billed to the
district at City cost.
Due to the fundamental importance of a stable technological environment and the
changing nature of technology, the Library District and MIS will meet annually in
advance of District and City budget cycles to review the services and costs, and make any
necessary adjustments to the slate of MIS services purchased by the District.
Mail Services
Provide mail services including inter-City/District mail, mail pickup and delivery, and
regular and bulk mailing. Charges for these services will be billed in the same manner
and at the same rates charged City departments.
EXHIBIT “A”
EXHIBIT B-2
Project Management Scope
The duties of the Project Manager (City), as a representative of the Owner (District),
include:
1. The Project Manager shall visit the site at intervals appropriate to the state of the
Contractor’s operations, (1) to become generally familiar with and to keep the
Owner informed about the progress and quality of the portion of the Work
completed, (2) to endeavor to guard the Owner against defects and deficiencies in
the Work, and (3) to determine in general if the Work is being performed in a
manner indicating that the Work, when fully completed, will be in accordance
with the Contract Documents.
2. The Project Manager shall report to the Owner known deviations from the
Contract Documents and from the most recent construction schedule submitted by
the Contractor.
3. The Owner shall endeavor to communicate with the Contractor through the
Project Manager about matters arising out of or relating to the Contract
Documents.
4. The Project Manager shall review and certify the amounts due the Contractor and
shall issue certificates in such amounts.
5. The Project Manager shall have authority to reject Work that does not conform to
the Contract Documents. Whenever the Project Manager considers it necessary or
advisable, the Project Manager shall have the authority to require inspection or
testing of the Work in accordance with the provisions of the Contract Documents,
whether or not such Work is fabricated, installed or completed.
6. The Project Manager shall prepare Change Orders and Construction Change
Directives, with supporting documentations and data if deemed necessary by the
Project Manager, for the Owner’s approval and execution in accordance with the
Contract Documents, and may authorize minor changes in the Work not involving
an adjustment in the Contract Sum or an extension of the Contract Time which are
consistent with the intent of the Contract Documents.
7. The Project Manager shall conduct inspections to determine the date or dates of
Substantial Completion and the date of final completion, shall receive from the
Contractor and forward to the Owner, for the Owner’s review and records, written
warranties and related documents required by the Contract Documents and
assembled by the Contractor, and shall issue a final Certificate for Payment based
EXHIBIT “A”
upon a final inspection indicating the Work complies with the requirements of the
Contract Documents.
8. The Project Manager shall render initial decisions on claims, disputes or other
matters in question between the Owner and Contractor as provided in the Contract
Documents. The Project Manager shall interpret and decide matters concerning
performance of the Owner and Contractor under the Contract Documents on
written request of either the Owner or Contractor. The Project Manager’s
response to such requests shall be made in writing within any time limits agreed
upon or otherwise with reasonable promptness.
DATE: January 3, 2012
STAFF: Jerry Schiager, Ginny Sawyer
Medical Marijuana Staff Team
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 18
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 182, 2011, Amending Section 15-483 of the City Code So as to Eliminate the Eight
Ounce Limitation on the Amount of Medical Marijuana That Can Be Distributed by Licensees to Other Licensed
Medical Marijuana Centers.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
All medical marijuana businesses in Fort Collins must cease operation by February 14, 2012. This Ordinance, adopted
on First Reading on December 20, 2011 by a vote of 6-1 (nays: Troxell) will allow existing businesses to sell more than
8 ounces of product to another licensed business outside the City limits in an effort to eliminate inventory by February
14, 2012.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - December 20, 2011
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: December 20, 2011
STAFF: Jerry Schiager, Ginny Sawyer,
Medical Marijuana Staff Team
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 28
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 182, 2011, Amending Section 15-483 of the City Code So as to Eliminate the Eight
Ounce Limitation on the Amount of Medical Marijuana That Can Be Distributed by Licensees to Other Licensed
Medical Marijuana Centers.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
All medical marijuana businesses in Fort Collins must cease operation by February 14, 2012. This amendment would
allow existing businesses to sell more than 8 ounces of product to another licensed business outside the City limits
in an effort to eliminate inventory by February 14, 2012.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
During the creation of regulations addressing medical marijuana businesses in Fort Collins limits were included on both
sale of medical marijuana to patients and to other licensed businesses. The existing Code includes the following:
Sec. 15-483. Prohibited Acts.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any licensee holding a medical marijuana center licensed, or for any
agent, manager or employee thereof, to:
(2) sell, give, dispense or otherwise distribute to any patient or primary caregiver who is not a
licensee more than two (2) ounces of any usable form of medical marijuana (excluding
medical marijuana-infused products) within any seven-day period of time;
(3) sell, give, dispense or otherwise distribute to another licensed center more than eight (8)
ounces of medical marijuana in any usable form within any seven-day period of time;
The proposed ordinance maintains the sale limitation to patients but amends the restriction to other licensed
businesses. Knowing that local businesses are needing to eliminate their inventories, staff feels this amendment will
help provide a legal means to do so. The Ordinance would only allow these sales to licensees outside the City limits.
Should Council approve the amendment on First Reading on December 20, 2011 and on Second Reading on January
3, 2012, local businesses would have from January 17, 2012 to February 14, 2012 to make these amended sales.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
1
1
Second Reading
Proposed Ordinance to Eliminate the 8oz
Limitation on the Amount of Medical
Marijuana That Can be Sold to Other
Licensees Outside of the City.
City Council Meeting
January 3, 2012
2
Amends current code to allow for sales
of greater than 8oz to licensed medical
marijuana centers outside the city limits.
Ordinance No. 182
ATTACHMENT 2
2
3
Ordinance No. 182
Provides a lawful means for existing
centers to eliminate inventory before
the February 14, 2012 deadline.
4
Discussion
ORDINANCE NO. 182, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING SECTION 15-483 OF THE CITY CODE SO AS TO ELIMINATE
THE EIGHT-OUNCE LIMITATION ON THE AMOUNT OF MEDICAL
MARIJUANA THAT CAN BE DISTRIBUTED BY LICENSEES TO OTHER
LICENSED MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTERS
WHEREAS, Chapter 15, Article VI of the City Code establishes a comprehensive licensing
system for medical marijuana businesses in the City; and
WHEREAS, on November 1, 2011, the voters of the City approved a citizen-initiated
ordinance that, in effect, requires such businesses to cease operation on or before February 14, 2012;
and
WHEREAS, under federal, state and local law, the possession of medical marijuana by such
businesses after the closure of the businesses would be unlawful and such medical marijuana would
be subject to seizure and destruction by state or local law enforcement officers; and
WHEREAS, the avenues presently available to the owners of such businesses to lawfully
dispose of their inventory of medical marijuana prior to the cessation of their businesses are limited
by state and local law; and
WHEREAS, at the local level, Section 15-483(b)(3) of the City Code prohibits any licensed
medical marijuana business from selling, giving, dispensing or otherwise distributing to another
licensed medical marijuana center, either inside or outside of the City, more than eight ounces of
medical marijuana in any usable form within any seven-day period of time; and
WHEREAS, this limitation was imposed by the City Council in order to deter the wholesale
distribution of medical marijuana in the City and to keep the production and distribution of medical
marijuana at a level commensurate with the purpose and intent of Article XVII, Section 14 of the
Colorado Constitution; and
WHEREAS, in view of the fact that medical marijuana businesses in the City will be ceasing
operation pursuant to the citizen-initiated ordinance, the limitation imposed by Section 15-483(b)(3)
is no longer necessary for the protection of the citizenry; and
WHEREAS, the inability of licensees to sell larger quantities of medical marijuana to
licensed centers outside of the City impedes the ability of such licensees to lawfully dispose of their
inventory prior to February 14, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the City Council therefore believes it to be in the best interests of the City to
modify this provision of the Code so as to allow licensees to sell more than eight ounces of medical
marijuana within a seven-day period of time to another licensed center, but only if such center is
located outside the City limits.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that Section 15-483(b)(3) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to
read as follows:
Sec. 15-483. Prohibited acts.
. . .
(b) It shall be unlawful for any licensee holding a medical marijuana center
licensed, or for any agent, manager or employee thereof, to:
(1) sell, give, dispense or otherwise distribute medical marijuana or medical
marijuana paraphernalia from any outdoor location;
(2) sell, give, dispense or otherwise distribute to any patient or primary caregiver
who is not a licensee more than two (2) ounces of any usable form of medical
marijuana (excluding medical marijuana-infused products) within any seven-
day period of time;
(3) sell, give, dispense or otherwise distribute to another licensed center that is
located within the City limits more than eight (8) ounces of medical
marijuana in any usable form within any seven-day period of time;
. . .
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 20th day of
December, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 3rd day of January, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 3rd day of January, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-2-
urban renewal authority
Karen Weitkunat, President City Council Chambers
Kelly Ohlson, Vice-President City Hall West
Ben Manvel 300 LaPorte Avenue
Lisa Poppaw Fort Collins, Colorado
Aislinn Kottwitz
Wade Troxell
Gerry Horak Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
on the Comcast cable system
Darin Atteberry, Executive Director
Steve Roy, City Attorney
Wanda Krajicek, Secretary
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and
will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for
assistance.
URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY MEETING
January 3, 2012
(after the Regular Council Meeting)
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Roll Call.
3. Resolution No. 041 Authorizing the Adjustment of Line Items Pursuant to the Redevelopment
Agreement Between the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority City of Fort Collins and 1908 North
College, LLC for the North College Marketplace. (staff: Christina Vincent, Mike Beckstead; 15 minute
staff presentation; 1 hour discussion)
In September 2008, an application for financial assistance by 1908 North College, LLC, through
Loveland Commercial (Developer) was approved by the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Board for
tax increment financing (TIF) assistance for the North College Marketplace project (Project). The
amount of TIF awarded was not to exceed $8,000,000 for all public improvements. At the time of the
executed Redevelopment Agreement with the URA, Exhibit C of that agreement detailed the Eligible
Costs associated with the Public Improvements. As stated in the Redevelopment Agreement, the
Developer must come back to the URA Board to move funds from one line item category to another
with reasonable approval from the Board, with the exception of the Contingency line item which can
be approved administratively by the Executive Director. The Developer has requested that the cost
savings of approximately $1,265,000 from the Off Site Street Infrastructure line item (College/Willox
Intersection improvements) be transferred to the On Site Utilities line item for cost overruns related
thereto.
January 3, 2012
The Off Site Street Infrastructure funds were allocated and loaned by the City to the URA in May 2009
for the purpose of constructing the College Avenue and Willox Lane intersection as a Capital
Improvement Project (CIP). These intersection improvements, including the roundabout on Willox
Lane, were completed in October 2010. As stated above, the Developer has requested the cost
savings from this line item category be transferred to pay for cost overages within the On Site Utilities
line item and has submitted documentation supporting its request.
The parties have gone through many months of negotiation to come to an agreement acceptable to
both parties to bring forward to the URA Board for consideration. Staff and the Developer have
agreed, subject to approval of the Authority Board, to share the cost savings from the Off Site Street
improvements that will reimburse the Developer for certain cost overages, pay related interest
charges within the $8,000,000 original appropriation, incentivize the project to continue building as
planned, and allow the URA to retain a portion of the cost savings. Additionally, the Developer will
absorb approximately $711,000 in eligible, but unreimbursed public improvement costs as part of this
proposal.
4. Other Business.
5. Adjournment.
DATE: January 3, 2012
STAFF: Mike Beckstead
Christina Vincent
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY 3
SUBJECT
Resolution No. 041 Authorizing the Adjustment of Line Items Pursuant to the Redevelopment Agreement Between the
Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority City of Fort Collins and 1908 North College, LLC for the North College
Marketplace.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In September 2008, an application for financial assistance by 1908 North College, LLC, through Loveland Commercial
(Developer) was approved by the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Board for tax increment financing (TIF) assistance
for the North College Marketplace project (Project). The amount of TIF awarded was not to exceed $8,000,000 for
all public improvements. At the time of the executed Redevelopment Agreement with the URA, Exhibit C of that
agreement detailed the Eligible Costs associated with the Public Improvements. As stated in the Redevelopment
Agreement, the Developer must come back to the URA Board to move funds from one line item category to another
with reasonable approval from the Board, with the exception of the Contingency line item which can be approved
administratively by the Executive Director. The Developer has requested that the cost savings of approximately
$1,265,000 from the Off Site Street Infrastructure line item (College/Willox Intersection improvements) be transferred
to the On Site Utilities line item for cost overruns related thereto.
The Off Site Street Infrastructure funds were allocated and loaned by the City to the URA in May 2009 for the purpose
of constructing the College Avenue and Willox Lane intersection as a Capital Improvement Project (CIP). These
intersection improvements, including the roundabout on Willox Lane, were completed in October 2010. As stated
above, the Developer has requested the cost savings from this line item category be transferred to pay for cost
overages within the On Site Utilities line item and has submitted documentation supporting its request.
The parties have gone through many months of negotiation to come to an agreement acceptable to both parties to
bring forward to the URA Board for consideration. Staff and the Developer have agreed, subject to approval of the
Authority Board, to share the cost savings from the Off Site Street improvements that will reimburse the Developer for
certain cost overages, pay related interest charges within the $8,000,000 original appropriation, incentivize the project
to continue building as planned, and allow the URA to retain a portion of the cost savings. Additionally, the Developer
will absorb approximately $711,000 in eligible, but unreimbursed public improvement costs as part of this proposal.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On September 16, 2008 the URA Board approved Resolution No. 011, authorizing a Redevelopment Agreement
between the URA and the Developer to provide financial assistance for North College Marketplace. It was determined
at that time that the URA would construct the road on behalf of the Developer to ensure the road construction occurred
prior to the opening of King Soopers. The City loaned the URA funds in the amount of $5 million in May 2009 for those
public improvements associated with the first three line items of Exhibit C of the Redevelopment Agreement
(Agreement) including the Off Site Street Infrastructure. Exactly $2,812,620 of the $5 million was appropriated to the
City Engineering department to complete the Off Site Street Infrastructure for the College Avenue and Willox Lane
intersection. (Attachment 4)
The Off Site Street Infrastructure (road improvements at College Avenue and Willox Lane) actual costs came in
significantly under budget. According to the memo sent by City Engineering, who facilitated the construction on behalf
of the URA:
“The project was fast-tracked and the costs for the roadway improvements were based on conceptual
cost estimates. These conceptual estimates were completed prior to the engineering plans being
started. Without any engineering and without CDOT approval for either the construction or the North
College Access Plan revisions, the original cost estimates were a “worst case” cost.
January 3, 2012 -2- ITEM 3
On May 19, 2009, City Council appropriated $2,812,620 from the URA into the Capital Projects Fund
for the construction of the College and Willox Improvements. The project used $1,548,079.31 in URA
funding to construct the local street portion of the Marketplace road improvements on College and
Willox and the improvements to the existing businesses on the west side of College.
There remains $1,264,540.69 in project savings appropriated in URA funds into the College and
Willox Capital Improvement Project Fund. This appropriation will expire once the project is closed out
by the City Finance Department. However, this project cannot be financially closed out until the two
year warrantee period is completed in February of 2013.” (Attachment 3)
At the time the Agreement was being finalized, the use of eminent domain was a real possibility, as well as the cost
to acquire the right-of-way had yet to be determined. City staff engineers preferred to over-estimate the cost of the
project based on the significant amount of unknowns at this time, than to underestimate the project and not complete
it on time for the opening of the King Sooper's store.
The original budget for the roadway improvements totaled $4.7 million, using both URA and Street Oversizing as the
two funding sources. This preliminary estimation was a worst case scenario since the project has not yet been bid.
The final project cost $2.6 million to construct, approximately $2.1 million under budget, thus saving both the URA and
Street Oversizing a significant amount from the original estimates. The URA will receive a cost savings of
approximately $1.255 million and the remaining $900K to the Oversizing Fund.
The Developer submitted a letter to the URA on March 25, 2011 (Attachment 2) requesting to transfer the cost savings
from the Off Site Infrastructure line item to the On Site Utilities line item for the purpose of covering cost overruns within
the On Site Utilities category pursuant to the Redevelopment Agreement. Since the original request was received,
staff has been in conversation and negotiation with the Developer to come up with an acceptable compromise that
allows benefit to both the project and to the URA.
This project continues to be an asset and destination location for the northern gateway into the City. In the original
presentation to the URA Board, several key benefits were named for the completion of the North College Marketplace
that staff continues to believe are valid if the project continues to build to its completion. As originally listed, the key
benefits are:
1. The Urban Renewal Authority gains a redevelopment project that revitalizes North College and serves as a
catalyst to future investment in the Plan Area.
2. The Urban Renewal Authority provides financial assistance to a key catalyst site on North College that should
foster additional retail and commercial development.
3. The Urban Renewal Authority gains an additional $4.6 million for other public improvements in the Plan Area.
4. The City benefits from an improved intersection at College Avenue/Willox Lane that includes the related
pedestrian walkways and much needed public infrastructure.
5. The City gains a new roundabout at Willox Lane to facilitate the traffic flow between both the North College
Marketplace and the retail center anchored by Albertsons to the south.
6. The City achieves a distinctive gateway at its northern entrance that increases the profile of the area.
7. The wetlands are appropriately mitigated and add to the ambience of the area and the North College gateway.
Request by the Developer
The URA received a letter from North College Marketplace, requesting the re-allocation of funds from The Off-Site
Streets line item to the On-Site Utilities line item on March 25, 2011. The need for such re-allocation, as stated in the
letter:
January 3, 2012 -3- ITEM 3
“is based on several factors relating to the installation of the on-site utilities including:
1. an underestimated cost estimate from our engineer relating to unknown site and soil conditions
at the time of the original estimate,
2. additional City requirements from the development review process including the addition of bio-
swales and other unanticipated improvements to the storm water system, and
3. overages related to the estimation of the design and other engineering costs associated with the
project utilities.” (Attachment 2)
Table 1 – Budget to Actual for On-Site Utilities (information provided by Developer)*
Sub category Budgeted Actual Cost Variance
Sanitary Sewer $114,930 $262,883 $147,953
Storm Sewer / Bio-Swales $338,100 $704,371 $366,271
Water lines $238,315 $257,305 $18,990
Site Stabilization Materials $ - $353,150 $353,150
Mobilization, Surveying, and Permits $ - $201,341 $201,341
Gas (Xcel) $77,580 $14,998 $(62,582)
Electric (City of Fort Collins) $49,363 $186,827 $137,464
Design Engineering and Administration $81,829 $363,561 $281,732
Contingency (built into this On-Site Utilities line item
budget - approx. 10% of cost) $122,743 $ - $(122,743)
Total $1,022,860 $2,344,436 $1,321,576
*More detailed information found on page 3 of David H Bower, CPA letter (within Attachment 5)
As mentioned above, there have been many months of negotiation and fact-checking since receiving the first request
from the Developer on March 25, 2011. Staff has worked diligently with both the Developer’s team and the City’s
development review team to determine the best case scenario for the project and for the URA.
Staff has evaluated the request for additional funds applied to the On-Site Utilities category, explored the request with
Development Review staff, Utilities, and Engineering, and researched comments from all staff reviews to determine
a recommendation of appropriate unanticipated expense reimbursement.
Additionally, the URA and developer jointly funded a third party consultant to research and evaluate the budgeted costs
versus actual costs spent for reasonableness in both the Off Site Street Infrastructure and the remaining line items,
especially On Site Utilities. The information should be complete in order to present to the URA Board in January 2012.
Financial Considerations Related to North College Marketplace
1. Original URA appropriation was $8 million and did not provide for interest owed to Developer to be paid above
the original appropriation. The proposed settlement pays Developer interest within the original appropriation.
2. The On-Site Utilities portion of Project exceeded preliminary budget estimates by over $1.4 million and
estimates agreed to by the parties within the Redevelopment Agreement.
3. The Off-Site Street Improvements were completed within and under the “worst case” budget estimates agreed
to by the parties.
4. Wetlands mitigation is an ongoing obligation for the maintenance and monitoring will remain with and funded
by the Developer and is subject to separate agreements. (Development Agreement and the Redevelopment
Agreement)
5. Warranty on street improvements is an Authority obligation and will not expire until February 2013.
6. TIF revenue shortfall from the original projection is related to construction timing, County assessor’s valuation
and market conditions.
January 3, 2012 -4- ITEM 3
Based on the desire to see this project move forward and come to completion in the near future, staff has pursued
sharing a portion of the Off Site Street Improvement cost savings with the Developer. A portion of the savings should
be applied to an incentive for Developer to continue building out the project to completion.
Staff and the Developer are supportive of contributing to half the overage amounts incurred within the On Site Utility
Line Item for the Sanitary Sewer ($73,976), and the Stormwater improvements ($183,136). This amount totals
$257,112. In addition to those costs, staff and the Developer are supportive of paying the cost overages of the Site
Stabilization Materials within the same line item. This amount totals $353,150. The amount staff and the Developer
are supportive of for hard costs expended is $610,262. This amount is referred to in a later chart as approximately
$610,000 which has been rounded to the nearest thousand. Refer to the table below for an illustration of the costs
staff is supportive of sharing that relate to the On Site Utilities cost overruns. Table 1 above shows the Developer’s
list of cost overruns and Table 2 is the recommendation.
Table 2 – Hard Costs Supported by Staff
Sub category Budgeted Actual Cost Staff Support for
Costs above Budget
Sanitary Sewer $114,930 $262,883 $73,976
Storm Sewer / Bio-Swales $338,100 $704,371 $183,136
Site Stabilization Materials $ - $353,150 $353,150
Total 453,030 1,320,404 $610,262
Illustration 1 - Staff and Developer Recommendation for Cost Sharing
Through many months of negotiation, staff and the Developer have come to an agreement acceptable to both parties
to bring to the URA Board for consideration. Staff recommends the sharing of the cost savings from the Off Site Street
improvements as illustrated above that will reimburse the Developer for certain cost overruns in the On-Site Utilities
category, pay related interest charges within the original $8 million appropriation, incentivize the project to continue
building and complete build-out, and allow the URA to keep some of the cost savings. (Illustration 1)
January 3, 2012 -5- ITEM 3
According to the Redevelopment Agreement, the Developer has the right with reasonable approval from the URA
Board to move funds between line items and the prior request was to move the entire savings from Off-Site Streets
to On-Site Utilities for reimbursement. However, in this proposal, the parties have agreed to include interest due within
the original $8 million appropriation, to leave a portion of the funds for future project build-out incentives, and allow the
URA to retain a portion of the cost savings.
Staff has put together a table that shows the payments paid to date for the entire project, the payments received by
the Developer, as well as the impact of the agreement negotiated on the TIF award. See the table below.
Table 3 – Payments
Redevelopment Agreement Line Items
from Exhibit C
Original Line
Item Budget
To Date Paid to
Developer for
Eligible Costs
Approximate Amount
Paid to date plus
agreement terms
(rounded to the nearest
1,000)
Off Site Street Infrastructure (City Project,
Reimburse only Engineering Costs) $2,812,620 $159,099 $1,557,000
Demolition, Property Cleanup and Site
Preparation Costs $366,650 $366,650 $375,000
Wetlands Mitigation, Landscaping,
Unsuitable Materials and payment to the
Wetland’s Reserve Fund
$1,763,206 $1,763,206 $2,001,000
On-Site Utilities $1,022,861 $1,022,861 $1,196,000
Gateway/Landscaping/Pedestrian
Connection/Grading/North/South
Circulation and College Avenue Public
Access Easement/Paving of Grape Street
$1,702,128 $1,418,608 $1,457,000
Relocation Assistance $10,000 $10,000 $11,000
Contingency $322,535 $315,895
Interest $0 $149,979
Subtotal $8,000,000 $5,206,298 $6,597,000
Remaining Balance $1,403,000
Staff Recommendation for Additional
Reimbursement $610,000
Interest Payment $75,000*
Eligible Costs still available (Gateway) $290,000
Incentive (Wetlands, add’l building) $210,000
URA retain portion $210,000
Total $8,000,000**
*Actual amount $149,979 of the $225,000 has been paid to the Developer, $75,000 is approximate.
**Actual amounts are rounded up to the nearest thousand in this column. Actual costs will be based
on invoices within the latest pay application.
If the URA Board agrees with the staff recommendation, the amount of $610,262 would be transferred from the Off
Site Infrastructure reimbursement line item and would be reimbursed to the Developer for costs associated with the
On Site Utilities and the Developer would absorb approximately $711,000 in Eligible Public Improvement cost overruns.
Additionally, payment would be made to the Developer for the remaining interest of $75,000 still owed under the
Redevelopment Agreement. In this proposal, the ongoing wetlands monitoring and maintenance remains a Developer
responsibility. By splitting the remaining available funds with the Developer, it supports the URA’s desire to continue
progress of development of the project. The URA would retain approximately $210,000. The remaining $210,000
would go into an escrow account for the Developer to use towards cost reimbursements related to future buildings
within the Development and would require the Developer to obtain a building permit by June 30, 2013. If these funds
are not used, they will revert back to the URA.
January 3, 2012 -6- ITEM 3
In summary, the proposal specifically addresses the URA’s concerns related to having money available for ongoing
maintenance and warranty obligations associated with the Off Site Streets, provides for Developer interest to be paid
within the original $8 million appropriation, provides incentive to the Developer for quicker build-out of the project, and
provides for a portion of the cost savings to be retained by the URA.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
There are no environmental impacts accompanied with this Resolution.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Map of project
2. Letter from North College Marketplace, Inc. dated March 25, 2011
3. Memo from City Engineering dated April 17, 2011
4. Redevelopment Agreement
5. Memo from North College Marketplace, Inc. dated June 13, 2011
6. Cost Book from September 4, 2008
7. Powerpoint presentation
E WILLOX LN
N COLLEGE AVE
W WILLOX LN
T
E
RRY
L
A
K
E
R
D
North College Marketplace - Project Area O
1 inch equals 500 feet
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
Engineering Department
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.221.6605
970.221.6378 - fax
fcgov.com/engineering
Planning, Development & Transportation
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 17, 2011
TO: North College URA
Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director
Christina Vincent, Redevelopment Program Administrator
THRU: Helen Migchelbink, City Engineer
Rick Richter, Capital Project Manager
FROM: Matt Baker, Capital Projects
Kyle Lambrecht, Capital Projects
RE: Closeout of North College Avenue and Willox Lane Improvements for the Marketplace
Development
The construction of the North College Avenue and Willox Lane Improvements for the
Marketplace Development is complete. The final pay estimate for the roadway contractor,
Connell Resources, has been processed and the contract is being advertised for release of
retainage.
This memorandum is to inform you of final construction cost amounts and cost savings on the
project.
City Council appropriated $2,812,620 from the URA into the Capital Projects Fund for
the construction of the College and Willox Improvements
The project used $1,548,079.31 in URA funding to construct the local street portion of
the road improvements
There remains $1,264,540.69 in project savings appropriated in URA funds in the
College and Willox Capital Project account
There are also possible future repayments totaling $398,711.95 on underdeveloped
properties within the project boundaries.
As you are aware, a portion of the Marketplace development and roadway improvements were
financed through the North College Urban Renewal Authority. The project was fast-tracked and
the costs for the roadway improvements were based on conceptual cost estimates. These
conceptual estimates were completed prior to the engineering plans being started. Without any
engineering and without CDOT approval for either the construction or the North College Access
Plan revisions, the original cost estimates were a “worst case” cost.
ATTACHMENT 3
The City’s Engineering Capital Project team worked quickly and diligently to produce
engineering drawings, get them reviewed and approved by CDOT, manage the North College
Access Plan revisions required by the development, and bid out and construct the project prior to
the opening of the Marketplace development and it’s primary anchor tenant, King Soopers.
The City used several techniques to accelerate the engineering plans, ROW acquisition and
CDOT Access Plan modifications:
The Capital Project team obtained City Council approval to sole source the engineering
design to the civil consultant working with the Marketplace development. This saved the
time of an RFP and selection process. There was also a significant cost savings because
the consultant had already completed the site legal survey and topographic survey.
The Capital Project team contacted and began working with the property owners for both
ROW acquisition and access modifications. This allowed the team to gain valuable
insight into their business needs and project impacts as design proceeded.
The Capital Project team began Bi-weekly meetings wit CDOT officials, keeping them
updated on the progress of design and access issues prior to the submittal of the North
College Access Plan revisions.
As a result of this effort, engineering design plans and the North College Access Plan revisions
were completed within four months and were ready to bid in early 2010.
As the Capital Project team began the engineering design effort to improve a CDOT highway, a
cost/benefit analysis was used on critical issues. Alternate design and material options were
discussed at length with CDOT, utilities, and City staff throughout the process. As these issues
were resolved, they were incorporated into the design. Several of these issues resulted in
significant construction savings:
Using the existing concrete pavement under the roadway as much as possible not only
saved cost to demolish, haul away, and rebuilt; it lessened the environmental impact by
using less mined aggregate.
A new overlay method called a Reflective Crack Interlayer (RCI), using a specialized
asphalt mix, was installed between the concrete pavement and the asphalt wearing
surface. This cutting edge product eliminates most of the cracks that develop in asphalt
overlays. This will reduce maintenance dollars.
The roadway pavement was designed to leave the existing gas, electric, and fiber optic
utilities in place, saving relocation costs.
The roundabout was shifted to use existing ROW, eliminating acquisition of expensive
retail property.
The landscaped median was constructed using a raised bed design, instead of removing
the underlying concrete pavement.
The design consultant included an urban designer and a landscape designer to provide aesthetics
to the project. By using varying colors and textures of concrete and stone in both horizontal and
vertical planes, a more human scale was created. Intensive landscaping and featured plant
groupings will are massed to soften the wide expanse of pavement and provide a pleasing visual
entrance into the City.
On May 19, 2009, City Council appropriated $2,812,620 from the URA into the Capital Projects
Fund for the construction of the College and Willox Improvements. The project used
$1,548,079.31 in URA funding to construct the local street portion of the Marketplace road
improvements on College and Willox and the improvements to the existing businesses on the
west side of College.
There remains $1,264,540.69 in project savings appropriated in URA funds into the College and
Willox Capital Improvement Project Fund. This appropriation will expire once the project is
closed out by the City Finance Department. However, this project cannot be financially closed
out until the two year warrantee period is completed in February of 2013.
It may make sense for City Council action to reduce the URA appropriation into the Capital
Projects Fund to make this funding available for other URA priorities.
As per City policy, if the City constructs improvements adjacent to property that may develop or
redevelop, the City may attempt to collect the normal development obligation of the local street
portion of abutting roadways. Engineering will be filing Notices of Repayment for future
obligation of the developer’s local street portion of costs in accordance with Section 24-95(c) of
the City Code for properties that may develop or redevelop. The properties and amounts are:
North College Motors – $103,871.28
Pobre Panchos – $103,904.84
Hall First Addition - $108,169.15
Legends Holdings - $82,766.68
Included with this memo is a spreadsheet of the final costs and the split of responsibility between
the various property interests and the City’s Street Oversizing Program.
Thank you for the opportunity to work with the URA on this important gateway road
construction project. If you need any additional information, please contact the project
managers, Matt Baker at 224-6018 or Kyle Lambrecht at 221-6566.
ATTACHMENT 4
Exhibit C
*$900,000 is potential reimbursement to the URA from adjacent properties as they develop/redevelop.
Note: All cost numbers contained herein are based on preliminary cost estimates and are subject to change
based upon final design and cost fluctuations.
This Public Improvements budget is supported by the Public Improvements Summary dated
September 4, 2008, as amended.
Public Improvement Total Cost
Off Site Street Infrastructure (Local Street Portion) $2,812,620*
Demolition, Property Cleanup and Site Preparation Cost $366,650
Wetlands Mitigation, Landscaping, Unsuitable Materials and
Payment to Wetlands’ Reserve Fund
$1,763,206
On-Site Utilities (Sanitary, Storm, Water, Dry) $1,022,861
Gateway / Landscaping / Pedestrian Connection / Grading /
North/South Circulation and College Avenue Public Access
Easement /
Paving of Grape Street
$1,702,128
Relocation Assistance (Up to $1,000 per residence) $10,000
Contingency $322,535
Total Cost for Improvements $8,000,000
North College Marketplace, Inc.
1043 Eagle Drive
Loveland, CO 80537
June 13, 2011
Memorandum:
To: Darin Atteberry, Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (“URA”)
From: Eric Holsapple and Nathan Klein, North College Marketplace, Inc. (“Developer”)
Re: North College Marketplace Application to Reallocate Line Item Costs in the
Redevelopment Agreement
The total budget for Public Improvements to be funded by the URA under the Redevelopment
Agreement of $8 million plus interest is sufficient to reimburse the Developer for the
construction of Public Improvements; however, a reallocation of certain line items in Exhibit C
of the Redevelopment Agreement is required to be approved by the URA Board. Per City Staff’s
request, we are in the process of documenting the timeline and critical material that support
the significant changes in the design and line item costs of the North College Marketplace
project between the preliminary design and approval of the Redevelopment Agreement by the
URA Board, and final design and completion of construction of the Public Improvements. Some
of the reasons that we have experienced overruns in many categories, and savings primarily in
the Offsite Street Infrastructure line item include the preliminary nature of the budgets at the
time of the Redevelopment Agreement approval, requirements of the PDP process with the
City, City requirements in the Wetlands design and conveyance to the City that exceeded our
expectations, and compliance with the King Soopers Site Development Standards that were not
available at the time of the Council approval of the Redevelopment Agreement. This document
will highlight some of those materials to complement the legal analysis submitted concurrently
by Lucia Liley and a full analysis of these factors are forthcoming to City Staff in the next few
weeks.
Background: The original URA Cost Book was dated September 4, 2008 and was assembled
using Engineer’s estimates from Ayres Associates, BHA Design, and the City Streets Department
based on the information known to the engineer(s) as of the date of the Cost Book. Most utility
cost estimates were based on simple two‐dimensional drawings using “typical” Greenfield
development assumptions for piping, layouts, etc. At the time, the site plan was determined
but yet to be City approved, engineering was in preliminary stages, and the final soils and
groundwater monitoring reports were not complete. Additionally, the engineer’s estimates for
dry utilities were based on a simple linear foot calculation, as no design had been complete at
the time the cost book was published. The engineering cost estimates were based upon simple
percentages of total costs, and the actual engineering cost of this complicated site was
substantially over the initial estimates.
Unsuitable Materials/High Ground Water. The project contains an 8‐acre wetland component
and approximately two acres was reclaimed for the King Soopers building footprint, and
mitigated onsite. At the time the Cost Book was assembled, the estimated limits of unsuitable
ATTACHMENT #5
1
North College Marketplace, Inc.
1043 Eagle Drive
Loveland, CO 80537
materials on the site were concentrated near the area where the King Soopers store is now
constructed (closely tied to original wetlands location). This original limit included in the Cost
Book is shown on Exhibit A‐1 attached hereto for your reference. Upon completion of the soils
report, ground water monitoring reports, and receipt of the King Soopers Site Development
Standards, it was determined that the limits of unsuitable soils and impacts of area
groundwater were significantly larger than originally estimated, and all of the sugar beat spoils
had to be exported and 2 feet of structural fill imported over most of the parking lot area. The
entire building pad had to be surcharged with the structural fill for several months to compact
to soil under the building to acceptable standards. The Developer worked the City and URA
Staff to amend the scope and limits of the construction area (See Exhibit A‐2), which had
impacts on the overall development budget including the site preparation cost, wetlands
development cost, and on‐site costs in excess of $500,000 that have been absorbed in the total
development budget, and contributed to many changes required in site utilities.
Utilities Changes. In the original Cost Book, the Engineer’s estimate included using typical 24”
round storm sewer pipe, but after discovering the impacts of the high groundwater and
minimize the import of structural fill, and to accomplish adequate flow to the
wetlands/detention pond on the east side of the site, the final design included a 4’ x 8’ box
culvert system to carry storm water. This change resulted in an increase to the storm sewer
cost of approximately $255,000 and significant related changes. Additional changes were made
to on‐site utilities during the development review process which included the addition of a
sewer lift station ($110,000) because the sewer system could not gravity flow to Willox Lane to
the East without significant street reconstruction, water line loop on the site ($19K), and the
addition of forebays and bioswales ($98,000) for storm water quality. The original line drawing
used for the Engineer’s estimates is attached hereto as Exhibit B‐1 and the final utility design
layout determined as a result of final constructon plans is attached hereto as Exhibit B‐2.
Additionally, Certified Public Accountant, David Bower, has audited the costs and drafted a
Letter with regard to specifics of the total utilities cost increases from the preliminary estimates
of approximately $1 million, which is the basis for this request. A copy of his letter was
previously provided to URA Staff and is attached hereto as Exhibit C. Lastly, we have further
engaged Ayres Associates, the project Civil Engineer who did the original cost estimates to
review specific on‐site impacts identified subsequent to the original Cost Book. This review is in
process and will be forwarded to City Staff with the full analysis. It is primarily these public On
Site Utility cost overruns from the preliminary estimates that the Developer seeks to recover by
reallocating from savings achieved in other line items, particularly the Offsite Street
Infrastructure line item.
Communication and Cooperation with City Staff: Following URA Board approval of the
Redevelopment Agreement (September 2008), there was a 6‐10 month period of time during
which the final engineered drawings were designed and approved through the City review
process. Once the various engineer reports were completed, City approvals received, and site
construction plans signed off by the engineers and the City, we began negotiating with
contractors for completion of the Public Improvements. After discussions with staff and
agreement on the contracting procedures, a contract to complete a substantial portion of the
ATTACHMENT #5
2
North College Marketplace, Inc.
1043 Eagle Drive
Loveland, CO 80537
Public Improvements was negotiated with Connell Resources. Concurrent to finalizing the
contract with Connell, we finalized our purchase agreement with King Soopers in which the
final purchase price was reduced by $1 million and King Soopers site delivery requirements
increased. As a result of, several discussions took place with City Staff in April 2009 including
meetings on April 2 and April 16 discussing impacts of the PDP process followed by an email
from Eric to Joe Frank and Christina Vincent that stated the following:
“We are over budget and trying to work with the contractor for savings to put this
together given King Soopers reduced price and increased requirements (sewer lift
station, etc.); Also, we have experienced increased storm water requirements placed on
the project costing several hundred thousand dollars from our preliminary design
concept in the bids we just received on the approved plans. We are supportive of this
(Pedestrian Bridge over canal) but there is no assurance it will go in and we may need
the funds for King Soopers utilities. I think we will get there, but it is extremely tight and
we could use your help:
Could we word this requirement to be conditioned on A) getting all ROW and easements
(the title work is a nightmare) and B) on there being sufficient URA funds remaining in
line items and/or contingency at the end of the project after paying approved onsite
costs and offsite costs?...”
A follow up meeting to discuss potential ongoing cost overruns was scheduled on May 6, 2009
with Joe and Christina to discuss this topic.
Additionally, we were in frequent contact with Matt Baker beginning in July 2008 and
throughout 2009 and 2010 to obtain, review, and understand the Off‐Site Street estimates.
Speaking to the volatility of pricing at the time the cost estimates were being put together,
Matt Baker said the following in an email to Eric dated July 24, 2008 “Costs are escalating
dramatically, with rumors of further escalations this fall. I did try to account for these
increasing costs in my estimate; however, oil supply and prices are extremely volatile right
now.”
It is important to note that the Off‐Site Street Infrastructure estimate was off by more than $1
million on an estimate of $2.8 million; and while it was off in a favorable direction it was not
subject to the Wetlands impacts, wet and unsuitable soil conditions encountered on site, PDP approval
process, or King Soopers Site Development Standards that were unknown at the time of the
Redevelopment Agreement was approved. Furthermore, we believe the Streets Department went to
work to design and construct the improvements to save as much money as it could in the budget and
they did an exemplary job.
In Summary: The entire City Staff was instrumental in our ability to meet the various deadlines, financial
constraints, and design criteria imposed on the project by the City development review process and King
Soopers. This project is a success as a direct result of the combined efforts of the Developer and its
consultants together with the City and URA; and accordingly City Staff was necessarily aware there were
design implications and cost overruns in certain categories. The City Streets Department was not able to
provide the Developer a final accounting of the Offsite Street Infrastructure costs until the project was
complete and all of the invoices finalized in April 2011; and the Redevelopment Agreement did not allow
the Developer to submit a formal cost reimbursement application for the categories in question until
ATTACHMENT #5
3
North College Marketplace, Inc.
1043 Eagle Drive
Loveland, CO 80537
King Soopers received a certificate of occupancy which did not occur until May 31, 2011. It was agreed
upon between the Developer and URA Staff that the the formal application to the URA Board to
reallocate line items would not occur until the balance of the Public Improvement costs were
completed, or known with certainty. In the meantime the Developer would provide the requested
information referenced in this document.
We believe that we have performed our obligations under the Redevelopment Agreement throughout
this project and are excited that we have finally reached the grand opening of King Soopers. We are not
requesting to increase the overall $8 million budget approved by the URA Board and memorialized in
the Redevelopment Agreement, however, the line item reallocation of approximately $1 million to
recapture cost overruns primarily in the On‐Site Utilities Category from savings realized in the Off‐Site
Street Infrastructure Category allowed pursuant to Section 3.2 of the Redevelopment Agreement is
critical for the ongoing success of this project.
As this has been a project that could not have happened without the support and assistance of City and
URA Staff; we request and appreciate Staff’s full support of our request to the URA to reallocate line
items within Exhibit C of the Redevelopment Agreement. We look forward to working with you and
staff to complete the balance of the project. Thank you
ATTACHMENT #5
4
ATTACHMENT #5
5
WILLOX LANE
COLLEGE AVENUE
LARIMER
AND
WELD CANAL
URA WETLAND/UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL BREAKOUT
GRAPE STREET LEGEND
ATTACHMENT #5
6
ATTACHMENT #5
7
WILLOX LANE
BLUE SPRUCE DRIVE
WILLOX LANE
COLLEGE AVENUE
LARIMER
AND
WELD CANAL
GRAPE STREET
SAN
SANSAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN
SAN
W8 W8 W8 W8 W8 W8 W8 W8 W8 W8 W8 W8 W8 W8
W8 W8 W8 W8 W8 W8 W8 W8 W8
W8
W8 W8 W8 W8 W8 W8
W8 W8 W8
S S
UD
UD UD UD
UD UD UD UD UD
UD UD UD
UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD
UD UD UD UD
W W W W W
F F F F F F
UD UD
UD UD UD UD UD UD UD
UD UD
UD UD UD UD
UD UD UD
UD UD UD
F
S S S S S
UD
UD UD UD UD UD
UD UD
S S S S
S S UD S S UD S
W W
F F
S
F F F F F F
M
F F F F F F
W W W W W
UD UD
M
M
W W
W W W
W
S
W W W
F F F
S S S
M
M
W8 W8 W8 W8
URA WET UTILITY BREAKOUT
LEGEND
ATTACHMENT #5
9
ATTACHMENT #5
10
ATTACHMENT #5
11
North College Marketplace
Urban Renewal Participation
Public Improvement Summary
Prepared for:
North College Urban Renewal Authority
September 4, 2008
Loveland Commercial, LLC
1043 Eagle Drive
Loveland, CO 80537
Office: (970) 667-7000
Fax: (970) 635-2514
Website: www.lovelandcommercial.com
ATTACHMENT 6
Summary of URA Request
North College Marketplace
Public Improvement Total Cost
Off Site Street Infrastructure (Local Street Portion) $2,812,620*
Demolition and Property Cleanup Cost $366,650
Wetlands Mitigation, Landscaping, and Unsuitable Materials $1,763,206
On-Site Utilities (Sanitary, Storm, Water, Dry) $1,022,861
North/South Circulation and College Avenue Public Access Easement
Paving of Grape Street
$282,125
Gateway / Landscaping / Pedestrian Connection $1,420,003
Contingency $322,535
Total Cost for Improvements $8,000,000
Relocation Assistance (Up to $1,000 per residence) $10,000
*$900,000 is potential reimbursement to the URA from adjacent properties as they develop/redevelop.
Note: All cost numbers contained herein are based on preliminary cost estimates and are subject to change
based upon final design and cost fluctuations.
3
North College Marketplace
Off-Site Street Improvements
Spec/Item
Number Description
Contract
Quantity Unit
Engineer's
Unit Price
Engineer's
Estimated Total URA Request
Street Oversizing
Fund
$ -
201-01 Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 20,000 $ 30,000
$ -
202-01 Misc. Removal of Structures & Obstructions 1 LS $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000
202-02 Remove Asphalt Pavement (Full Depth) 1,500 SY $ 5.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 3,000 $ 4,500
202-03 Remove 30" Curb and Gutter 2,000 LF $ 7.50 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000
202-05 Remove Sidewalk 10,000 SF $ 1.52 $ 15,200.00 $ 15,200
202-06 Remove Trees 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000
$ -
203-01 Unclassified Excavation 5,000 CY $ 5.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000
203-02 Embankment (CIP) 10,000 CY $ 10.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000
203-03 Import Select 5,000 CY $ 25.00 $ 125,000.00 $ 125,000
203-04 Muck Excavation 500 CY $ 40.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000
203-05 Median Splashblock/ Hardscape Shaping 5,560 SF $ 1.50 $ 8,340.00 $ - $ 8,340
203-06 Potholing 100 EA $ 150.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 6,000 $ 9,000
$ -
207-01 Import Screened Topsoil (CIP) 700 CY $ 27.12 $ 18,984.00 $ 7,594 $ 11,390
$ -
208-01 Erosion Control 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 4,000 $ 6,000
$ -
210-01 Adjust Manhole 35 EA $ 600.00 $ 21,000.00 $ 8,400 $ 12,600
210-02 Adjust Water Valve Box 25 EA $ 200.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 2,000 $ 3,000
210-03 Misc. Adjustments 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 4,000 $ 6,000
210-04 Relocate Business Signage 1 LS $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000
$ -
304-01 Aggregate Base Course - (CL 5 or 6) - 10" Depth (Right Turn Lanes) 1,200 TON $ 17.50 $ 21,000.00 $ 21,000
$ -
306-01 Sidewalk Prep 1,700 SY $ 4.00 $ 6,800.00 $ 6,800
$ -
307-01 Flyash Subgrade Stabilization - (12") 2,000 SY $ 5.32 $ 10,640.00 $ 10,640
$ -
403-01 Hot Bituminous Pavement - Grading S-100 (3" Depth) - (PG 64-28) (Right Turn Lanes) 350 TON $ 125.00 $ 43,750.00 $ 43,750
403-02 Hot Bituminous Pavement - Grading S-100 (3" Depth) - (PG 64-28) (Overlay of Main Lanes) 1,000 TON $ 125.00 $ 125,000.00 $ - $ 125,000
403-03 Hot Bituminous Pavement - Grading SG-100 (3" Depth) - (PG 58-28) (Turn Lanes) 350 TON $ 110.00 $ 38,500.00 $ 38,500
403-04 Asphalt Paver Patching @ Driveways 500 TON $ 150.00 $ 75,000.00 $ 75,000
403-05 Asphalt Leveling Course (SG) 1,100 TON $ 110.00 $ 121,000.00 $ - $ 121,000
403-06 Asphalt Hand Patching 100 TON $ 200.00 $ 20,000.00 $ - $ 20,000
$ -
412-01 Portland Cement Concrete Pavement (10") 2,000 SY $ 95.00 $ 190,000.00 $ - $ 190,000
Roundabout 1 LS $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000
603-01 18" RCP 800 LF $ 35.35 $ 28,280.00 $ 14,140 $ 14,140
603-02 24" RCP 600 LF $ 43.75 $ 26,250.00 $ 13,125 $ 13,125
$ - $ -
604-01 5' Type R Inlet 7 EA $ 3,500.00 $ 24,500.00 $ 12,250 $ 12,250
604-02 10' Type R Inlet 8 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 20,000 $ 20,000
604-03 Median Underdrain Pipe System 3,000 LF $ 20.00 $ 60,000.00 $ - $ 60,000
$ -
608-01 Concrete Sidewalk (6") 20,880 SF $ 4.00 $ 83,520.00 $ 83,520
608-02 Concrete Access Ramps with Truncated Domes (8") 1,200 SF $ 12.00 $ 14,400.00 $ 14,400
608-03 Concrete Drive Approach (8") - Commercial 10 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000
Spec/Item
Number Description
Contract
Quantity Unit
Engineer's
Unit Price
Engineer's
Estimated Total URA Request
Street Oversizing
Fund
608-05 Exposed Aggregate Concrete Median Cover/ Splashguard 6,560 SF $ 6.00 $ 39,360.00 $ - $ 39,360
608-06 Flowable Fill Concrete 200 CY $ 100.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000
608-07 High Early Concrete (24Hr) 100 CY $ 400.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 16,000 $ 24,000
608-08 Pedestrian Refuge Island 60 SF $ 15.00 $ 900.00 $ - $ 900
3/4 Movement Median Cut 1 LS $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000
609-01 30" Vertical Curb and Gutter 2,100 LF $ 17.50 $ 36,750.00 $ 36,750
609-02 18" Outfall Curb and Gutter 1,700 LF $ 15.00 $ 25,500.00 $ - $ 25,500
$ -
619-01 Upgrade Water & San. Service per Property 10 EA $ 6,000.00 $ 60,000.00 $ 60,000
619-02 Water Taps 1 EA $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ - $ 15,000
$ -
623-01 Irrigation 1 LS $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 5,000 $ 20,000
623-02 Landscaping (Shrubs, Mulch, etc.) 1 LS $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 5,000 $ 20,000
623-03 Trees every 40' 20 EA $ 350.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000
623-04 Sod 15000 SF $ 1.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000
623-05 Seeding 0.5 ACRE $ 4,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000
623-06 Landscaped Medians 0SF $ - $ - $ -
$ -
625-01 Surveying (5%) 1 LS $ 75,000.00 $ 75,000.00 $ 30,000 $ 45,000
$ -
626-01 Mobilization (5%) 1 LS $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 60,000 $ 90,000
$ -
630-01 Traffic Control (6%) 1 LS $ 250,000.00 $ 250,000.00 $ 100,000 $ 150,000
Subtotal Construction: $ 2,841,174.00 $ 1,745,069 $ 1,096,105
Contract Bond (1%) 1 LS $ 28,411.74 $ 28,411.74 $ 11,365 $ 17,047
Signage & Striping (COFC Traffic) 1 LS $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 20,000 $ 30,000
Traffic Signalization, including Loops & Relocates (COFC Traffic) 1 LS $ 250,000.00 $ 250,000.00 $ - $ 250,000
Miscellaneous Light & Power Relocations, Conduits, Etc. 1 LS $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000
Street Lighting Relocate (COFC L&P) 1 LS $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000
Subtotal Miscellaneous: $ 383,411.74 $ 86,365 $ 297,047
Pavement Design 1 LS $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 2,400 $ 3,600
Construction Material Testing Services (%) 1 LS $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 6,000 $ 9,000
Engineering Design (7%) 1 LS $ 198,882.18 $ 198,882.18 $ 79,553 $ 119,329
Construction Management (6.5%) 1 LS $ 184,676.31 $ 184,676.31 $ 73,871 $ 110,806
ROW & Easement Acquisition 1 LS $ 182,500.00 $ 182,500.00 $ 182,500
Eminent Domain Per Property 18 EA $ 15,000.00 $ 270,000.00 $ 270,000
$ - $ -
Subtotal Project Design & Engineering: $ 857,058.49 $ 614,323 $ 242,735
CONTRACT TOTAL $ 4,081,644.23 $ 2,445,757 $ 1,635,888
Project Contingency (15%) $ 612,246.63 $ 366,864 $ 245,383
PROJECT TOTAL $ 4,693,890.86 $ 2,812,620 $ 1,881,271
Miscellaneous Costs:
Inflation
Project Design & Engineering Quantities:
5
Demolition and Property Cleanup
Item # Item Description Estimated
Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Price
A. Removals
22-100 Clear & Grub 1.00 LS $90,000.00 $ 90,000
22-101 Demolition Trailer Park 1.00 LS $95,000.00 $ 95,000
22-110 Remove Fence 3,500.00 LF $3.30 $ 11,550
22-120 Remove Tree 1.00 LS $170,000.00 $ 170,000
Total Price for above A. Removals Items: $ 366,550
*Estimate from Connell Budget 7/11/08
6
North College Marketplace
Wetlands Mitigation
WILLOX LANE
COLLEGE AVENUE
LARIMER
AND
WELD CANAL
URA WETLAND/UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL BREAKOUT
GRAPE STREET LEGEND
URA-FTCOO1 Wetland/Unsuitable Material Breakout
Item # Description Estimated Quanitity Unit Unit Price* Total Price
Wetland/Unsuitable Material Grading
23-100 Strip Topsoil 3310 CY $ 1.70 $ 5,627.00
23-110 Unclassified Excavation (<6') 8550 CY $ 3.90 $ 33,345.00
23-111 Muck Excavation 4750 CY $ 7.20 $ 34,200.00
23-120 Import Common Fill 3900 CY $ 13.00 $ 50,700.00
23-130 Import Structural Fill 53700 Tons $ 8.10 $ 434,970.00
Surcharge Anchor Pad 1 LS $ 208,000.00 $ 208,000.00
23-112 Remove and Salvage Wetland Soil (15") 3650 CY $ 5.90 $ 21,535.00
23-112 Remove Wetland Soil (15") 1300 CY $ 5.90 $ 7,670.00
23-113 Replace Salvaged Wetland Soil (15") 3650 CY $ 5.90 $ 21,535.00
00-210 Retaining Wall 8920 SF $ 46.50 $ 414,780.00
Seed-Wetland (non-irrigated)** 93479 SF $ 0.12 $ 11,217.48
Seed-Upland (non-irrigated)** 71136 SF $ 0.07 $ 4,979.52
Shrubs-Decidous (5 gallons)** 554 EA $ 27.50 $ 15,235.00
Shrubs-Decidous (Cuttings)** 731 EA $ 3.85 $ 2,814.35
Trees-Deciduous Large (2" cal.)** 29 EA $ 330.00 $ 9,570.00
Trees-Deciduous Small-Medium (1-1/2" cal.)** 36 EA $ 275.00 $ 9,900.00
Trees-Evergreen (6' ht)** 7 EA $ 305.00 $ 2,135.00
Fence-Chain Link Vinyl-Clad (6' ht., black)** 545 LF $ 31.50 $ 17,167.50
Earthwork-Fine Grading (wetland)** 85317 SF $ 0.03 $ 2,559.51
Earthwork-Fine Grading (upland)** 71136 SF $ 0.03 $ 2,134.08
Irrigation-Drip-line System (no-tap; w/bubblers)** 1 LS $ 32,000.00 $ 32,000.00
Irrigation-Perimeter Rotors** 1 LS $ 18,000.00 $ 18,000.00
Irrigation-Tap Fees (based on tap size & acre-feet)** 1 LS $ 40,597.00 $ 40,597.00
Wetland-Protection (silt fence only)** 1389 LF $ 2.50 $ 3,472.50
Erosion Control - Blanket (>4:1 slopes)** 3515 SY $ 1.75 $ 6,151.25
Gravel - Mow Edge (5'wx6"d)** 48 SY $ 5.62 $ 269.76
Subtotal $ 1,410,564.95
$ 141,056.50
$ 211,584.74
$ 1,763,206.19
*Unit Prices from Connell Budget 07/11/2008
**Line Item and unit price from BHA Designs, Inc. 08/22/2008
Design Engineering and Administration - 10%
Contingency - 15%
TOTAL
URA Breakouts
By: LRC
8/27/2008
7
North College Marketplace
On-Site Utilities
Storm Sewer, Sanitary Sewer,
Water Line, & Dry Utilities
SAN
SANSAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN
SAN
S
S S S S S
S S
S S
S S S S
GT
UD UD
UD UD UD UD UD
UD UD UD UD
UD UD UD UD UD
UD UD UD UD UD
UD UD UD UD UD
UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD
UD UD
UD UD
UD UD UD UD
UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD
UD UD UD UD UD
W
F
W W W W
F
F F F F
W
S
F
W
S
F
W
S S S S
F F F F
W W W W
W8 W8 W8 W8 W8 W8 W8 W8 W8 W8 W8
W8 W8 W8 W8 W8 W8 W8 W8 W8
W8
WILLOX LANE
COLLEGE AVENUE
LARIMER
AND
WELD CANAL
GRAPE STREET URA WATER UTILITY BREAKOUT
SAN
SANSAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN
SAN
UD
W8
LEGEND
SAN
URA-Utility Breakout
Item # Description Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price* Total Price
Water, Storm, Sanitary, Gas, and Electrical Utilities
Sanitary Sewer 8"PVC** 1700 LF $ 48.00 $ 81,600.00
4" PVC Stub 220 LF $ 21.00 $ 4,620.00
6" PVC Stub 20 LF $ 25.00 $ 500.00
48" Sewer Manhole 8 EA $ 2,000.00 $ 16,000.00
Abandon Existing Sewer 900 LF $ 13.00 $ 11,700.00
Abandon Existing Manhole 1 EA $ 510.00 $ 510.00
Storm Sewer 24" Storm Sewer 4500 LF $ 53.00 $ 238,500.00
Double Unit Type 13 Inlet 13 EA $ 4,300.00 $ 55,900.00
10' Box Base Manhole 4 EA $ 6,200.00 $ 24,800.00
6' Dia Manhole 1 EA $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00
Outlet Structure 2 EA $ 7,700.00 $ 15,400.00
Water 8" DIP 2300 LF $ 57.00 $ 131,100.00
1" Copper Stub 225 LF $ 20.00 $ 4,500.00
3" Copper Stub 25 LF $ 36.00 $ 900.00
4" DIP Stub 225 LF $ 45.00 $ 10,125.00
6" DIP Stub 60 LF $ 48.00 $ 2,880.00
8x12 wet tap 2 EA $ 4,200.00 $ 8,400.00
8" Gate Valve 12 EA $ 1,200.00 $ 14,400.00
8"x4" Tee 9 EA $ 270.00 $ 2,430.00
8"-90 Degree Bend 1 EA $ 240.00 $ 240.00
8" 45 Degree Bend 4 EA $ 220.00 $ 880.00
8"x6" Tee 8 EA $ 290.00 $ 2,320.00
Asphalt Patching 970 SY $ 62.00 $ 60,140.00
Gas 6" Poly Pipe 2300 LF $ 27.00 $ 62,100.00
1"Poly Pipe 240 LF $ 12.00 $ 2,880.00
Gas-1" Steel Plug Valve 4 EA $ 1,200.00 $ 4,800.00
Gas-Service Line Pressure Regulator 4 EA $ 200.00 $ 800.00
Natural Gas-Hot tap, valve, and box 2 EA $ 3,500.00 $ 7,000.00
Electircal Buried Splice Box 2 EA $200.00 $ 400.00
Pour in Place Concrete Pole Base Type A 4 EA $200.00 $ 800.00
4" Dia Conduits, Paired 1.0 LF $ 3.16 $ 3.16
Sectionalizer Switch 1.0 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00
150 kVA Transformer 2.0 EA $ 5,550.00 $ 11,100.00
URA Breakouts
By: LRC
9/2/2008
URA-Utility Breakout
Item # Description Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price* Total Price
Wiring conduit < 300' 2000 LF $7.40 $ 14,800.00
2 bank conduit encased conc 2 EA $ 220.00 $ 440.00
4 bank conduit encased conc 2 EA $ 290.00 $ 580.00
Circuit Connection 20 EA $ 62.00 $ 1,240.00
Utility Sleeve 200 LF $75.00 $ 15,000.00
Subtotal $ 818,288.16
$ 81,828.82
$ 122,743.22
$ 1,022,860.20
*Unit Prices from Connell Budget 07/11/2008
**The new 8" sanitary sewer will replace an existing undersized and deteriorated line currently in service
TOTAL
Design Engineering and Administration - 10%
Contingency - 15%
URA Breakouts
By: LRC
9/2/2008
8
North College Marketplace
North/South Circulation Road, Public
Access to College Avenue, and Paving
on Grape Street
WILLOX LANE
COLLEGE AVENUE
LARIMER
AND
WELD CANAL
GRAPE STREET URA ENTRANCE DRIVE BREAKOUT
LEGEND
URA-Entrance Drives Breakout
Item # Description Estimated Quanitity Unit Unit Price* Total Price
Entrance Drives Concrete Paving
47-130 18" Curb and Gutter 1050 LF $ 12.00 $ 12,600.00
- Concrete Paving (6" PCC) 4000 SY $ 31.50 $ 126,000.00
23-120 Common Fill (Engineered Fill) 2700 CY $ 13.00 $ 35,100.00
Grape Street Paving (5.5" PCC) 1300 SY $ 31.50 $ 40,950.00
Common Fill (Engineered Fill) for Grape Street 850 CY $ 13.00 $ 11,050.00
Subtotal $ 225,700.00
$ 22,570.00
$ 33,855.00
$ 282,125.00
*Unit Prices from Connell Budget 07/11/2008
TOTAL
Design Engineering and Administration - 10%
Contingency - 15%
URA Breakouts
By: LRC
8/27/2008
9
North College Marketplace
Gateway / Landscaping
BHA Design, Inc. Preliminary Cost Estimate
BHA Design, Inc.
1603 Oakridge Drive
Ft. Collins, Co. 80525
(970) 223-7577
FAX: (970) 223-1827
Project: North College Marketplace Date: 9/4/2008
By: DLK
Phase Preliminary Plan Estimate - Gateway Check: BH
Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total
Gateway (landscape, irrigation & hardscape)
Monument Sign - N. College (12'HT x 16' L) 1 al $35,000.00 $35,000.00
Monument Sign - Willox (12'HT X 16' L) 1 al $32,000.00 $32,000.00
Turf - Seed (swale) 3858 sf $0.07 $270.06
Turf - Sod 50704 sf $0.35 $17,746.40
Bed - Area (shrubs, perennials, o. grass, annuals) 33820 sf $2.75 $93,005.00
Shrubs - Deciduous (5 gallon) 30 ea $27.50 $825.00
Shrubs - Evergreen (5 gallon) 15 ea $35.00 $525.00
Ornamental Grass - (1 gallon) 20 ea $25.00 $500.00
Perennials (1 gallon) 90 ea $12.00 $1,080.00
Mulch - Wood/Mineral 33820 sf $1.10 $37,202.00
Filter Fabric 33820 sf $0.19 $6,425.80
Soil Prep - (shrubs beds) 33820 sf $0.08 $2,705.60
Soil Prep - (sod areas) 54562 sf $0.08 $4,364.96
Trees - Deciduous Large (2" cal.) 91 ea $330.00 $30,030.00
Trees - Deciduous Small-Medium (1-1/2 cal.) 124 ea $275.00 $34,100.00
Trees - Evergreen (6' ht.) 32 ea $305.00 $9,760.00
Irrigation (shrub beds, sod & flower pots) 1 ls $120,000.00 $120,000.00
Irrigation - Tap Fees (based on tap size & acre-feet) 1 ls $81,700.00 $81,700.00
Earthwork - Fine Grading 88382 sf $0.03 $2,651.46
Earthwork - Berming (imported) 144 cy $5.00 $720.00
Hardscape - Concrete Plaza & Sidewalk (no-color) 55456 sf $3.25 $180,232.00
Hardscape - Curb-Cut Ramp 2880 sf $8.65 $24,912.00
Hardscape - Colored Concrete (stain upcharge) 35141 sf $3.45 $121,236.45
Hardscape -Enhanced Joint Pattern (sawcut) 6717 lf $3.33 $22,367.61
Hardscape - Sandblast Finish 10000 sf $3.25 $32,500.00
Hardscape - Flower Pot Pad (3'x3'x6") 7 sy $32.25 $232.20
Hardscape - 6" Concrete Band 4507 lf $12.00 $54,084.00
Crusher fines 1530 sf $1.50 $2,295.00
Wall - Roundabout (30" ht. - modular) 580 fsf $18.35 $10,643.00
Lighting - Pedestrian (bollard) 27 ea $900.00 $24,300.00
Lighting - Special (pedestrian - 10' ht) 23 ea $3,500.00 $80,500.00
Pedestrian Connection Allowance 1 al $100,000.00 $100,000.00
Sculpture - (allowance) 1 al $50,000.00 $50,000.00
Flower Pots - (5' dia. X 36" ht.; shipping not incl.) 43 ea $1,186.00 $50,998.00
Site Furnishings 1 ls $26,000.00 $26,000.00
SUB-TOTAL $1,290,911.54
DESIGN 10% $129,091.15
TOTAL THIS SHEET $1,420,002.69
ATTACHMENT #7
1
1
North College Marketplace
Line Item Adjustment
URA Board Meeting
January 3, 2011
2
ATTACHMENT #7
2
3
North College Marketplace
Grand Opening –– June 1, 2011
4
Previous Actions by URA Board
•• URA Approved September 2008 Redevelopment
Agreement in the amount of $8 million for public
improvements.
•• Council and URA Approved a loan agreement in
April 2009 which appropriated Phase 1 in the
amount of $5 million.
•• Council and URA Approved a loan agreement in
July 2011 which appropriated Phase 2 in the
amount of $3 million.
ATTACHMENT #7
3
5
Eligible Public Improvements
Off Site Street Infrastructure $2,812,620
Demolition and Property Clean up $366,650
Wetlands Mitigation $1,763,206
On Site Utilities $1,022,861
North/South Circulation $282,125
Gateway/Landscaping/connection $1,420,003
Relocation Assistance $10,000
Contingency $322,535
Total $8,000,000
6
Off Site Infrastructure
Appropriated from URA to City $2,812,620.00
Actual Costs $1,548,079.31
Remaining Amount $1,264,540.69
–– Worst case scenario
–– Fast tracked to create budget
–– Preliminary and Conceptual Design
–– No engineering or CDOT approval
–– Eminent Domain possible
ATTACHMENT #7
4
7
Request from Developer
•• To move cost savings from Off-Off -Site Street
Infrastructure to On-On -Site Utilities
–– Underestimated cost estimate relating to
unknown site conditions
–– Add’’ll Add City requirements through Development
Review Process
–– Overages relating to estimation of design and
engineering
8
Total $ 1,022,860 $ 2,344,436 $ 1,321,576
$ 122,743 $ ‐ $ (122,743)
Contingency (built into this On‐Site Utilities
line item budget ‐ approx. 10% of cost)
Design Engineering and Administration $ 81,829 $ 363,561 $ 281,732
Electric (City of Fort Collins) $ 49,363 $ 186,827 $ 137,464
Gas (Xcel) $ 77,580 $ 14,998 $ (62,582)
Mobilization, Surveying, and Permits $ ‐ $ 201,341 $ 201,341
Site Stabilization Materials $ ‐ $ 353,150 $ 353,150
Water lines $ 238,315 $ 257,305 $ 18,990
Storm Sewer / Bio‐Swales $ 338,100 $ 704,371 $ 366,271
Sanitary Sewer $ 114,930 $ 262,883 $ 147,953
Sub category Budgeted Actual Cost Variance
Table 1 ‐ Budget to Actual for On‐Site Utilities
ATTACHMENT #7
5
9
10
ATTACHMENT #7
6
11
12
ATTACHMENT #7
7
13
14
Total Staff Recommendation $ 610,262.00
Total $ 1,022,860.00 $ 2,344,436.00 $ 610,262.00 $ 711,314.00
$ 122,743.00 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ (122,743.00)
Contingency (built into this On‐Site Utilities line item
budget ‐ approx. 10% of cost)
Design Engineering and Administration $ 81,829.00 $ 363,561.00 $ ‐ $ 281,732.00
Electric (City of Fort Collins) $ 49,363.00 $ 186,827.00 $ ‐ $ 137,464.00
Gas (Xcel) $ 77,580.00 $ 14,998.00 $ ‐ $ (62,582.00)
Mobilization, Surveying, and Permits $ ‐ $ 201,341.00 $ ‐ $ 201,341.00
Site Stabilization Materials $ ‐ $ 353,150.00 $ 353,150.00 $ ‐
Water lines $ 238,315.00 $ 257,305.00 $ ‐ $ 18,990.00
Storm Sewer / Bio‐Swales $ 338,100.00 $ 704,371.00 $ 183,135.50 $ 183,135.50
Sanitary Sewer $ 114,930.00 $ 262,883.00 $ 73,976.50 $ 73,976.50
Balance
Unfunded
Staff
Sub category Budgeted Actual Cost Recommendation
Table 2 ‐ Staff Recommendation
ATTACHMENT #7
8
15
Questions?
RESOLUTION NO. 041
OF THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
AUTHORIZING THE ADJUSTMENT OF LINE ITEMS PURSUANT TO
THE REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND
1908 NORTH COLLEGE, LLC FOR THE NORTH COLLEGE MARKETPLACE
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2008 the Board of Commissioners of the Fort Collins Urban
Renewal Authority (the “Board”) adopted Resolution No. 011 that approved a financial incentives
package for a project located at the northeast corner of the intersection of North College Avenue and
East Willox Lane; and
WHEREAS, the Board authorized the Executive Director of the Fort Collins Urban Renewal
Authority (the “Authority”) to execute an agreement with 1908 North College, LLC (the
“Developer”) that set forth the terms of the financial package; and
WHEREAS, the agreement identified line items that were eligible for reimbursement, and
provided that cost savings in one line item could be reallocated to other line items with cost overruns
with the approval of the Board in its reasonable discretion; and
WHEREAS, cost savings totaling $1,255,000 have been recognized in the street
improvements line item (the “Savings”); and
WHEREAS, Authority staff recommends to the Board that $610,000 of the Savings be
adjusted and reallocated to other line items that have demonstrated cost overruns; and
WHEREAS, Authority staff further recommends that the balance of the Savings be allocated
to interest payments ($225,000) and the Developer ($210,000) (the “Developer’s Incentive”) and
the Authority ($210,000); and
WHEREAS, the Developer’s Incentive will revert to the Authority if a building permit is not
issued for a new building on a pad site in the project area by June 30, 2013; and
WHEREAS, Authority staff has negotiated, subject to the approval of the Board of
Commissioners of the Authority (the “Board”), a proposed agreement between the Authority and
the Applicant that sets forth terms and conditions to be agreed to by the Developer and the Authority
(the “Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this
reference; and
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the adjustment and reallocation of Savings as
described herein is reasonable and in the best interests of the Authority.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF
THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY as follows:
Section 1. That the Agreement is hereby approved, and the Executive Director is
authorized to execute the Agreement, subject to such modifications in form or substance as the
Executive Director may, in consultation with the Authority Attorney, deem desirable and necessary
to protect the Authority’s interests.
Section 2. That the Executive Director is hereby authorized to adjust $610,000 of the
Savings to other line items with cost overruns, consistent with the terms of the Agreement.
Section 3. That the balance of the Savings allocated to the Authority in the Agreement
is to be used by the Authority for other projects consistent with the law and Authority policies.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners of the Fort Collins
Urban Renewal Authority this 3rd day of January A.D. 2012.
___________________________________
Chairperson
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Secretary
MUTUAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND
FULL RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this ______ day of _______, 2012, by
and among 1908 NORTH COLLEGE, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company (the
“Owner”); NORTH COLLEGE MARKETPLACE, INC., a Colorado corporation (the
“Developer”); and FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY, a body corporate and
politic of the State of Colorado (the “Authority”), and their past, present, and future principals,
heirs, executors, insurers, representatives, administrators, divisions, subsidiaries (wholly owned
or otherwise), stockholders, directors, officers, employees, agents, attorneys, predecessors,
successors, and assigns.
RECITALS
A. Owner, Developer and Authority are parties to an agreement dated March 18, 2009,
which addressed a business arrangement by and between the parties as is more fully set forth
therein (the “Redevelopment Agreement”). The Redevelopment Agreement is incorporated into
this Agreement as if fully and completely set forth verbatim herein.
B. Section 3.12 of the Redevelopment Agreement grants the Developer the right, with
the reasonable approval of the Authority Board of Directors, to adjust Eligible Costs (as defined
in the Redevelopment Agreement) among the line item costs to cover cost overruns in one line
item with cost savings in another line item.
C. Pursuant to the Redevelopment Agreement, Developer has requested that the
Authority reallocate $1,255,000 of cost savings in the Off-Site Streets’ (as defined in the
Redevelopment Agreement) line item to cover cost overruns in the On-Site Utilities’ (as defined
in the Redevelopment Agreement) line item, and thereafter to pay to Developer the reallocated
funds ($1,255,000) as reimbursement for Eligible Costs it has paid for On-Site Utilities together
with interest on such amount.
D. The Authority has disputed Developer’s claim for a reallocation of the cost savings in
the Off-Site Streets’ line item to the cost overruns in the On-Site Utilities’ line item and its
request for reimbursement of $1,255,000 plus payment of interest on such amount.
E. The parties recognize the uncertainty of litigation should it ensue in this case and the
expenses associated therewith. In order to avoid further expenses of litigation, any further
expenses and disruptions as a result of the ongoing dispute and claims by and between the
respective parties, the parties hereto have agreed to settle and compromise any and all matters
and controversy between them, leaving no matters at issue or to be litigated between them or
otherwise dealt with in any fashion.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the following settlement terms, and in
further consideration of the mutuality of this Agreement, and the conditions, covenants, and
agreements set forth herein, and for other good and valuable consideration given, the receipt,
2
adequacy, and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged and confessed, the parties hereby
agree as follows:
1. Reimbursement to Developer. The Authority, within ten (10) business days of
execution of this Agreement, shall pay to Developer the sum of $685,000 (representing
reimbursement of $610,000 of Eligible Costs in the On-Site Utilities line item plus interest of
$75,000).
2. Interest. The Developer shall not be entitled to any interest to which it may be entitled
pursuant to the Redevelopment Agreement except the interest paid to it from the Authority on
previous reimbursements in the amount of $149,978.51 and the $75,000 of interest to be paid to
Developer pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Agreement.
3. Balance of Cost Savings. The remaining balance in the Off-Site Streets’ line item (i.e.
$420,000) shall be distributed as follows:
3.1 One-half of such balance (i.e. $210,000) shall be transferred to the Authority to
be used for any lawful purpose of the Authority including, but not limited to, a warranty
for work performed in the Off-Site Streets’ line item (such warranty estimated to be
$55,000). The parties hereto acknowledge that Developer shall have no liability
whatsoever for any such warranty.
3.2 The other one-half of such balance (i.e. $210,000) shall be paid to the Developer
in the event that Developer obtains a building permit for any presently undeveloped site
within the project which is the subject of the Redevelopment Agreement by June 30,
2013. If such building permit is not obtained by June 30, 2013, the $210,000 shall be
transferred to the Authority to be used for any lawful purpose of the Authority.
4. Reimbursement to Developer from Other Line Items. The parties acknowledge that,
in accordance with the terms of the Redevelopment Agreement, the Developer is entitled to
future reimbursements for Eligible Costs of Public Improvements not to exceed a total amount of
$290,160.38, currently included within the Gateway and contingency line items. Nothing in this
Agreement shall in any way alter or impair Developer's right to such future reimbursements.
5. Wetlands. Pursuant to the Redevelopment Agreement, Developer constructed and
installed Public Improvements consisting of an approximately 6.8-acre wetlands/detention area
(the “Wetlands”) for which it was entitled to certain reimbursements and also became obligated
to provide maintenance of such Wetlands for a defined period of time. In addition, the
Developer has incurred certain obligations for the Wetlands pursuant to the Declaration of
Covenants and Agreement for Wetlands/Detention Area Maintenance dated June 11, 2010
among the Authority, the Owner, the Developer and the City of Fort Collins and the
Development Agreement dated August 31, 2009 among the Owner, Developer and City of Fort
Collins, and for wetlands on the development site generally pursuant to said Development
Agreement. Nothing herein shall be construed as relieving Developer or Owner from any
obligations under such agreements and they shall continue to be fully bound to the requirements
of the same.
3
6. General Release. The parties hereby release, acquit, and forever discharge, and by this
Agreement do for themselves, their past, present, and future principals, their past, present, and
future heirs, executors, insurers, representatives, administrators, divisions, subsidiaries (wholly
owned or otherwise), stockholders, directors, officers, employees, agents, attorneys,
predecessors, successors, and assigns, release, acquit, and forever discharge each other from any
and all claims, demands, causes of action, suits, debts, sums of money, bills, or damages of
whatsoever nature, whether in contract or in tort, at law or in equity, or arising under or by virtue
of any statute or regulation, including, but not limited to, the above, and all claims, demands, and
causes of action for interest and attorney’s fees, including, but not limited to, exemplary and
punitive damages, which have accrued or may ever accrue for or on account of, created by, or
arising out of the matters and things set forth in the Recitals above (“the Claims”) and,
particularly, but not limited to, any and all claims and demands for any economic or
noneconomic losses (past, present, and future) and any and all other losses, expenses, and/or
detriments of whatever kind or character (past, present, and future) which the parties may now or
hereafter have arising out of, resulting from, created by, or connected in any way with the
Claims.
7. Full and Complete Release. It is understood and agreed that the release described in
paragraph 6 hereinabove is a full and complete release of any and all claims of whatever kind or
character (past, present, or future), whether known or unknown to the parties, arising out of the
Claims. The parties hereby agree that this release is a general release of each of the parties and
waive and assume the risk of any and all claims for damages which exist as of this date, but of
which the parties do not know or suspect to exist, whether through ignorance, oversight, error,
negligence, or otherwise, and which if known would materially affect the parties’ decision to
enter into this Agreement. The consideration received by the parties described above is accepted
by them in full satisfaction of all claims which they may now have or may ever have arising out
of the Claims described above.
8. Warranty of Capacity to Execute Agreement. As part of the consideration tendered by
the parties, each of them expressly warrants and represents to the other that (a) they are legally
competent and authorized to execute this Agreement; (b) all claims attributable to the Claims
have been or will hereafter be deemed satisfied and discharged upon execution of this
Agreement; and (c) the parties have not assigned, pledged, or otherwise in any manner
whatsoever sold or transferred any right, title, interest, or claim which they have or may have by
reason of the Claims or any matters arising out of or related thereto. The parties further
expressly warrant and represent to each other as part of the consideration tendered that before
executing this Agreement, they have been fully informed of it terms, contents, conditions, and
effect; and no promise or representation of any kind has been made to them by any party or
anyone acting on their behalf, except as is expressly stated in this instrument. The parties have
relied solely and completely upon their own judgment and the recommendation and advice of
their legal counsel in making this Agreement; they do so freely and voluntarily, without
reservation, and they fully understand that this is a full, complete, and final release.
9. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, together with any other writing to be executed
and delivered by either of the parties in connection herewith, embodies the entire agreement
among the parties, supersedes all prior agreements and understandings, if any, relating to the
4
subject matter hereof, and may be amended only by an instrument in writing executed jointly by
the parties hereto, supplemented only by documents delivered or to be delivered in accordance
with the expressed terms hereof. None of the provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the
benefit of any person or entity other than the parties, and consequently, no other person or entity
shall be entitled to rely upon or raise as a defense in any manner whatsoever the agreement of the
parties herein.
10. Governing Law. This Agreement is intended to be performed in the state of
Colorado, and the substantive law of such state shall govern the validity, construction,
enforcement, and interpretation of this Agreement. The obligations, covenants, representations,
and warranties of the parties as set forth herein shall survive the date hereof and shall thereafter
be enforceable by any applicable laws and remedies.
11. Compromise Agreement. The parties hereby agree that this settlement is a
compromise of a doubtful and disputed claim and is being made purely upon a compromise basis
to avoid further litigation and expense. PAYMENT OF THIS SETTLEMENT IS NOT TO BE
CONSTRUED AS AN ADMISSION OF LIABILITY ON THE PART OF EITHER PARTY.
The parties further agree that this Agreement constitutes an offer of settlement embodying
mutual compromise by the parties, and as such is subject to Rule 408 of the Colorado Rules of
Evidence.
12. Attorney’s Fees. If any legal action or other action is brought for the enforcement of
this Agreement or as a result of breach, default, or misrepresentation in connection with any of
the provisions of this Agreement, the successful or prevailing party hereto shall be entitled to
recover reasonable attorney’s fees and other costs incurred in such action or proceeding, in
addition to any other relief to which such party may be entitled.
13. Effectiveness. This Agreement shall become effective following execution by the
parties or their representatives.
1908 NORTH COLLEGE, LLC, a Colorado
limited liability company
Dated: By:
Eric Holsapple, Manager
5
NORTH COLLEGE MARKETPLACE, INC.,
a Colorado corporation
Dated: By:
Eric Holsapple, President
FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL
AUTHORITY, a body corporate and politic of
the State of Colorado
Dated: By:
Darin A. Atteberry, Executive Director
Approved as to Form
By:
College & Willox - King Soopers
CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE by City of Ft. Collins June 2008
Street Quantities:
UD
SAN
W8
W W
F F
LEGEND
ATTACHMENT #5
8
TOTAL $4,431
The $4,431 would be assessed in addition to the $48,531 that was originally charged for a
total of $52,962.