HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 05/28/2013 - COMPLETE AGENDAKaren Weitkunat, Mayor Council Information Center
Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Gino Campana, District 3
Wade Troxell, District 4
Ross Cunniff, District 5 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
on the Comcast cable system
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Steve Roy, City Attorney
Wanda Nelson, 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. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
WORK SESSION
May 28, 2013
6 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. North Front Range Transit Vision - Regional Transit Feasibility Study. (staff: Kurt
Ravenschlag, Emma McArdle; 1 hour discussion)
The North Front Range Transit Vision – Regional Transit Feasibility Study was initiated
in the spring of 2012 by the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland, the Town of Berthoud,
Larimer County and the North Front Range MPO. The Study’s intent is to assess the
feasibility of transit operation integration in the North Front Range 2010 Transportation
Management Area (TMA) boundaries. The Study’s focus is on operational integration
options and related governance structure.
After a nearly yearlong process of data collection and analysis, public outreach,
alternative evaluation and focused discussions with the regional transit providers, the
project management team and steering committee have identified a recommendation
regarding integration of regional transit operations. The Study recommendations are as
follows:
May 28, 2013
1. Ultimately, pursue full integration of both fixed-route and paratransit operations
for Loveland and Fort Collins. This may be done in a phased approach rather
than in one step.
2. Utilize an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to form an “Authority” to act as
the governance structure for the regional transit operation. The IGA would allow
for additional entity participation.
3. Develop a joint task force to draft a Phased Integration Plan to improve transit
coordination and customer benefits over time.
3. Development Review Project Transparency Update. (staff: Laurie Kadrich, Delynn
Coldiron, Sarah Burnett; 1 hour discussion)
Transparency in the development review process and improved, consistent and reliable
processes related to development proposal reviews have been areas of concern for
Council and the community. City staff has responded to these concerns in various ways
since 2009; however, the significant increase in multi-family project submittals starting
in 2011 resulted in additional concerns. Interested citizens wanted the ability to become
fully informed about specific development projects being proposed as early in the
process as possible. Although much of the information was available on the City’s
website, customers wanted access to related documents and records in a consolidated,
clear and easily accessible manner.
In response to this feedback, a combined effort between Community Development &
Neighborhood Services and Information Technology staff have resulted in numerous
additional improvements. We are excited for the opportunity to provide Council with an
update on this item, which will include a demonstration of many of the specifics.
4. Operation of the Mary Alice Murphy Center of Hope. (staff: Joe Frank; 20 minute
discussion)
The United Way of Larimer County is requesting City funding in the amount of $45,000
for the operation of the Sister Mary Alice Murphy Center of Hope, from January to July,
2013 (six months). Other funding partners include United Way ($58,000), Bohemian
Foundation ($45,000) and Serve6.8 ($35,000). The Murphy Center, located at 242
Conifer Street, is the one-stop center in Fort Collins for homeless and near homeless
persons. The operation of the Center is an important component in the community’s
network of housing and complimentary services so that homelessness is rare, short-lived
and non-recurring in Fort Collins.
This item was added to the May 28 work session to brief Council before its June 4
consideration of funding for the Mary Alice Murphy Center of Hope.
5. Other Business.
6. Adjournment.
DATE: May 28, 2013
STAFF: Kurt Ravenschlag
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
North Front Range Transit Vision - Regional Transit Feasibility Study
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The North Front Range Transit Vision – Regional Transit Feasibility Study was initiated in the
spring of 2012 by the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland, the Town of Berthoud, Larimer County
and the North Front Range MPO. The Study’s intent is to assess the feasibility of transit operation
integration in the North Front Range 2010 Transportation Management Area (TMA) boundaries.
The Study’s focus is on operational integration options and related governance structure.
After a nearly yearlong process of data collection and analysis, public outreach, alternative
evaluation and focused discussions with the regional transit providers, the project management team
and steering committee have identified a recommendation regarding integration of regional transit
operations. The Study recommendations are as follows:
1. Ultimately, pursue full integration of both fixed-route and paratransit operations for
Loveland and Fort Collins. This may be done in a phased approach rather than in one step.
2. Utilize an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to form an “Authority” to act as the
governance structure for the regional transit operation. The IGA would allow for additional
entity participation.
3. Develop a joint task force to draft a Phased Integration Plan to improve transit coordination
and customer benefits over time.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Staff is requesting that Council provide direction on whether they have interest in pursuing any of
the recommendations in full or in part that came out of this Study.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Regional Context
In 2000, the US Census designated the North Front Range communities of Fort Collins, Loveland
and Berthoud as a Transportation Management Area (TMA) exceeding a population of 200,000,
which qualified the region for Urbanized Area formula funding for transit. The City of Fort Collins
was named as the recipient of these Federal funds for the TMA. In the 2010 US Census, the TMA
May 28, 2013 Page 2
was expanded to include parts of Timnath, Windsor and Johnstown. The 2010 TMA map is
depicted in Attachment 1.
The North Front Range Regional transit providers have a long history of collaboration. Beginning
in 1997, Transfort and COLT (City of Loveland Transit) began operating the first regional route,
FoxTrot, between Fort Collins and Loveland. In 2008, Transfort and COLT began a cooperative
strategic planning process which was led by a Financial Advisory Committee (FAC) made up of
citizen representatives in each community. With the adoption of the two Strategic Plans in 2009,
a recommendation was also made to pursue the feasibility of integrating the regional services by the
FAC. The FAC’s letter recommending this action is included as Attachment 2. In 2010, the Cities
of Fort Collins, Loveland and Longmont, the Town of Berthoud, Larimer and Boulder Counties, and
a CDOT grant extended the regional route (FLEX) to Longmont. In 2012, the Cities of Fort Collins
and Loveland, the Town of Berthoud, Larimer County and the North Front Range Metropolitan
Planning Organization (NFRMPO) decided to jointly pursue this feasibility study to explore and
analyze the potential for integrated regional transit operations and related governance structure with
the aims of improving transit service, increasing ridership, and improving transit cost-effectiveness.
Project Management
This Study began in early 2012. A project management team was assembled with representatives
from each of the participating entities, and a Steering Committee was appointed to represent the
local interests in the region. A list of Steering Committee members is included as Attachment 3.
A consultant team was also hired to act as an impartial third party and to conduct much of the data
analysis and public outreach for the Study.
Public Input and Data Review Summary
The data review, peer comparison, and public outreach for this Study took place in June through
October 2012. Several public meetings, focused discussions and interviews were held in Berthoud,
Fort Collins, Loveland and Larimer County. Public input topics and data points included:
• There is an existing and growing demand for paratransit service
N Gap in service between Fort Collins and Loveland is problematic
N Growing Senior Population (140% increase by 2030)
• There is a large and growing demand from both school age and college age students
• There are significant regional growth patterns
N Population
N Employment
N Healthcare
• There is a large number of intra-regional trips
N 80% of trips within TMA stay within TMA (MPO Travel Trends Survey, 2009)
N Focus on 287 corridor
• Long-term funding uncertainty exists
May 28, 2013 Page 3
• Outlying community interest in transit service (either now or in the future)
N LaPorte area (Unincorporated Larimer County)
N Timnath
N Windsor
N Etc.
• Integration was seen favorably overall but there was some concern about loss of local
autonomy and decision-making
Study Need Statements
Through the Study’s public outreach in each community, data review, peer community interviews
and discussions with agency staff and the Steering Committee, five Study Need
Statements/Evaluation criteria were identified.
1. Need to increase operational efficiency*
2. Need to increase customer benefit and ridership*
3. Need to standardize procedures to improve regulatory compliance
4. Need to establish a service model that is capable of implementing regional service plans
5. Need for political and community support and financial sustainability*
* Need Statements 1, 2 and 5 were weighted in importance by the Steering Committee.
During the evaluation process these 3 criteria were given double points compared to Need
Statements 3 and 4.
Integration Options
Six options were identified as alternative integration opportunities. A brief overview of the details
of each option is summarized below.
1. Status Quo
• Maintains operations as they are currently functioning, independent of one another.
2. Fixed-Route Operation Integration
• Considers the Integration of only fixed-route operations, which includes Transfort
and COLT.
3. Paratransit Operation Integration
• Considers the Integration of only paratransit operations, which includes:
N Transfort’s Dial-A-Ride
N COLT’s paratransit services
N BATS paratransit services
• Modeled after Transfort’s current contract for the operations of Dial-A-Ride
• Includes opportunity to provide cross-jurisdiction trips.
4. Fixed-Route and Paratransit Operation Integration
• Considers the Integration of both fixed and paratransit operations
• Combining Options 2 and 3 described above
May 28, 2013 Page 4
5. Maintenance Integration
• Considers Integration of maintenance activities for all three entities
6. Fares, Passes and Customer Information Integration
• Considers Integration of fare policies, fare media, branding, printing and all
customer information such as: websites, call-centers and other customer interface
Governance Options
Within the legal framework provided by the Colorado State Statutes, there are five alternative
governance structures available when considering integration of transit operations. In addition to
these five options, the status quo governance structure was also included in this analysis. A
summary of the details of each option is provided below.
1. Status Quo
• Maintains governance functions as they currently exist, independent of one another
2. Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)
• IGA is an agreement that involves or is made between two or more governments to
work together in some distinct way
• IGAs are administratively approved by each participating entity
• Budgets are approved annually as agreed upon by each participating entity
3. Regional Service Authority (RSA)
• RSA is a form of government designed to provide a specified service on a regional
basis
• RSAs are voter approved
• RSAs may levy property tax as approved by the voters
4. Regional Transportation Authority (RTA)
• RTA is a form of government that may be formed to provide a range of
transportation services
• RTAs are voter approved
• RTAs may levy sales tax as approved by the voters
5. Special District
• A Special District is a quasi-municipal corporation organized to provide specified
functions
• Special Districts are voter approved
• Special Districts may levy property tax as approved by the voters
6. Special Statutory District
• Special Statutory District is a corporate body that may be established by state statute
• Special Statutory Districts are voter approved
• Special Statutory Districts may levy sales tax as approved by the voters
May 28, 2013 Page 5
Evaluation Overview
The Integration and Governance Options were evaluated against the Need Statements/Evaluation
Criteria. A table summarizing the evaluation is included as Attachment 4. The two highest ranking
options were integration of both Fixed-route and Paratransit Operations for Fort Collins and
Loveland using an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to form an authority to act as the
governance structure. Several short- and long-term benefits of the highest ranking options were
identified:
1. Need to increase operational efficiency
a. Short-term benefits- $50,000 annual savings projected
i. Integrate Paratransit Operations – saving approximately $50,000 annually for
Loveland
b. Long-term benefits - $240,000 annual savings projected
i. Integrate staffing – reduce redundancies and cost savings will occur through
attrition
ii. Integrate route planning and dispatching – may improve route timing which
could result in cost savings
iii. Integrate capital planning and joint procurement – integrate activities related
to all purchasing will result in significant savings in the long run both in
reduced staff time and increased purchasing power
iv. Integrate training activities – sharing costs for training personnel and or
contracted training will result in long-term cost savings.
2. Need to increase customer benefit and ridership
a. Short- and Long-term benefits
i. Enhanced usability – a single regional system increases the ease of regional
trips, no transferring between systems
ii. Unified customer interface – branding, website, call center, schedules, and
fare media are all the same benefiting customers greatly
iii. Cross-jurisdictional trips – offers the opportunity for paratransit trips
between communities
iv. Increased ridership – Likely increase in ridership due to enhanced usability
for users for both the fixed-route and paratransit systems.
3. Need to standardize procedures to improve regulatory compliance
a. Short- and Long-term benefits
i. Eliminate redundancies – consolidation would integrate all regulatory
compliance activities under one entity improving overall compliance
ii. Reduced liability – reduces local municipality liability associated with
compliance with federal funds.
4. Need to establish a service model that is capable of implementing regional service plans
a. Short- and Long-term benefits
i. Improve coordination activities – consolidation would improve the ability to
coordinate and implement state and regional plans
ii. Integrate FLEX IGA – consolidation would ease the implementation of the
FLEX route and future regional routes
May 28, 2013 Page 6
iii. Improve the ability to implement regional routes – CDOT and Regional plans
that identify regional routes do not identify an operator, a regional provider
would provide for ease of implementation.
5. Need for political and community support and financial sustainability
a. Short- and Long-term benefits
i. Maintaining municipal entity anonymity – The IGA governance structure
proposed offer the most flexibility and oversight by participating entities,
compared to other options
ii. Community benefit - High level of community interest in having cross-
jurisdictional trips available for paratransit patrons
iii. No taxing power – IGA does not include taxing abilities.
Public Outreach Summary
Since the recommendations were finalized in early January, the project management team has
conducted several public outreach efforts to begin the community dialog on potential integration of
regional transit operations using an IGA governance structure. The following meetings were held
between January and May 2013:
• Fort Collins Transportation Board
• Loveland Transportation Board
• Fort Collins Commission on Disability
• Larimer County Mobility Council
• Fort Collins Barrier Busters Public Transportation Advocacy Group
• Fort Collins Dial-A-Ride Technical Advisory Committee
• Fort Collins Senior Advisory Board
• Loveland City Council
• Larimer County Senior Transportation Coalition
• 287 Coalition
• Regional Town, City and County Managers
• Larimer County Commissioners
• Berthoud Town Trustees
• Community Open Houses
N Berthoud Open House on April 29, 2013 (6 participants)
N Fort Collins Open House on May 1, 2013 (+/- 40 participants)
N Loveland Open House on May 2, 2013 (+/- 10 participants)
In summary, the public input was overall very supportive of the recommendations coming out of
this Study. The Loveland, Berthoud and Larimer County governing bodies were in support of
moving forward with further conversations as they relate to transit service integration recommended
by the Study Steering Committee.
Letters of support for the Steering Committee’s recommendation were received from the following
entities:
• Transportation Board – Approved at May 15 Board Meeting (Attachment 5)
• Larimer County Senior Transportation Coalition (Attachment 6)
May 28, 2013 Page 7
• Fort Collins Senior Advisory Board (Attachment 7)
• Fort Collins Barrier Busters Public Transportation Advocacy Group (Attachment 8)
• Study Steering Committee (Attachment 9)
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2010 Transportation Management Area Map
2. Financial Advisory Committee Letter from the Transfort and COLT Strategic Operating
Plans
3. Steering Committee Member List
4. Evaluation Matrix
5. Transportation Board Letter of Support
6. Larimer County Senior Transportation Coalition Letter of Support
7. Fort Collins Senior Advisory Board Letter of Support
8. Fort Collins Barrier Busters Public Transportation Advocacy Group Letter of Support
9. Study Steering Committee Letter of Recommendation
10. PowerPoint presentation
B E R T H O U D
J O H N S T O W N
T I M N A T H
Legend
Transfort Routes
Transfort Dial-A-Ride Service Area
COLT Routes
Loveland Paratransit Service Boundary
BATS Demand Response Service Area
2010 Transportation Management Area
I-25
Regional Arterial Roads
2 0 11 R e g i o n a l Transit S e r v i c e Area M a p
Annual $Operating 8,000,000 Costs:
Annual 2,200,Riders:000
Annual $Operating 1,100,000 Costs:
Annual 130,Riders:000
Annual Operating $275,000 Costs:
Annual 13,250 Riders:
W I N D S O R
F O R T C O L L I N S
L O V E L A N D
ATTACHMENT 1
Transfort Strategic Operating Plan Update Transfort Technical Report
August 2009
Appendix F
Citizen’s Financial Advisory Committee (FAC) Correspondence
ATTACHMENT 2
1
MEMORANDUM
To: Fort Collins City Council
Loveland City Council
Fort Collins City Manager
Loveland City Manager
Poudre School District Superintendent
From: Financial Advisory Committee of the Transit Strategic Plan
Date: April 4, 2009
Committee report on funding alternatives for transit
This letter reports the findings and recommendations of the Financial Advisory
Committee of the Transit Strategic Plan for the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland and
the Poudre R-1 School District. Our basic assumption in making these recommendations
is that expansion of transit service will be an essential means of adapting to future,
potentially, disruptive changes in energy economics, environmental policy, and
community demographics.
Overview:
In the immediate time period, the advisory committee recommends establishment of a
consolidated management structure for the area’s transit operations. While there are
several ways to do so, a Regional Service Authority (RSA) could be created without a
concurrent tax increase that would provide the platform for future funding efforts as the
economy and conditions warrant. In doing so, an RSA would allow for differing levels
of funding and service as each City wishes. This will be discussed in more detail below.
The advisory committee also finds that there is no one funding source likely to support
the transit improvements envisioned by the Transit Strategic Plan. Instead, a combination
of sources will be required. The timing of the funding will have to be informed by the
timing of any improvements in the transit system. And, while this advisory committee is
forecasting certain levels of support from each potential source, we recognize that further
discussion and debate may result in changes to the amounts shown.
The committee was given the singular task of making funding recommendations for
proposed improvements in the transit systems of Fort Collins and Loveland and better
coordination with the Poudre School District. While we were briefed on the progress of
developing the Transit Strategic Plan itself, and availed ourselves of those opportunities
to comment, we were not charged with recommending any of the design elements,
phasing, or other aspects of the plan. While the committee is supportive of improvements
in the transportation system, the Transit Strategic Plan stands on its own.
2
Management Structure:
The advisory committee looked at several governance options as they might relate to
funding possibilities. The three most likely candidates are:
Status quo. Each entity operates its own system, raises its own funds, and only limited
intergovernmental agreements exist for routes in common such as the Foxtrot line today.
The committee believes that a new approach will be needed to meet the growing needs
for transit in the area.
Combined efforts under an IGA. There are already ongoing discussions between the City
staffs seeking to improve coordination, operations and efficiency. The Transit Strategic
Plan analyzes those possibilities in more detail. While this is an improvement over doing
nothing, it fails to capture the economies of scale that a true consolidation offers.
A new operational authority. The committee recommends that a Regional Service
Authority (RSA), dedicated to transit with no new funding, be considered as the initial
step towards an area-wide transit operation. There appear to be several advantages to this
approach for the near term:
• An RSA requires a vote to establish but then becomes its own legal entity for
future fund raising, operations, etc. Getting public support for a consolidated
effort will build knowledge and support for future growth of the system.
• The RSA can be structured so that each participating entity provides its own
funding and contracts with the RSA to provide transit service at whatever level it
wishes.
• The RSA starts with an appointed, unpaid board of directors. By contracting with
the cities for all staff services, little if any resources are needed to sustain the
board itself.
• An RSA allows the participating cities to take best advantage of economies of
scale in their transit operations.
• The need for inter-city mobility and federal funding requirements already favor a
consolidated transit operation across the study area.
• While this recommendation speaks only to Fort Collins and Loveland, an RSA
can be designed so that additional jurisdictions could join now or later.
• The tight focus of an RSA on only transit service helps avoid any confusion with
any other regional transportation efforts towards infrastructure.
The City Transit Staffs have more detail about this option and the requirements to
establish such an authority.
Potential Revenue Sources: (See Attachment A for summary)
The committee recognizes the differences in transit philosophies between the two cities.
As a result, the following discussion of possible sources of funding needs to be combined
with the concept of an RSA where each city can pick and choose how it raises the funds
for the amount of service it wishes to provide. However, in the interest of brevity, the
numbers shown below are for combined Fort Collins and Loveland. The Transit
Strategic Plan will have more individual city detail. The mission of this committee was
to research how all three phases of the strategic plan could be funded – a total annual
3
need of approximately $37 million dollars by 2015. The numbers shown below illustrate
at least one route to that amount. (Numbers shown are estimates and subject to further
refinement.)
Attachment B of this letter lists the most promising revenue sources considered by the
committee. In evaluating possible revenue streams for the strategic plan, the advisory
committee used several criteria to evaluate each:
• Reliable and dedicated source
• Fair: Places burden on users, but not undue burden on those least able to pay
• Ease of administration and implementation
• Revenue grows with the community
• Ability for differentiation by community
• Likely success with voters, public acceptance
In regard to the last item, likelihood of success, the advisory committee is keenly aware
of the current economic situation. Timing will require careful judgment.
After reviewing a wide range of possible funding sources, the committee recommends
further consideration of the revenue sources described below. These recommendations
reflect the general consensus of the committee except for the Transit Utility Tax as
discussed below.
Maintenance of Effort: Today both Loveland and Fort Collins are using General Fund
revenues along with Federal and occasional State support to operate the current level of
transit service. This report anticipates continuation of that effort. However, in packaging
a suite of community improvements with a tax increase, it may prove advantageous to
combine all transit funding in a common statement of need. Today, the existing sources
of funding (local, state and federal) contribute $9.5 million to the transit systems. With
projected volume and inflationary increases, those sources will produce $15.1 million by
2015.
Fares: A fare is the fee someone pays each time they step aboard a vehicle. It can take
the form of cash; a pre-paid monthly or yearly pass (with or without a discount); a
transfer from another bus; or a waiver based on some factor such as age. Typically the
fare-box revenues cover 10% to 15% of the cost of operating the system. Commuters
taking a lengthy inter-regional bus to work might pay most of the cost of the trip, while a
fully subsidized local service that caters to tourists and shoppers might not charge at all.
Too high of a fare becomes a regressive burden on the low-income transit-dependent
population and discourages choice riders from giving up their alternatives, typically
automobiles. As a result, setting of fares is a philosophical question regarding the overall
mission of the transit system as it relates to mobility, congestion, economic development,
air quality, etc. For the purposes of this study, the advisory committee recommends
continuation of the existing fare levels which will grow by an additional $1million by the
time the system is built out.
General Sales Tax: This has the greatest capacity to raise funds. It is also the most
sought after revenue source and competition by other City needs will be intense. Any
increase in the rate of sales tax, or redirection of an existing sales tax, will require a
4
public vote. The advisory committee recommends by the time of the final build out of
Phase 3 of the strategic plan, $11.2 million additional dollars per year for transit should
be funded by sales tax which is just over a ¼ cent tax on non-grocery sales. This would
be about $11 per month per household.
Transit Utility Fee: A fee would be added each month to an existing utility bill to pay for
the basic mobility service provided by the transit system.
• The majority of the committee supports this approach on the belief that all
members of the community receive direct and/or indirect benefits of the fully-
developed transit system. The benefits apply to drivers as well as non-drivers
since the reductions in congestion, improvement in air quality, etc. extend beyond
the transit ridership. The fee would be applied as a flat rate for households, but
may vary for businesses based on their traffic generation potential. Properly
designed, a fee can be assessed by the City Council without a public vote. Up to
$6.7 million dollars per year can be raised by a 5% utility fee which would cost
just under $7 per month per household – or perhaps as low as $3 per month if
businesses are assessed at a higher level commensurate with their traffic needs.
• Two committee members do not support this approach for several reasons. For
one, in difficult times like this, it is felt that citizens should vote on any fee or tax
increase since many households already have to make difficult spending
decisions. Also there is the concern that such a fee is not a stable resource since
new councils can redirect or stop the funding. And, finally, there is a concern that
assessing fees on businesses based on volume of rides generated could be
subjective and place an undue burden on businesses.
Negotiated Agreements: Today the Associated Students of Colorado State University
(ASCSU) pays a fee to Transfort in exchange for which all students with a current I.D.
can ride any Transfort bus without paying a fare. The bus routes serving CSU are the
most heavily used, and Transfort is able to share the economies back to the students with
a collective fee that is much lower than if all riders paid the current fare box rates. Also,
as a marketing tool, businesses are offered the opportunity to buy highly discounted
annual passes for their employees. The advisory committee believes there may be a few
places where special, additional service might be offered in exchange for a flat fee such
as used with CSU. Following an extensive analysis of this option the committee was
disappointed to find that negotiated agreements can generate no more than an additional
$1 million per year, and it could be some time before that level of funding could be
reached. The committee notes that the existence of an area-wide RSA would improve the
ability to recruit new partners thanks to the broader service area.
Special Improvement Districts: There is already a great deal of interest in the
development and business community around the Transit Oriented Development
possibilities of the Mason Corridor and its Bus Rapid Transit system. Other transit
corridors, such as along Harmony Road in Fort Collins are envisioned in the long-term
Transit Strategic Plan. Additional revenues are possible in such a district through either
an increase in property values such as the Fort Collins Downtown Development
Authority, or through a tax increment financing, or even a special district sales tax. This
source could ultimately have considerable potential. In the time horizon of the study, by
2015 Special Improvement Districts could generate $2 million per year of revenue.
5
Implementation:
If a Regional Service Authority is to be established, additional study will be needed with
legal and operational experts to design the underlying agreements and ballot language.
Then a campaign effort will be needed to present the concept and benefits to the voters.
The committee recommends that other potential partners, such as Larimer County and the
City of Berthoud be contacted to see if their transit operations would be candidates for
inclusion.
Once the governance structure is decided, timing and approach to funding and service
levels then revert to local leadership:
• Transit Utility Fees, fares, and negotiated agreements are within the purview of
the City Councils and thus the quickest sources to raise additional funds.
• Special improvement districts typically require a vote of the property owners
within the district. While these sources individually and in combination can fund
a number of improvements, they are not sufficient to fund the full build out of the
transit system as envisioned in the strategic plan.
• Sales tax increases or redirections will require a popular vote which can be held
on a city by city basis. The timing of such votes must coincide with established
elections and generally require a non-governmental organization to champion and
fund the campaign.
The advisory committee noted that the City of Denver successfully used a multiple
choice tax referendum called “A to I” where voters could chose among several options.
Knowing there are other varying calls for funding in Fort Collins, Loveland and Larimer
County (police, jails, pavement, parks, mental health, etc.) structuring a common,
singular campaign seems problematic across all jurisdictions. However, the concept of
increased voter choice within each individual jurisdiction warrants additional study.
Justification and conclusion:
Double digit increases in transit ridership followed the spike in gasoline prices last year.
In the future our communities will likely see the return of higher fuel costs, continued air
quality and climate issues, increasing road congestion, and an aging population. The
need for, and growing value of, mass transit options is clear.
According to the American Automobile Association, it costs a family about $500 per
month to own and use an automobile. Use of a high service transit system by family
members can offset the need to fuel, or even own, one or more automobiles. This can
free up a considerable amount of household wealth for other needs. To a low income
family that might mean the difference in finding and holding a job, or qualifying for a
mortgage or educational loan. To an upper income family, elimination of the second or
third family vehicle would put funds currently being exported to car manufacturers and
oil companies back into the local economy.
Whatever route is pursued, improved transit service must in the end make sense to the
population. Any endeavor to ask officials and voters for additional funding will have to
connect the benefits of transit back to the individual.
6
The advisory committee wishes to compliment the City and School District staffs for
their professionalism and dedication to their work. It has been a pleasure to work with
them on this effort. Our community is already the richer for having such people in its
employ.
Thank you for considering this recommendation. We will be happy to answer any
questions at your convenience.
On behalf of the Financial Advisory Committee,
Gary D. Thomas
757 Cherokee Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Home 970-482-7125
Work 970-223-8604
_____________________________________________
Attachment A: Recommended possible revenue sources
Attachment B: All revenue sources considered
Attachment C: Roster of advisory committee
7
Attachment A
Recommended possible revenue sources vs. needs
Phase Annual Costs Sources Revenues Balance needed
2009
Current
9,500,000
Existing local and
federal funds 9,500,000 0
2015
Phase III
37,000,000
37,000,000
Maintenance of
Effort 15,100,000 21,900,000
Add’l fares 1,000,000 20,900,000
¼ + cent sales tax 11,200,000 9,700,000
5% utility fee 6,700,000 3,000,000
New negotiated
agreements 1,000,000 2,000,000
Special improvement
districts along
corridors 2,000,000 0
Amounts shown are projected estimates including inflation.
8
General Fund
(sales tax)
Has ability to raise large amounts of revenue.
Majority of regional retailers are located in Fort Collins and Loveland.
Diffuses funding burden over many people and businesses, including
out-of-region visitors.
Easy to administer.
Represents majority of existing revenue and unable to keep pace with
rising costs.
Requires City Council to allocate additional funding to transit budget.
Competes with other City services.
Subject to changes in biennial City budget (BFO).
Vulnerable to business cycles and may stagnate or decline during
economic downturn.
Seen as regressive but rebates possible to lessen impact.
Federal Funding
Historically reliable source of funds.
5307 Funding is formula based, so as revenue hours increase funding
increases.
Generates decent revenue, but would not keep pace if system were to
grow.
Easy to administer.
Federal funding is generated from national sources not just local.
Mostly only available for capital assistance.
Does not provide enough funding to meet capital needs.
No guarantee of increased annual amounts.
Fares and Passes
Users are paying for service.
Discounted pass sales has resulted in a growing segment of fare
revenue and large increase in ridership.
New Technology could increase fare recovery rate.
Represents only 5% of current operating costs.
Limited in amount that can be increased due to impacts on ridership.
Not keeping pace with increased operating costs.
Challenging to have 100% fare recovery except on long distance lines.
ASCSU Agreement
Represents approximately 16% of the costs to deliver service to
campus.
Provides a higher revenue recovery than if we collected fares from
riding students.
Contracts are negotiated regularly (strength and weakness)
Easy to administer.
Contracts are negotiated with students who have short term interests.
Attachment B
Funding Sources Considered with Strengths and Weaknesses
9
Advertising
20 year Contract with Next Media covers all bus stop
installation costs, and generates revenue.
Increased opportunities for additional advertising with new
technology at stops and transit centers.
Easy to administer.
Funds coming through commercial advertising.
Revenue represents a little over 2% of total operating costs.
Growth in advertising revenue is limited to space available to
advertise.
Does not keep pace with increased operating costs.
Misc. Grants
Provides unexpected revenue primarily for capital needs.
Very unreliable.
Sales Tax (Other than
General Fund)
Has ability to raise large amounts of revenue.
Majority of regional retailers are located in Fort Collins and
Loveland.
Diffuses funding burden over many people and businesses,
including out-of-region visitors.
Considered a regressive tax but rebates possible to lessen
impact.
Vulnerable to business cycles and may stagnate or decline
during economic downturn.
Property Tax
Potential for substantial reliable revenue.
Revenue will rise with rising property values.
Can be imposed on those that benefit most from property value
increases related to transit.
Is a regressive tax, affecting lower income households more
than higher income households.
Fully funded by landowners in taxing jurisdiction.
Commercial landowners pay higher property tax per dollar due
to Gallagher Amendment.
If a district is used, could have equity arguments.
Motor Vehicle
Registration Fee
Directly tied to transportation.
Assessed on motorists who contribute to congestion of
roadways.
Not as productive as sales or property tax.
Fee is capped at $10 per registered vehicle per year.
Similar problem as Gas Tax, as more people ride transit fewer
autos are being purchased.
State just added a new fee.
10
Impact Fees
Requires new growth to “pay its own way” for transit infrastructure.
Captures both residential and commercial development.
Only available for capital assistance.
Not as productive in revenue generation as sales or property tax.
Must demonstrate rational nexus and rough proportionality in the fee
amount.
New Negotiated
Agreements
Would provide a higher revenue recovery than if we collected fares
from passengers.
Would potentially increase ridership, which would in turn increase
Federal funding.
Could target apartment complexes, school districts, CSU admin.,
existing districts (DDA), business parks, etc.
Agreements can be terminated at any time.
Agreements can be renegotiated.
Could increase overhead costs to manage various agreements and
contracts.
Improvement
Districts
See property tax.
Visitor Benefit Tax
Visitors, not residents, will fund improvements.
Reliable revenue source.
Could face lodging industry opposition.
Lodging industry claims high visitor benefit taxes hurt tourism.
Transit Utility Fee
Steady revenue stream, keeps pace with growth.
Relatively easy to administer with existing utilities already in place.
Relatively low revenue production with a flat fee.
Can be regressive, rebates can lessen impact on low income
households.
Head Tax Fee
Direct link to transportation impacts.
Residents and commuters pay the fee.
Employer and employee share the fee (Denver model).
Potential citizen aversion to a “new” tax.
Not as productive as sales or property tax.
Congestion Fee
Direct link to transportation.
Residents and commuters pay the fee.
Will keep pace with growth.
Reliable revenue stream.
Exogenous benefits.
Unprecedented in the United States.
Upfront infrastructure investment – How do we collect this revenue?
Potential adverse effects on businesses.
Carbon Credits
N/A
11
Attachment C
Roster of Advisory Committee
Mary Atchison
Larimer County United Way, Senior Vice President for Community Investment
Donna Chapel
Chapel and Collins Wealth Management, Co-Founder
Board of Directors for the Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce
Dan Gould
CSU Professor, Retired
Former Fort Collins Transportation Board Member
Robert Heath
Heath Construction, Founder
Daniel Hill
Loveland Outlet Malls, General Manager
Loveland Transportation Advisory Board Member
Doug Johnson
UniverCity Connections, Director of Implementation
Gary Thomas
SAINT, Executive Director
Loveland Transportation Advisory Board, Chair
Fort Collins Transportation Board, Chair
Kitty Wild
Wild Real Estate Services, Broker/Owner
NORTH FRONT RANGE TRANSIT VISION
STEERING COMMITTEE LIST
7/6/2012
Entity Name Title Affiliation email
Town of Berthoud John Bauer Town Trustee Town of Berthoud jbauer@berthoud.org
Jim Birdsall jim@tbgroup.us
James Gaspard james.gaspard@biocharnow.com
City of Fort Collins Ben Manvel Councilperson City of Fort Collins bmanvel@fcgov.com
Gary Thomas Executive Director Senior Alternatives in Transportation (SAINT) sainted@frii.com
Yvonne Myers Director Columbine Health Systems yvonne.myers@columbinehealth.com
Larimer County Tom Donnelly Commissioner Larimer County donnelt@co.larimer.co.us
Evelyn King
Carol Dowding
City of Loveland Joan Shaffer Councilor City of Loveland joan.shaffer@ci.loveland.co.us
Dan Hill tabordan@comcast.net
1
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 4
Evaluation Matrix
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 5
ATTACHMENT 6
ForYbollins Recreation Department
Fort Collins Senior Center
1200 Raintree Drive
Fort Collins, CO B0526
970.221.6644
970.224.6072-fax
MayS, 2013
Karen Weitkunat, Mayor
City of Fort Collins
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Re: Please Support the Recommendations of the NFRTV Regional Transit Feasibility Study
Dear Mayor Weitkunat:
On behalf of the Fort Collins Senior Advisory Board, I am writing to urge you to support the findings and pursue
the recommendations contained in the North Front Ranj?e Transit Vision INFRTV) Regional Transit Feasibility
Study.
At its March 2013 meeting, the Fort Collins Senior Advisory Board (SAB) unanimously approved a motion to
support the recommendations of the NFRTV Regional Transit Feasibility Study (hereafter "Study") and
communicate the SAB's support for the Study to policymakers.
As an advocate for Fort Collins Seniors, the SAB is acutely aware of the importance of safe, convenient,
reliable, affordable transportation options for older residents. The SAB hosted a series of Community
Conversations in 2011-2012 that explored the future growth and impact of the aging population. (The SAB has
compiled the attached fact sheet, Aging as an Economic Driver, based on information presented at these
events.) Data gathered from participants clearly showed that transportation was the leading concern (both
present and future) of attendees. Due to this concern, the SAB was one of the founders of the Senior
Transportation Coalition, a group of Larimer County entities which is work to improve to improve regional
transportation options.
Here is some background on the Study and reasons why we support it.
The Study
The Study's Findings and Recommendation are the result of a yearlong effort involving regional transit
providers working under the direction of a diverse steering committee from participating jurisdictions.
The Study identified many important regional transportation issues and challenges and established goals for
improved service, efficiency, ridership and sustainability. Then, the Study evaluated options for integration
weighted against these evaluation criteria. Finally, the Study considered several different governance models
that also were thoroughly evaluated.
ATTACHMENT 7
Aging as an Economic Driver
Senior Citizens (+65) of Larimer County:
By 2030 (less than 20 years)
The Senior population will grow by 140% (33,500 in 2010, 81,000 in 2030
1
)
Almost 1 in every 5 citizens will be a Senior (11.1% in 2010, 18.6% in 2030
1
)
Seniors and the young (25 and under) will be more than 50% of the population
2
Between 2000 and 2010 there was a net migration of 4,690 seniors into Larimer County
3
Seniors as Consumers:
One job is supported by every 4 people over the age 65
3 (8,875 in 2010, 20,250 in 2030)
Senior wants and needs will have a large impact on housing, transportation, and health
services among other sectors
The Senior market segment will grow by 4 to 6% a year compared to 1.5% for the general
population
3
Seniors in the Labor Force:
Each year older adults (60+) in Larimer County contribute $228M in paid labor, $40M in
volunteer labor, and $228M in unpaid care to family and friends
4
Boomers are 37% of the workforce
3
and are leaving the full time workforce in record
numbers
Many will want or need to remain and may need non-traditional working arrangements such
as reduced hours, job sharing, seasonal employment, or altered work responsibilities
Seniors share these needs for non-traditional work arrangements with students, stay-at-home
parents, and other workers such as teachers
Sources: This document was prepared by the Fort Collins Senior Advisory Board – Feb 2013
1 Table provided by Elizabeth Garner, State Demographer in November 2011
(http://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/sab-larimer-population.pdf)
2 State Demographer, Age and Gender Database, Feb 2013
(https://dola.colorado.gov/demog_webapps/pag_category.jsf)
3 “Aging in Colorado”, State Demographer’s Office, July 12, pg 8-9
(www.colorado.gov/demography, click on Publications and Presentations)
4 Community Assessment on Older Adults (CASOATM) of Larimer County, 2010, pg 41
(www.larimer.org/seniors/casoa_2010_lc_full_report.pdf)
~~~~- ~.. - -- - -------------- -------------------
Barrier Busters / Public Transit Action Group
Post Office 400 Fort Collins, 'CO 80522
970.419.8944 info@fccan.org
May 16, 2013
Emma McArdle, LEED GA
Transit Planner
Transfort I City of Fort Collins
Dear Ms. McArdle,
As an advocacy group that has worked for over six years to enhance Transfort and
other bus services for all community members in Fort Collins and the region, we
are delighted to learn that there is positive movement in the direction of
establishing a regional transportation system. The North Front Range Transit
Vision is an exciting project that has the potential of greatly increasing ridership
and connectivity, including paratransit, in Fort Collins, Loveland and Berthoud.
Our hope is that there will eventually be a dedicated funding source for an
excellent transportation system that includes, at a minimum, Fort Collins,
Loveland, Berthoud. Towards this end, we see a very intentional first step as
implementing an Intergovernmental Agreement among these three municipalities.
We greatly appreciate all of your effort to date on this project. We look forward to
your continued briefings to Barrier Busters I PTAG as the project moves forward.
Thanks again for all of your work.
Please don't hesitate contacting us if we can be of more assistance.
SinCerely.\1 JI .. 0-r--:-'1, ...~..
/-:' " l''-<-11\. .I
Cheryl Distaso
For BB/PTAG
ATTACHMENT 8
1
NORTH FRONT RANGE TRANSIT VISION STEERING COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON PROJECT
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Steering Committee for the North Front Range Transit Vision project has met three times in the
last six months to provide input and guidance to the project team on the future of transit services in
the North Front Range. At its last meeting in January 2013, the Steering Committee reviewed the
project team’s preliminary recommendations, which include:
General agreement on the need to – and aim of - consolidating and coordinating fixed-route
and paratransit services throughout the region to improve services, cost-effectiveness, and
ridership, with the proposed first step being consolidation of Transfort and COLT fixed-route
services throughout the region as an early-action goal.
General agreement on the use of intergovernmental agreements between and among the
jurisdictions in the North Front Range as a framework for integrating and coordinating transit
services within the North Front Range Transportation Management Area (TMA).
General agreement that the next step should be presenting recommendations to local
governing bodies and facilitating agency dialogue.
Recommendations on the appointment of a staff task force to develop an initial master
intergovernmental agreement that would outline the long-range framework as well as short-
term processes for transit integration. This task force initially would consist of staff members
from Berthoud, Fort Collins, Loveland, and Larimer County involved in financial, human
resources, legal, and transit operations activities within those jurisdictions. Additional
jurisdictions within the TMA could participate if desired or as needed in the future. The task
force would look to local examples of intergovernmental agreements as models to use in
drafting the structure of the transit services intergovernmental agreement.
The work of the task force would be reviewed by local jurisdictions and the local community
through an outreach program that includes:
o Ongoing involvement of the project Steering Committee (supplemented by additional
members if needed) to ensure project continuity;
o Follow-up briefings for and continued involvement of the groups and individuals
surveyed during this project who have an interest in improving transit services
throughout the region; and
o Briefings as needed to participating jurisdiction policy bodies.
ATTACHMENT 9
2
The North Front Range Transit Vision Steering Committee endorses these principles and urges local
jurisdictions to move forward with implementing these recommendations.
TOWN OF BERTHOUD:
____________________________
John Bauer
____________________________
Jim Birdsall
____________________________
James Gaspard
CITY OF LOVELAND:
_________________________
Joan Shaffer
_________________________
Dan Hill
CITY OF FORT COLLINS:
____________________________
Ben Manvel
____________________________
Yvonne Myers
____________________________
Gary Thomas
LARIMER COUNTY:
_________________________
Tom Donnelly
_________________________
Carol Dowding
_________________________
Evelyn King
1
1
North Front Range Transit Vision
Fort Collins City Council Work Session
May 2013
Background
Ι 2009 – Fort Collins and Loveland Conducted
Joint Strategic Plans
■ Citizen Advisory Committee Recommended
follow-up Study to Analyze Integration
Options
Ι 2012 – Study Initiated
■ Study Partners – Fort Collins, Loveland,
Berthoud, Larimer County, North Front
Range MPO
2
ATTACHMENT 10
2
Purpose of Feasibility Study
Ι Explore and analyze options for potential
integrated regional transit services and
operations, governance, and decision-making
with the aims of:
■ Improving service
■ Increasing ridership
■ Improving transit cost-effectiveness
3
Study Organization
Ι Consultant retained to conduct Feasibility
Study
Ι Project Management Team
■ Each Participating Entity Represented
Ι Project guided by Regional Steering
Committee
■ One Elected Official
■ Two Community Members
4
3
Ι 1997 – FoxTrot
Ι 2000 – Became an Urban Area following US Census
Ι 2009 – Loveland/Fort Collins Transit Strategic
■ Recommended study to integrate transit
services
Ι 2010 – US Census expands TMA
■ FLEX service to Longmont
Ι 2012 - Regional Entities Partner to Pursue Study
History of Regional Collaboration
5
Study area
6
4
Annual Operating Costs: $8 M
Annual Riders: 2,200,000
BATS
Annual Operating Costs: $1.1 M
Annual Riders: 130,000
Annual Operating Costs: $275,000
Annual Riders: 13,250
2011 Transit Services
7
Inputs
NFRMPO
Long Range
Transportation
Plan
Transit
Strategic
Operating
Plan
Local and
regional
projects
Study Area
Data
Final
recommendations
Stakeholder
comments
Steering
Committee
Peer City
Research
Public
review
8
5
Ι Existing and growing
demand for paratransit
service
■ Gap in service
■ Growing senior
population (140%
increase within 20
years)
What have we learned?
9
Ι Regional growth
patterns (population,
employment and
health care)
Ι Large number of
intra-regional trips
■ Focus on US 287
■ 80% TMA trips stay
in TMA
What have we learned - continued
10
Work
6
Ι Long-term funding uncertainty
Ι Regional air quality improvement goals
Ι Outlying communities’ interest in transit service
(Laporte and Windsor)
Ι Concern about loss of local autonomy and
decision-making
What have we learned - continued
11
12
Need Statements
1. Increase Operational Efficiency*
2. Increase Customer Benefit and Ridership*
3. Improve Regulatory Compliance
4. Implementation of Regional Plans
5. Political Support and Fiscal Sustainability*
* – Steering Committee designated higher priority
12
7
Integration Options Evaluated
1. Status Quo
2. Fixed-route
3. Paratransit
4. Total System
5. Maintenance
6. Customer Information and
Fares
Low-Med
Med-High
Med
High
Low-Med
Med-High
13
Total System Integration
Highlights
Ι Estimated Cost Savings:
■ Short-term and long-term: $50,000 +/-
annually
■ Long-term: $240,000 +/-annually
Ι Significant Customer Benefit
Ι Ability to Implement Regional Plans
14
8
Governance Options Evaluated
1. Status Quo
2. Intergovernmental Agreements
3. Regional Service Authorities
4. Regional Transportation Authorities
5. Special districts
6. Special statutory districts
Low-Med
High
Med-High
Med-High
Med-High
Med-High
15
Ι Low political feasibility for governance options
that reduce local oversight
Ι IGAs allow for ease of formation
■ Allow for phased integration if needed
■ Each participating entity maintains
budgetary authority
Governance Options Highlights
16
9
Study Conclusions
17
Ι Integration of Fort Collins and Loveland Fixed-
Route and Paratransit Operations provides:
■ Short- and Long-term cost savings
■ Immediate benefits to users
Ι Governance Structure:
■ Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)
Maintains Local Autonomy
Allows for Phased Integration
Future Regional Community Participation
18
Steering Committee Recommendation
Ι Pursue integration of Fixed Route and
Paratransit service through IGA
Ι Be sure to include all parties interested in
participation
18
10
Ι General Customer Support of Steering Committee
Recommendation
Ι Regional Governing Bodies – Supportive of moving
forward with further conversations
Ι Phasing of Integration is Preferred Approach
Overview of Community Dialogue
19
1. Integration of Customer Information and Fares
2. Integration of Paratransit Operations into Shared
Contract
3. Integration of Fixed Route Operations
* Much of the integration could be accomplished
while maintaining local autonomy of operations.
Potential Phasing Options
20
11
21
Next Steps
Ι No formal action at this time; presenting
goals/recommendations to governing entities
Ι Facilitate community and local agency dialogue
Ι If some or all recommendations are accepted,
develop Joint Task Force to begin drafting IGAs
21
22
Questions for Council
Ι Does Council have interest in pursuing any of
the recommendations in full or in part that
came out of this Study?
22
12
23
Thank you
23
DATE: May 28, 2013
STAFF: Laurie Kadrich, Delynn
Coldiron, Sarah Burnett
Pre-taped staff presentation: none
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Development Review Project Transparency Update.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Transparency in the development review process and improved, consistent and reliable processes
related to development proposal reviews have been areas of concern for Council and the community.
City staff has responded to these concerns in various ways since 2009; however, the significant
increase in multi-family project submittals starting in 2011 resulted in additional concerns.
Interested citizens wanted the ability to become fully informed about specific development projects
being proposed as early in the process as possible. Although much of the information was available
on the City’s website, customers wanted access to related documents and records in a consolidated,
clear and easily accessible manner.
In response to this feedback, a combined effort between Community Development & Neighborhood
Services and Information Technology staff have resulted in numerous additional improvements. We
are excited for the opportunity to provide Council with an update on this item, which will include
a demonstration of many of the specifics more fully explained within this summary.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council have feedback regarding development review transparency improvements
made to date?
2. Does Council generally agree with the proposed future enhancements?
3. Does Council have suggestions for additional enhancements and future steps?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Community Development & Neighborhood Services (CDNS) staff has worked to address the issues
of transparency and providing consistent and reliable processes related to development project
reviews in various ways since 2009. However, with ongoing feedback from Council and customers
requesting additional improvements, it became apparent that we still had work to do in this regard.
This item became even more pressing as we started to receive an onslaught of multi-family student
housing projects starting towards the end of 2011.
Based on the feedback we continued to receive, staff identified a need to better inform community
members about the development review process in general and to explain the opportunities that were
available for them to engage in the process. We also found that customers wanted access to
May 28, 2013 Page 2
information about specific proposals as early in the process as possible, that they wanted to be
notified about projects anywhere the City, not just those in close proximity to their neighborhood,
and that they wanted the information in a clear, easily accessible and consolidated fashion.
Incremental improvements started early in 2012. Efforts included:
1. Development Review weekly email: This was started in April 2012 and has continued to
evolve and improve throughout the year. This is available to any citizen through a
subscription on the City’s website, and appears online as well. It provides information on:
scheduled neighborhood meetings, scheduled administrative hearings, upcoming Building
Review Board, Landmark Preservation Commission, Planning & Zoning Board and Zoning
Board of Appeals meetings, development-related City Council agenda items, and, beginning
in January, new project submittals and hearing outcomes.
2. Citizen’s Role in Development Review Guide: This guide was implemented in February
2012 as a development review guide tailored to residents and neighbors. The toolset
contains an “at-a-glance” guide to the development review process and emphasizes how
neighbors and affected citizens can engage in the process at the different stages of a
proposal. It also provides information outlining the different steps in the development
review process.
3. Current Applications List: This was enhanced early in 2012 so that the report automatically
updated on a daily basis and provided live links to Citizen Access, the web application where
customers can get additional project details. This item has now been replaced by the
Development Proposals Under Review table highlighted below.
4. Development Review Signs: These were changed, making them larger, brighter and adding
a number to further facilitate finding information on planning projects. Sign numbers are
included in the Development Proposals table and are searchable to assist with readily finding
additional details.
5. Planning Submittal Records: Documents such as project applications, site plans, drawings
and other submittal documents, as well as staff and public comments, were frequently
requested by citizens, but not accessible online until recently. An “electronic file cabinet”
dedicated to development review has now been established and records for each project are
now available on City Docs. Scanning of Current Planning development review files into
the system started in May 2012. Additional resources were required to do this. A
contractual position was approved as part of the 2011 exceptions process for this purpose.
The position was filled in May 2012. The delay in hiring was planned, and moved a retiring
City Planner into this new position. Although planned, it did create a delay in making this
information available to citizens.
Staff’s goal related to this effort is to get new projects scanned within a week of submittal so that
citizens can access the information quickly. Additionally, we are working to get information from
already completed development project files placed into the system. It is anticipated that it will take
a number of years to get all archived planning file information scanned.
May 28, 2013 Page 3
Once implemented, the above efforts continued throughout the year. Additional refinements were
delayed due to the increased work load we have continued to experience, together with the efforts
required for Budgeting for Outcomes and other large projects. In late summer 2012, staff was able
to refocus our efforts on this project and additional improvements were made. These efforts
included:
6. Table of Development Proposals Under Review: Released on January 2, 2013, this new web
resource provides a listing of all current development proposals within the city. It allows
citizens to search by type of application, status, sign numbers or key words (including
address). It provides links to Citizen Access, the Development Proposals Map, CityDocs,
neighborhood meetings, administrative hearings, conceptual reviews and the Planning &
Zoning Board. It also enables citizens to email the staff contact or applicant associated with
the project.
7. Development Proposals Map: This was enhanced in November 2012 as part of the new
mapping application implemented by IT staff. The current projects layer gives a visual
representation of current projects within the city, provides summary details and then offers
links to Citizen Access and CityDocs so a customer can get further project details and/or see
images of related documents that have been submitted.
8. Boards and Commissions: Web pages were enhanced starting in October 2012 for the
Building Review Board, Landmark Preservation Commission, Planning & Zoning Board and
Zoning Board of Appeals. An interested party can now see all documents related to an
agenda item, similar to the City Council Agenda. As well, links to the video for Planning
& Zoning Board meetings have been added.
9. Conceptual Review: A summary of all Conceptual Review projects was added to the web
page to enable customers to find a specific project from a consolidated source to avoid
having to search through individual agendas to find the item. Related documents remain
located in the individual agenda files. As of January 2013, staff comments for all proposed
projects are being added, providing additional transparency in the earliest stages of the
process.
10. Type 1 Hearings and Neighborhood Meetings: Project documents are now being included
as part of the agenda or notice for all projects, as well as staff comments or meeting notes.
A staff position to assist with these efforts was approved by City Council in November 2011. The
Neighborhood Development Review Liaison position was developed during the first half of 2012
and was filled by the third quarter. The incumbent, Sarah Burnett, has been a great resource for staff
and citizens alike. She has been instrumental in working with customers who have expressed
concern, as well as other interested citizens, to determine whether the improvements made are
meeting their expectations. Based on the input received, staff feels that the improvements meet a
majority of the requests that have been received.
May 28, 2013 Page 4
Next Steps:
Staff is continuing to collect feedback on these items and plans to make continual improvements.
Some future enhancements and/or refinements that have already been identified include:
1. Listing projects by address/ability to sort projects by address. The table currently allows a
search of projects by address by adding the address into the search box. Sorting of the table
alphabetically will require modifications, but is feasible.
2. Add meeting dates to the table.
3. Add information for each specific project type giving citizens information on the steps
required in the development review process for that type of project.
4. Add a link to project documents in CityDocs from Citizen Access.
5. Add information on Historic Preservation projects and signs.
6. Explore the feasibility of adding a “last updated” date for each project. This item requires
more discussion to determine if this can be automated or whether this would require ongoing
staff maintenance.
7. Explore the possibility of having one project name/number for the entirety of the process.
More discussion is required to determine the feasibility of this item.
8. Have all project information available, including meeting agendas, minutes, and staff notes
available from the projects table versus through additional links. Staff will continue to refine
links to everything citizens are asking to see as part of project development searches and
make them as direct as possible to minimize the number of clicks required. It is not
recommended to have redundant information provided in various areas of the website due
to decreased efficiency created by duplicative processing and increased need for resources
to maintain and store the information. Discussion will continue on this item.
9. Explore the feasibility of having a project subscription service that would provide automatic
updates and related documents on a project by project basis.
Work on enhancements began during the first quarter of 2013, and is expected to continue in 2013
and 2014.
Additional History
Earlier technology and other efforts to address citizen concerns related to transparency and
improved, consistent and reliable processes related to development project reviews have included:
1. Reorganization of disparate departments under one director to facilitate a more cohesive
approach to development planning and project reviews.
May 28, 2013 Page 5
2. Hiring a Neighborhood Development Review Liaison to assist citizens with the development
process and provide information.
3. Implementing a three-phase approach to multi-family development projects that enable staff
to address compatibility and neighborhood impact concerns on an accelerated time frame.
4. Migration of all development review activities to Accela automation, giving us the ability
to better manage associated processes within one system and providing related information
to citizens through a web application known as Citizen Access. See Attachment 2 for
further information on this item.
5. Implementation of a Development Review Outreach process to assist neighborhoods
understand the development process.
6. Creation of a Development Review Guide to assist applicants through the Development
Review process.
7. Improvement to the Conceptual Review process which resulted in more timely,
comprehensive and aligned comments for applicants.
8. Provision of a current projects report and map on the development review website.
9. Posting of Conceptual Review, Administrative Hearing and Neighborhood Meeting agendas
on the development review website.
Demonstration:
Staff plans to provide a live demonstration of the various website improvements that have been
implemented.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Timeline
2. Development Review Project Transparency Update Memo
3. Sample Development Review Subscription Email
4. Citizen’s Role in Development Review Guide
5. Power Point Presentation
ATTACHMENT 2
Development Review Project Transparency Update
January 9, 2013
Page 2
- 2 -
project. It also provides information outlining the different processes associated with
development review.
3. Current Applications List: This was enhanced early in 2012 so that the report
automatically updates on a daily basis and provides live links to Citizen Access where
customers can get additional project details.
4. Development Review Signs: These were changed, making them larger, brighter and
adding a number to further facilitate finding information on planning projects. Sign
numbers are included in the Current Applications list and are searchable to assist with
readily finding additional details.
5. CityDocs: Finalized and fully implemented an electronic file cabinet dedicated to
development review records and started scanning Current Planning development project
files into the system in May, 2012. This was a major piece of missing information that
citizens were requesting as it allows us to provide citizens access to all documents related
to a submittal, not simply the agenda. Additional resources were required to do this. A
contractual position was approved as part of the 2011 exceptions process for this purpose.
The position was filled in May, 2012. The delay in hiring was planned, and moved a
retiring City Planner into this new position. Although planned, it did create a delay in
making this information available to citizens.
Staff’s goal related to this effort is to get new projects scanned within a week of submittal
so that citizens can access the information quickly. Additionally, we are working to get
information from already completed development project files placed into the system as
well. It is anticipated that it will take a number of years to get all archived planning file
information scanned.
Once implemented, the above efforts continued throughout the year. Additional refinements
were delayed due to the increased work load we have continued to experience, together with the
efforts required for Budgeting for Outcomes and other large projects. In late summer, 2012, staff
was able to refocus our efforts on this project and additional improvements were made. These
efforts included:
6. Current Projects Table: Just released on January 2, 2013, this new web page provides a
listing of all current development projects within the city. It allows a citizen to search by
type of application, status, sign numbers or key words (including address). It provides
links to Citizen Access, the Current Applications Map, CityDocs, neighborhood
meetings, administrative hearings, conceptual reviews and the Planning & Zoning Board.
It also enables a citizen to email the staff contact or applicant associated with the project.
7. Current Applications Map: This was enhanced in November, 2012 as part of the new
mapping application implemented by IT staff. The current projects layer gives a visual
representation of current projects within the City, provides summary details and then
offers links to Citizen Access and CityDocs so a customer can get further project details
and/or see images of related documents that have been submitted.
Development Review Project Transparency Update
January 9, 2013
Page 3
- 3 -
8. Boards and Commissions: Web pages were enhanced starting in October, 2012 for the
Building Review Board, Landmark Preservation Commission, Planning & Zoning Board
and Zoning Board of Appeals. An interested party can now see all documents related to
an agenda item, similar to the City Council Agenda. As well, links to the video for
Planning & Zoning Board meetings have been added.
9. Conceptual Review: A summary of all Conceptual Review projects was added to the
web page to enable customers to find a specific item from a consolidated source to avoid
having to hunt and peck through individual agendas to find the item. Related documents
remain located in the individual agenda files. Staff comments regarding all proposed
projects will be added starting in 2013 and will provide additional transparency in the
earliest stages of a project.
10. Type 1 Hearings and Neighborhood Meetings: Project documents are now being
included as part of the agenda or notice for all projects, as well as staff comments or
meeting notes.
We are extremely excited about these improvements and the added level of transparency that is
now provided. We have reviewed these items with Michelle Haefele, as well as a handful of
other interested citizens, to gather their feedback and to identify further refinements. Based on
this outreach, we feel that these changes meet a majority of the requests that have been received.
Some future enhancements/refinements that have been identified include:
1. Listing projects by address/ability to sort projects by address. The table currently allows
a search of projects by address by adding the address into the search box. Sorting of the
table alphabetically will require modifications, but is feasible. IT staff estimates that
making this change to the table will require anywhere from 8-16 hours for coding, layout
changes and testing.
2. Add meeting dates to the table. This item is feasible and will be done as part of
upcoming refinement work, starting in February, 2013 and implemented by end of 2nd
quarter, 2013.
3. Clearer, more legible current applications map. There is some concern over haziness that
is caused by the layer that shows City limits which is needed to ensure accurate City
boundaries. The City limits layer can currently be turned off, but requires the user to
select layers and then de-select this item. Further discussion on this item is required with
IT staff to determine if any further improvements can be made.
4. Add information for each specific project type giving citizens information on the steps
required in the development review process for that type of project. This item is feasible
and will be done as part of upcoming refinement work starting in February, 2013 and
implemented by end of 2nd quarter, 2013.
Development Review Project Transparency Update
January 9, 2013
Page 4
- 4 -
5. Add a link to CityDocs in Citizen Access. This item is feasible and will be done as part
of upcoming refinement work, starting in February, 2013 and implemented by end of 2nd
quarter, 2013.
6. Add information on Historic Preservation projects and signs. This item is feasible and
will be done as part of upcoming refinement work, starting in February, 2013 and
implemented by end of 2nd quarter, 2013.
7. Explore the feasibility of adding a “last updated” date to each item listed. This item
requires more discussion to determine whether this can be automated or whether this
would require ongoing staff maintenance. Discussions will start as part of February,
2013 refinement efforts. The feasibility and any needed resources and/or associated costs
can be better assessed at that time.
8. Make as many documents as possible searchable. This is currently being done. More
discussion is required to determine the requirements of making all pdf files searchable.
Discussions will start as part of February, 2013 refinement efforts. Any needed resources
and/or associated costs can be better assessed at that time.
9. Explore the possibility of having one project name/number for the entirety of the process.
More discussion is required to determine the feasibility of this item. Discussions will
start as part of February, 2013 refinement efforts. Any needed resources and/or
associated costs can be better assessed at that time.
10. Explore adding project name and a quick response code (QRC) to signs so citizens could
scan and automatically be directed to project details.
Sample of a QRC:
This item requires additional discussion and research. Efforts will start on this item in
January, 2013. Needed resources and/or associated costs will be assessed at that time.
11. Have all project information available, including meeting agendas, minutes, and staff
notes available from the projects table versus through additional links. Staff will
continue to refine links to everything citizens are asking to see as part of project
development searches and make them as direct as possible to minimize the number of
clicks required, etc. It is not recommended to have redundant information provided in
various areas of the website due to decreased efficiency created by duplicative processing
and increased need for resources to maintain and store the information. Discussion will
continue on this item as well.
12. Explore the feasibility of having a project subscription service that would provide
automatic updates and related documents on a project by project basis throughout the
entirety of a project. There are some upgrades to the Accela system that may make this
item feasible through social media efforts. More discussion is required to determine the
Development Review Project Transparency Update
January 9, 2013
Page 5
- 5 -
feasibility of this item. Discussions will start as part of February, 2013 refinement
efforts. Any needed resources and/or associated costs can be better assessed at that time.
We are alerting all members who currently subscribe to the weekly Development Review
newsletter of the new projects table in the January 4, 2013 edition. We are also including a
spotlight on the Development Review web page as part of further outreach efforts. Any
feedback received from the larger community will also be considered as part of these refinement
efforts.
Earlier technology and other efforts to address citizen concerns related to transparency and
improved, consistent and reliable processes related to development project reviews have
included:
1. Reorganization of disparate departments under one director to facilitate a more
cohesive approach to development planning and project reviews.
2. Hiring a Neighborhood Development Review Liaison to assist citizens with the
development process and provide information.
3. Implementing a three-phase approach to multi-family development projects that
enable staff to address compatibility and neighborhood impact concerns on an
accelerated time frame.
4. Migration of all development review activities to Accela automation, giving us the
ability to better manage associated processes within one system and providing related
information to citizens through a web application known as Citizen Access. See
attached memo for further information on this item.
5. Implementation of a Development Review Outreach process to assist neighborhoods
understand the development process.
6. Creation of a Development Review Guide to assist applicants through the
Development Review process;
7. Improvement to the Conceptual Review process which resulted in more timely,
comprehensive and aligned comments for applicants.
8. Provision of a current projects report and map on the development review website.
9. Posting of Conceptual Review, Administrative Hearing and Neighborhood Meeting
agendas on the development review website.
I can assure you that staff has been working earnestly to address citizen feedback in this regard
and we plan to continue to listen, refine and improve our processes and transparency. I’d like to
acknowledge Marcus Bodig, Sarah Burnett, Delynn Coldiron, Lindsay Ex, Danielle Franklin,
Development Review Project Transparency Update
January 9, 2013
Page 6
- 6 -
Kristi Kreisher, Courtney Levingston, Sandy Lindell, Billy Linn, Becca Henry, Ryan Mounce
and Ginny Sawyer for their exceptional efforts in this project.
Please let me know if you need any additional information about this item. I would be happy to
provide you with any further details
Development Review Project Transparency Update
January 9, 2013
Page 7
- 7 -
Action Items
Development Review Project Transparency and
Improved, Consistent and Reliable Processes
2012 Improvements At-A-Glance
Item Complete Date Next Steps
1. This Week in Development
Review (weekly email)
2Q 2012 Continue to refine based on customer
feedback. fcgov.com/weekreview
2. Citizen’s Role in Development
Review (guide)
1Q 2012 Update guide as needed.
fcgov.com/citizenreview
3. Current Applications List -
Enhancements
1Q 2012 Update as needed. May be replaced by the
Current Project Table if this is found to be
sufficient.
http://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/
4. Development Review Signage 2Q 2012 Continue to refine based on customer
feedback.
5. CityDocs: Development
Review Records
2Q 2012 Continue to add project information (new as
well as completed projects).
citydocs.fcgov.com/?dn=Current+Plannin
g&cmd=showdept
6. Current Projects Table 4Q 2012 Fully released to public on January 2, 2013.
Continue to refine based on feedback.
fcgov.com/developmentreview/projects
7. Current Projects Map 4Q 2012 Continue to refine based on customer
feedback.
gisweb.fcgov.com/FCMaps/Viewer.html?Vi
ewerConfig=http://gisweb.fcgov.com/Geoc
ortex/Essentials/REST/sites/FCMaps/viewe
rs/FCMaps/virtualdirectory/Config/Viewer.
xml&layerTheme=CURRENT%20DEVELOP
MENT%20PROJECTS
8. Boards & Commissions Web
Page Enhancements
4Q 2012 Continue to make agendas and related
documents/videos available to public. For an
example, see Planning & Zoning Board.
fcgov.com/PlanningZoningBoard
9. Conceptual Review Summary 4Q 2012 Continue to refine process to make access to
documents as easy as possible.
fcgov.com/developmentreview/conceptual
review.php
10. Type I Hearings and
Neighborhood Meetings
4Q 2012 Continue to make information available to
public.
fcgov.com/developmentreview/agendas.p
hp
11. Hiring a Neighborhood
Development Review Liaison
Development Review Project Transparency Update
January 9, 2013
Page 8
- 8 -
Earlier technology and other efforts
1. Reorganization of disparate
departments to create CDNS
2010-
2012
Continue to assess structure and make
changes as needed.
2. Migration of all development
review activities to Accela
2011 Continue to refine processes and add needed
functionality.
3. Implementation of Develop-
ment Review outreach
process
2011 Continue to refine processes and make
changes as needed.
4. Creation of a Development
Review Guide
2009 Continue to review and update as needed.
fcgov.com/drg
5. Improved Conceptual Review
process
2010 Continue to review and update as needed.
6. Provision of current projects
report and map on website
Exact
Date
Unknown
These items have been available for many
years. Both have now been upgraded and/or
replaced with other things listed above.
7. Posting of Conceptual Review,
Administrative Hearing and
Neighborhood Meeting
Agendas
2009 This has now been augmented to include
related documents.
Future Enhancements/Refinements Under Consideration
1. Listing projects by
address/ability to sort by
address
2Q 2013 IT estimates 8-16 staff hours will be required
for coding, layout, changes and testing.
2. Add meeting dates to current
projects table
2Q 2013 Work with IT staff to implement changes.
3. Clearer, more legible current
applications map.
1Q 2013 IT has addressed and fixed this issue.
4. Add specifics on steps
required for each specific
development review process
2Q 2013 Staff will be preparing information and adding
to current projects table.
5. Add link to CityDocs in Citizen
Access
Development Review Project Transparency Update
January 9, 2013
Page 9
- 9 -
process determined.
10. Explore adding project name
and QR codes to signs
Unknown Will start work on this item in January, 2013.
If feasible, related staff time, required
resources and time estimates will be
determined.
11. Have all project information
available on one web page
Ongoing It is not recommended to have redundant
information provided in various areas of the
City’s website. Continued discussions and
refinements will occur on this item.
12. Explore the feasibility of
having a project subscription
service.
Unknown Will start work on this item in January, 2013.
If feasible, related staff time, required
resources and time estimates will be
determined.
Additional details for each of these items are provided in the body of this memorandum.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
WEEK OF FEBRUARY 11-15
fcgov.com/weekreview
Here's your look at the upcoming events related to development review for the week of February
11-15.
MORE ACCESS TO DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS NOW
AVAILABLE
More information on current development proposals is available online than ever before. Try the
new Current Projects Table to find information on proposals - you can search for a project by the
sign number on a "Development Proposal Under Review" sign, by a keyword search including any
part of the project name, street name or number, and more.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS
Neighborhood meetings provide an opportunity for developers to provide preliminary information
to neighbors regarding proposed projects. Neighbors then have the opportunity to ask questions
and express concerns about (or support for) the project as proposed. These meetings are
facilitated by City staff. Staff considers your input regarding projects as an important part of the
development review process. Upcoming neighborhood meetings include:
Monday, February 11 – Spring Creek Farms North, Fourth Filing
Project Site: On west side of Joseph Allen Drive (near Drake and Timberline)
From 6:30-8:00 p.m., at the City Police Services building (2221 Timberline Rd.), City staff will
facilitate a neighborhood meeting to discuss a proposed residential development. The proposal,
Spring Creek Farms North, Fourth Filing, includes about 15 acres on the west side of Joseph
Allen Drive. The site is zoned Low-Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (LMN), with a portion of the
site in the Employment (E) district. The City’s project planner for the project is Jason Holland
(jholland@fcgov.com).
Wednesday, February 13 – 315 North Howes
Project Site: 315/323 North Howes Street
From 6:00-8:00 p.m., in the Markley Community Room at the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery
(408 Mason Ct.), City staff will conduct a neighborhood meeting to discuss a proposal for 315-323
N. Howes St. The proposed project is a four-story building with 78 apartments with a mix of studio,
one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units. The site is zoned Downtown – Civic Center Subdistrict (D).
The City’s project planner for the project is Seth Lorson (slorson@fcgov.com). The meeting notice
is available here.
Upcoming - Wednesday, February 20 – Banner Health Medical Campus
Project Site: Southeast corner of East Harmony Road and Lady Moon Drive
From 6:30-8:30 p.m., at the Council Tree Public Library (2733 Council Tree Ave.), a second
neighborhood meeting will be held to discuss updated plans for a proposed Banner Health
Medical Campus. The parcel is zoned Harmony Corridor District (HC), and is located on 28 acres
on the south side of E. Harmony Rd. between Lady Moon Dr. and Cinquefoil Ln. The City’s project
planner is Jason Holland (jholland@fcgov.com). For more information, please see the notice.
Upcoming - Wednesday, February 20 – The Crowne on Timberline Apartments
Project Site: 6111 South Timberline Road
From 6:30-8:30 p.m., at Bacon Elementary School (5844 S. Timberline Rd.), a neighborhood
meeting will be held to discuss a proposed multifamily complex with 25 townhomes and 275
Page 1 of 5
http://www.fcgov.com/sendstudio/display.php?List=198&N=2275 2/14/2013
ATTACHMENT 3
apartment units. The parcel is zoned Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (MMN).
The City’s project planner for the project is Seth Lorson (slorson@fcgov.com).
TYPE 1 (ADMINISTRATIVE) HEARINGS
Type 1 (Administrative) Hearings are public hearings, conducted by a hearing officer, to consider
development applications. Public comment is invited; the hearing officer considers your input an
important part of the development review process.
Wednesday, February 13 – BRD 4-Plex
Project Site: 621 South Meldrum Street
At 6 p.m., in Conference Room A at 281 N. College Ave., a hearing officer will conduct a public
hearing to consider a multi-family building at 621 S. Meldrum St. The project proposes to demolish
an existing building located on the property and construct a new multi-family building with four
dwelling units. The site is zoned Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (NCB). More
information is available in the hearing packet and notice. The City’s project planner is Jason
Holland (jholland@fcgov.com).
Upcoming – Wednesday, February 20 – Hacienda Higgins-Marquez
Project Site: 1717 West Mulberry Street
At 5 p.m., in Conference Room A at 281 N. College Ave., a hearing officer will conduct a public
hearing to consider a single-family detached home at 1717 W. Mulberry St. (the southeast corner
of the intersection of W. Mulberry St. and Cook Dr.). A hearing is required because the proposal
seeks to plat a previously unplatted property. Two modifications of standard accompany the
proposal. The site is zoned Low Density Residential District (RL). More information is available in
the hearing packet and notice. The City’s project planner is Ryan Mounce (rmounce@fcgov.com).
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD HEARINGS
Upcoming - Thursday, February 21 - Planning and Zoning Board Regular Meeting
At 6 p.m., on the third Thursday of each month, the Planning and Zoning Board conducts a regular
meeting in Council Chambers at 300 Laporte Ave. The Planning and Zoning Board encourages
your input; interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. The agenda will be available
closer to the meeting date at fcgov.com/PlanningZoningBoard.
At noon on the Friday prior to each regular Planning and Zoning Board meeting, the Board holds a
work session in Conference Room A at 281 N. College Ave. The next work session will be held on
Friday, February 15.
Please contact the Development Review Center at 970-221-6750 for further information on any
agenda items. More information, including meeting agendas and materials as well as past meeting
minutes, may be found at fcgov.com/PlanningZoningBoard.
CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 12 – City Council Adjourned Meeting and Work Session
At 6 p.m., in Council Chambers (300 Laporte Ave.), the City Council will hold an adjourned
meeting and will consider the following discussion item related to development review:
Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) Pilot Project
The Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) is a new zoning tool designed to
provide contextual land use and design flexibility for infill development and redevelopment.
Since it is new and unique, a pilot is being proposed as a way to test the PDOD prior to
considering permanent adoption. The pilot would establish a six-month application period
Page 2 of 5
http://www.fcgov.com/sendstudio/display.php?List=198&N=2275 2/14/2013
allowing up to five development submittals; only projects within the PDOD pilot boundary
have the option to apply during the trial.
In a work session following the adjourned meeting, City Council will review:
Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Implementation
City Council will discuss information on implementation of strategy options on proposed
new design and compatibility standards for the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods prior
to formal consideration at the February 19 City Council Regular Meeting.
More information is available in the February 12 agenda.
LAND CONSERVATION AND STEWARDSHIP BOARD
Wednesday, February 13
At 6 p.m., in Conference Room 1A at 215 N. Mason St., the Land Conservation and Stewardship
Board will conduct a meeting. The agenda includes a review of easements related to the Link-N-
Greens (Woodward campus) project. The Board will make recommendations to City Council
regarding two permanent drainage easements on Springer Natural Area as well as temporary
construction easements on Udall Natural Area, the Pickle Plant property, and the City Mulberry
Wastewater Treatment Plant property. The agenda will be available here closer to the meeting
date (click on the “agenda” link on the left side of the page).
LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Wednesday, February 13
The Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) conducts hearings on the second Wednesday of
each month and holds work sessions on the fourth Wednesday of each month. Agendas and past
minutes are available at fcgov.com/LPC. For additional information, contact Karen McWilliams
(kmcwilliams@fcgov.com) or Josh Weinberg (jweinberg@fcgov.com) or call 970-221-6206.
On February 13, projects at the following locations will be reviewed:
1745 Hoffman Hill Rd. (to construct a new building at City of Fort Collins Natural Areas
complex)
401 Mathews St. (to allow construction of a second story to the rear addition of the
building)
710 Mathews St. (to designate as a Fort Collins Landmark)
620 W. Prospect Rd. (resolution hearing on a potential landmark designation)
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Thursday, February 14
The Zoning Board of Appeals has the authority to approve variances from the requirements of the
Land Use Code. The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) meets the second Thursday of every month
at 8:30-11:30 a.m. in Council Chambers (300 Laporte Ave). Agendas and past meeting minutes
are available at fcgov.com/ZoningAppeals.
On February 14, variances for proposals at the following locations will be reviewed:
300 S. Loomis Ave. (to allow the existing house to be removed and replaced with a new
house)
Page 3 of 5
http://www.fcgov.com/sendstudio/display.php?List=198&N=2275 2/14/2013
517 E. Magnolia St. (for variances to allow the existing house to be demolished and
replaced with a new two-story home)
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD
Upcoming – Thursday, February 28
The Building Review Board (BRB) is charged with the responsibility to hear appeals and requests
for variances related to City building codes and contractor licensing regulations. The Board meets
the last Thursday of every month at 1 p.m. in Council Chambers at 300 Laporte Ave. More
information on the Board is available at fcgov.com/BRB.
APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED IN THE PAST WEEK
This section typically includes Project Development Plans, Overall Development Plans, Major
Amendments, and Annexations that were submitted in the past week. In the past week, no
applications of these types were submitted. For more information regarding all projects under
review, please see the Current Projects Table, or call the Development Review Center at 970-
221-6750.
RECENT HEARING OUTCOMES
The following projects were reviewed in recent hearings:
City Council Actions Related to Development Review (at February 5 Regular Meeting)
Approved items Relating to the Hansen Farm Annexation and Zoning (second reading)
Approved items Relating to Public Service Company of Colorado’s request for utility
easements and temporary construction easements across four natural areas for a high
pressure gas pipeline (second reading)
Approved authorization for a utility easement and temporary construction easement on City
utility property to Public Service Company of Colorado (second reading)
Approved Land Use Code amendments related to the ecological value of non-native tree
species (first reading; will be revised before second reading)
Project Name, Date,
Outcome of Hearing
Location Description Staff Contact
Foothills Mall
Redevelopment, 2/7/13
Type 2 (Planning and
Zoning) Hearing,
approved with
conditions
215 Foothills Pkwy Redevelopment of the
Foothills Mall, with
residential and retail
components
Courtney Levingston
West Range Multi-
Family, 2/5/13 Type 1
hearing,
outcome pending
402/406 W. Laurel St.
and 635 S. Meldrum
St.
Multi-family building with
15 dwelling units
Sherry Albertson-Clark
CONCEPTUAL REVIEWS
All notices of conceptual reviews are available at fcgov.com/conceptualreview.
WHAT'S A CITIZEN'S ROLE IN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW?
Page 4 of 5
http://www.fcgov.com/sendstudio/display.php?List=198&N=2275 2/14/2013
Have you checked out the City’s Citizen's Role in Development Review flowchart and guide?
These tools are an empowering resource to explain a citizen's role in Development Review. We
hope this guide, along with staff planners, will aid you in making the process easier to understand
and enable you to participate. Questions? Please contact Sarah Burnett at 970-224-6076 or
sburnett@fcgov.com.
MORE INFO & FEEDBACK
For basic information about a project where you know a name, any part of an address, parcel
number, or project number, you may use this resource. For a map showing projects in review or
under construction, or more information about development review, please visit
fcgov.com/developmentreview or call (970) 221-6750.
Please email any feedback regarding this weekly service to sburnett@fcgov.com.
To view this email as a webpage, please go to fcgov.com/weekreview.
Unsubscribe me from this mailing list
Page 5 of 5
http://www.fcgov.com/sendstudio/display.php?List=198&N=2275 2/14/2013
The Foundation
WHAT IS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW?
Across the country, development review is a
core local government responsibility. As cities
and towns grow and change, local governments
usually headed up by a planning department
and with the involvement of many other
departments, review proposed developments to
ensure they meet the needs of the community
at-large. These communitywide needs include
the safety and welfare of citizens and high-
quality, consistent design and construction of
buildings and public infrastructure.
The City has established regulations pertaining
to development. Development review exists in
part to ensure each new development is in
alignment with our community’s vision for Fort
Collins.
Another purpose of development review is to
ensure consistent and high quality projects and
public improvements. For example, the City
requires that development “pays its own way.”
This means private-sector developers are
designing and constructing many improvements,
such as sewer lines and streets, which will
become a part of the public infrastructure
maintained by the City.
In addition to these purposes, the City has
taken an integrated approach to the
development review process. A development
review team, comprised of City staff from
numerous departments, reviews applications
through a coordinated review process. This
ensures development applications are processed
in a timely manner and that approved projects
meet all of the City’s requirements.
R ol e i n
GUIDING DOCUMENTS FOR
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW IN FORT
COLLINS
All of the City’s regulatory codes were
developed from the policies and principles in
City Plan, a comprehensive plan for Fort
Collins. While City Plan is intended to be used
as a guiding vision for the City, several other
documents contain primary regulatory codes
that govern the development review process.
Key Standards
The Land Use Code (LUC) contains regulations
that include the City’s procedural
requirements, project types and requirements
of each, general development standards, zone
district purposes, permitted uses, specific
development standards of each, and definitions
of many of the terms used in the code.
Other standards guiding the development
review process can be found in the Municipal
Code, the Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards, various subarea plans, and more.
In addition to this guide, please see Section
How You Fit in
STEP ONE
APPLICANT/DEVELOPER ATTENDS
CONCEPTUAL REVIEW
Conceptual review is generally the first meeting
anyone with a project idea has with the City's
Development Review team. Conceptual review
is a free City service designed to assist
developers/potential developers in
understanding what will be required of them
during the development review process. At
conceptual review, City staff from various
departments involved in development review
offer comments on a proposed project. At this
point, the project proposal is typically in the
very early design phases, and engineering
drawings are not submitted.
While most projects opt to discuss their project
proposals with City staff in the conceptual
review process, there is a second option:
preliminary design review. Preliminary design
reviews (PDR) offer a more involved process for
complex or larger projects requiring a greater
level of collaboration and problem solving. For
a $500 application fee and a more detailed
submittal package (including, for example
preliminary civil plans, site plans, renderings,
photos of existing conditions on the site, and
detailed project ideas), City staff from various
departments research the site, offer comments,
provide answers to specific questions and offer
potential solutions to difficult design
challenges.
Is the property historic?
As a part of the City's review, whenever a
permit or development application is sought for
a property that is 50 years old or older, the
project is required to go through a
“Demolition/Alteration Review” (Chapter 14-72
of the Municipal Code). This review is designed
to prevent the loss of Fort Collins' historic
resources and to preserve our historic
character. Demolition/Alteration Review is also
another opportunity for citizens to participate
in development review by attending the
Landmark Preservation Commission’s final
hearing or contacting us anytime during the
project’s review. To find out more, visit
fcgov.com/historicreview.
STEP TWO
YOU CAN ATTEND THE
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OVERVIEW
On projects having a large neighborhood
impact, City staff will conduct a development
review overview (DRO). The DRO is an
opportunity for neighbors to learn about the
development review process prior to meeting
with a developer and reviewing the proposed
plan. City staff leads this meeting and walk
neighbors through the criteria the project has
STEP THREE
YOU CAN ATTEND THE PROJECT’S
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING(S)
After conceptual or preliminary design review,
but before submitting a formal application,
some projects will need to hold a neighborhood
meeting. The decision to hold a meeting is
based on the applicant’s proposed uses and the
zoning of the proposed location. In almost all
cases, all uses requiring a Type 2 public hearing
(where the Planning and Zoning Board review
the project) require a neighborhood meeting
prior to formal submittal. Staff may also
recommend applicants/developers hold
neighborhood meetings if their proposal
warrants extra public input.
Held early in the design process, neighborhood
meetings allow applicants/developers an
opportunity to communicate their proposal to
adjacent neighbors and any impacted citizens.
The meetings also allow citizens to share their
questions and opinions about the proposal to
the developer and City staff.
How will I know if a project is
happening in my neighborhood?
Property owners of record residing within at
least an 800-foot radius (or a greater distance
in accordance with the standards outlined in
the LUC) of the boundaries of a project are
notified via U.S. mail of the time, date, and
place of the hearing. Additionally, an ad is
placed in the local paper and a sign is posted on
the property notifying the public of a
development proposal under review.
See Section 2.2.6 of the Land Use Code for
more details.
STEP FOUR
FORMAL SUBMITTAL – IS THE
PROJECT MOVING FORWARD?
DO YOU SEE THE SIGN?
At conceptual review or preliminary design
review, applicants receive information to help
them prepare for formal application submittal.
Once the applicant has prepared the documents
required, they submit the information to the
City for review. The submittal materials are
routed to various City departments and outside
agencies. The City reviewing departments may
include:
Advance Planning
Building Inspection
Development Review Engineering
Development Review Planning
Economic Development
Environmental Planning
Environmental Regulatory Specialist
Forestry
Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
Historic Preservation
Light and Power
Water districts
Water providers
These reviewers include the reviewing
departments and outside agencies that were
present at the conceptual review or preliminary
design review plus any other appropriate
departments and agencies for the proposal as
needed.
City staff and outside agencies receive the
development plans and review them to
determine if the designs meet the applicable
standards and codes, address conceptual review
comments and resolve identified issues. A staff
review is held three weeks following the formal
submittal (see more details in the next step) to
discuss any comments staff and outside
reviewing agencies have about the development
plans.
What types of plans are submitted to the City?
ODP – Overall development plans (ODP) are
required when projects will develop in a phased
approach. The ODP establishes general planning
and development parameters for the project
site, while allowing for detailed requirements
to be determined at the PDP stage.
PDP - The project development plan (PDP)
contains a general description of the uses of
land, the layout of buildings, landscaping,
circulation, and site lighting. It shall include a
subdivision plat and architectural elevations if
necessary.
FDP - A final plan is submitted following the
approval of a PDP. The final plan is the site
specific development plan which describes and
establishes the type and intensity of use for a
specific parcel or parcels of property.
See also Section 2.1.3 of the Land Use Code
for more details on plan types.
STEP FIVE
STAFF REVIEWS APPLICATON
The culmination of the review period is a staff
review meeting where both parties (reviewers
and the applicant) come together to discuss
comments on the project. Staff review is
intended to identify issues that the applicant
must address before the public hearing.
At the end of the staff review, the project
planner and other reviewers will determine
whether the project is ready for review at
public hearing. Some small projects or projects
with very well-prepared plans may only require
one round of review to be ready for hearing.
However, sometimes reviewers comments may
conflict with each other or complex issues may
require an additional meeting to resolve the
issues discussed during the staff review. In
these cases, a second round of revisions may be
required, meaning the applicant must address
the comments provided to them by all
reviewers and resubmit for another round of
apply to all development applications and
building permit applications, with the exception
of single-family dwellings, on a citywide basis.
While Article 3 of the LUC describes the general
development standards that apply to all
development in Fort Collins, Article 4 includes
development standards that apply to individual
zone districts. All land within city limits is given
zoning classifications on the City of Fort Collins
Zoning Map.
The zoning classification provides two
directions to a property’s site design. First,
each zone district has a set of unique design
standards, which can be more stringent than
the standards set forth in Article 3. Second,
which zone district a project is in determines
the type of review process (see green box
below for more details on hearing types). The
differing review types are based on the
intensity and purpose of the zone district.
Hearing Types for Reviewing Projects
All Fort Collins properties are assigned to one of
the City’s 25 zone districts. Within these zones,
uses are separated into one of three review
types based on the intensity of the use in a
given district:
1. Basic development review – these uses are
viewed as the least intense when considering
the intent of the zone district, i.e. a single
family home in a residential zone district, BDR
projects are approved by staff and notification
is not required.
2. Type 1 (Administrative Review) – These uses
are slightly more intense and require a public
hearing, are heard by a hearing officer,
requires notification.
3. Type 2 (Planning and Zoning Board review) –
These uses are viewed to be more intense when
considered from the intent of the zone district,
i.e. fraternity or sorority houses in a residential
zone district. Requires notification.
Staff Recommendations
Based on the proposal’s compliance with the
applicable standards (Municipal Code, Land Use
Code, Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards (LCUASS), City Plan, subarea plans,
etc.) the project planner writes a staff report
making a recommended action to the decision
maker. Remember, the decision maker for Type
1 projects is an Administrative Hearing Officer,
while the decision maker for Type 2 projects is
the Planning and Zoning Board. Thus, the staff
report only recommends whether a project
complies with or does not comply with City
standards; only the decision maker has the
authority to approve a project.
Why do some projects need modifications?
The City of Fort Collins Land Use Code is a very
prescriptive document, therefore projects and
sites may have difficulties meeting some
STEP SIX
YOU CAN ATTEND THE PUBLIC
HEARING
All projects required to go through
development review are subject to evaluation
at a public hearing. There are two types of
public hearings depending on the uses
proposed: Type 1 (Administrative) hearings and
Type 2 (Planning and Zoning Board) hearings.
Type 1 hearings are heard by one hearing
officer.
Type 1 hearings are usually held in a City
conference room and are not televised.
Type 2 hearings are heard by the Planning
and Zoning Board.
Type 2 hearings are held in the City Council
Chambers at City Hall and they are televised.
Remember, you will be notified of the hearing
via a mailing that is sent out no less than 10
business days prior to the hearing. See the
green box on page 2 for more details on
notification.
The public hearing provides an opportunity for
the decision maker to hear from the applicant
and staff regarding project details and
recommendations and to hear from and
consider testimony from affected parties-in-
interest.
Administrative Hearings (Type 1 hearings) may
be scheduled at any time with at least 11
business days of lead time for notification.
Planning and Zoning Board hearings (Type 2
hearings) are held the third Thursday of each
month. Agendas for the Planning and Zoning
Board hearings are set approximately one
month in advance of the hearing.
What comes before the Board
The Planning and Zoning Board is the final
decision making authority regarding land use
proposals including overall development plans
and any project development plan that is
determined to be a Type 2 use as described in
the Land Use Code.
In addition to project approvals, the Board also
makes recommendations to the City Council
regarding zoning, annexations, major public and
private projects and any long range planning
activities (such as City Plan or subarea plans)
that require Council approval.
How does a board member review a project?
What is the review based on?
Board members must stay impartial when
reviewing a project and evaluate projects only
based on whether or not they comply with the
applicable standards. Recall that staff has
prepared a staff report outlining the
application’s compliance with the applicable
standards. The board is tasked with reviewing
staff’s findings and determining if they agree
using the criteria provided in the Land Use
Frequently Asked Questions
Who can Comment on a Proposed Project?
Anyone! Residents, students, employees and
business owners - anyone who feels they might
be impacted by a proposed project.
Can My Comments Make a Difference?
Absolutely! Community comments on more than
one project have prompted the applicant to
return to the drawing board and propose
modifications or a completely new plan that
addresses neighborhood concerns. What makes
a difference are comments that are directly
related to the specific project, that recognize
how much of the problem is caused by the
project, and that propose reasonable solutions
for consideration.
How Can I Provide Effective Input?
Although the quantity of letters may
indicate the extent of neighborhood or
agency interest, it is the relevance of
the comments, as they relate to
objective criteria in the Fort Collins
Land Use Code, that will most affect a
project's outcome.
Briefly explain who you are and why you
are interested in the project
State your comments/concerns clearly
and succinctly using objective language
Comment only on issues relevant to the
decision being made
State opinions and preferences, ask
questions, and propose alternative
solutions to particular issues. State
informed opinions and, where possible,
include data/background to support your
opinion
Review the project's technical
reports/case file analysis, comment on
conclusions, assumptions and the data
collecting methods
Ask for studies you think are important
but have not been provided
Identify project features that you like
and think should not be changed, and
Provide any comments about the
project's compliance with city
regulations.
CITIZENS’ DEVELOPMENT REVIEW GUIDE 2012 7
8 CITIZENS’ DEVELOPMENT REVIEW GUIDE 2012
1
Update on Transparency of
Development Review Information
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MAY 28, 2013
Laurie Kadrich
Community Development and
Neighborhood Services Director
Delynn Coldiron
Customer and Administrative Services Manager
Sarah Burnett
Neighborhood Development Review Liaison
ATTACHMENT 5
2
Purpose
This Work Session Item will discuss:
• Background
• Improvements to date
• Planned enhancements
• Feedback/direction from Council
3
Direction Sought from City Council
1. Does Council have feedback regarding
development review transparency
improvements made to date?
2. Does Council generally agree with the
proposed future enhancements?
3. Does Council have suggestions for
additional enhancements and future
steps?
4
Background
Need was expressed by public and
Council for:
• Information about the process itself
• Improved transparency and earlier access
to information
• Consistent, reliable processes
5
Improvements - 2009-2011
• Online guide for applicants
• Community Development and
Neighborhood Services Department -
more cohesive approach
• Real time information available to public
(Accela)
• Listing of current applications on website
6
2009 – Online Guide for Applicants
fcgov.com/drg
7
2010 – Community Development and
Neighborhood Services Department Created
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND
TRANSPORTATION
CUSTOMER SERVICE
BUILDING
SERVICES
NEIGHBORHOOD
SERVICES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT &
NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES
PLANNING SERVICES
(DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
and LONG RANGE
PLANNING)
8
2011 – Real Time Information
amos.fcgov.com/CitizenAccess
9
Increased Requests for Information
• Significant increase in multi-family,
infill, and large proposals – starting
in 2011
• Citizens want to be fully informed
earlier in process
• Limited information was available
online to public about projects
10
Goal
Access to information:
•Timely
• Easily accessible
• Consolidated access
• Clear
11
Recent Improvements
Combined effort
• Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
• Information Technology
• Planning, Development and Transportation
Communications
Many recent changes to share
12
2012 – Citizen’s Role Online Guides
fcgov.com/CitizenReview
13
2012 – Weekly Email and Webpage
fcgov.com/WeekReview
14
2013 – Online Hub for Tracking Proposals
fcgov.com/DevelopmentProposals
15
2012 – Improved Mapping
Access through FCMaps
16
2012 – New Signs with Project Numbers
17
2012 – Neighborhood Liaison Role
Sarah Burnett
18
2012 – Proposal Documents on CityDocs
fcgov.com/DevelopmentProposals
19
2012 – Complete Board Info Online
fcgov.com/CityClerk
20
2012 – Neighborhood Meeting Notices & Notes
fcgov.com/DevelopmentReviewAgendas
21
2012 – Conceptual Review
fcgov.com/developmentreview/ConceptualReview
22
23
Proposed Future Enhancements
• Add past/upcoming meeting dates
• Provide links to describe project types and
steps for each type
• Provide info on Historic Preservation
projects and signs
• Continue to enhance ease of use; reduce
clicks
24
Direction Sought from City Council
1. Does Council have feedback regarding
development review transparency
improvements made to date?
2. Does Council generally agree with the
proposed future enhancements?
3. Does Council have suggestions for
additional enhancements and future
steps?
DATE: May 28, 2013
STAFF: Joe Frank
Pre-taped staff presentation: None
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Operation of the Mary Alice Murphy Center of Hope.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The United Way of Larimer County is requesting City funding in the amount of $45,000 for the
operation of the Sister Mary Alice Murphy Center of Hope, from January to July, 2013 (six months).
Other funding partners include United Way ($58,000), Bohemian Foundation ($45,000) and
Serve6.8 ($35,000). The Murphy Center, located at 242 Conifer Street, is the one-stop center in Fort
Collins for homeless and near homeless persons. The operation of the Center is an important
component in the community’s network of housing and complimentary services so that homelessness
is rare, short-lived and non-recurring in Fort Collins.
This item was added to the May 28 work session to brief Council before its June 4 consideration of
funding for the Mary Alice Murphy Center of Hope.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Sister Mary Alice Murphy Center of Hope (“Murphy Center”)
The Murphy Center, located at 242 Conifer Street, is the one-stop center in Fort Collins for homeless
and near homeless persons. Approximately 23 agencies provide services at the Center; the Center
also provides showers, breakfast, phones/computers, washers/dryers, clothing, day shelter services,
and more. Services available at the Center include employment resources, housing assistance,
financial counseling, transportation assistance, mental health and substance abuse counseling, and
more. The Murphy Center is currently owned by the United Way of Larimer County (UW) and
operated by Touchstone Health Partners of Fort Collins.
During the past four years, the Murphy Center has been a major player in the local homeless service
delivery system and will play an even more critical role as the region moves toward a new and
improved housing model. Notable achievements of the Center include:
• Total number of visits: 110,782.
• Now averaging 156 visitors per day, up from 80 at the end of the 1st year.
• Now have 23 different agencies that provide services out of the Center.
• Total number of showers taken: 12,841.
• Total number of loads of laundry done: 4,649.
• Total number of unduplicated people provided services by a Resource Specialist: 10,148.
• 37% of the people served are part of a family with children.
May 28, 2013 Page 2
• In 2012, 77% of the people that meet with a Resource Specialist report being literally
homeless, a 57% increase from 2011.
• Received mail through the center: more than 800 people.
• Utilized lockers at the center: more than 250 people.
• Provided voicemail boxes: more than 150 people.
• 429 people have been assisted in getting Food Stamps
• 106 people have been assisted in getting Aide to the Needy.
• 253 people have been assisted in getting Medicaid.
• 879 people have received mental health and/or substance abuse services.
• 1,312 households have received emergency rent assistance.
• 2,507 households have received utility assistance.
The approximate $2.5 million cost of construction of the Center was funded through a collaboration
of private foundations, private resources, and the cities of Fort Collins and Loveland. ,Since 2004,
the City has contributed approximately $90,000 in CDBG and General Fund dollars to build the
facility, and as such, has a legal and financial interest. In addition, the City has funded several of the
agencies that occupy the Center. As equity partners on the land (along with the City of Loveland),
City staff has met with United Way and Serve 6.8 officials. The City’s goal, moving forward, is a
smooth transition on executing new legal documents, and ensuring that parameters for property use
tied to federal funding are clear. Staff is also interested in ensuring that the Murphy Center has a
critical role to play in the future in the continuum of care for the homeless and near homeless.
Ownership and Operations of the Center
The Murphy Center opened in March, 2009. At that time, the United Way committed to
owning/funding/operating the Center for 3 years. United Way’s intent was to find another agency
to own and operate the Center. United Way has had serious but unsuccessful discussions with
several potential agencies about taking over the facility and has seriously considered closing or
curtailing services at the Center.
Last November, a small group of interested stakeholders met to discuss the future of the Murphy
Center. The group consisted of Gordan Thibedeau (United Way), Randy Ratliff (CEO Touchstone
Health Partners), Cheryl Zimlich (Bohemian Foundation), Julie Brewen (FCHA), Bryce Hach
(Homeward 2020), and Joe Frank (Social Sustainability Department). Last January, the group met
with Mark Orphan, Pastor of the Timberline Church Missions and Outreach program, and Mike
Walker, Timberline Church Local Outreach Director about potentially taking ownership and
operation of the Center.
Serve 6.8 is the “community service” arm of the Timberline Church. “Serve 6.8” is in reference to
two passages in the Bible (Micah and Isaiah). Serve 6.8's stated mission is “people serving our
community to demonstrate God’s love in tangible ways to people in Northern Colorado with no
strings attached.” Serve 6.8 has said “We partner with many local organizations to promote their
mission, provide volunteers, and offer assistance.” Serve 6.8 has been involved in a variety of
“ministries” and partnerships in the community, some involving the homeless. Serve 6.8 was
heavily involved in the High Park Fire recovery efforts. Serve 6.8 has 501(c)3 status.
May 28, 2013 Page 3
Serve 6.8 submitted a letter of intent to assume ownership and operation of the Murphy Center, and
most appear to be comfortable with them. United Way is satisfied that they have the resources and
mission to take over and successfully operate the facility. Mark Orphan and Mike Walker will be
the primary managers of the Murphy Center. They indicated that the Center will continue to deliver
current services and will keep the current professional staff. Serve 6.8 will also be using volunteers.
At this time, Serve 6.8 is doing its due diligence, developing a business plan, completing necessary
agreements, talking with the cities of Fort Collins and Loveland, etc. The goal is to complete the
ownership/operation transition on/around July 1, 2013.
Funding Request
The United Way is seeking funding partners to continue the operation of the facility. The Center’s
monthly operating cost is about $38,600; approximately 85% of that is personnel and 15% is
operations. United Way has a federal grant that covers about $8,100 per month; so, the net monthly
cost is approximately $30,500; six months of operations costs approximately $183,000. United
Way’s proposal is that they provide $58,000, the Bohemian Foundation and the City each provide
$45,000 and Serve 6.8 provides $35,000, for the operation of the Murphy Center from January to
July 2013 (6 months).
According to Gordan Thibedeau, Executive Director of the United Way:
“There are two reasons that we are seeking continuation funds to support the
operation of the Murphy Center. First, it was our intent to transfer ownership no later
than December 31, 2012, which did not happen. Second, we have been unable to
secure additional grant funding to support the operation primarily because we play
a “pass through” role. We were able to overcome this concern for the first 4 years of
funding but foundations have become increasingly interested in having the funds go
directly to the service provider.”
,Funding Agreement
The major terms of the “funding agreement” are as follows:
• The City shall pay United Way the sum of $45,000 upon receipt of the expense report.
• That the funds will be used for personnel and non-personnel costs associated with the
operation of the Murphy Center.
• The funds will be used for expenses between January 1 and June 30, 2013.
• United Way shall submit a detailed expense report to the City for our review and approval.
• The process and conditions of turning the facility over to Serve 6.8 should be as transparent
and inclusive as possible to the critical stakeholders.
• The existing functions of the Murphy Center as a one stop center and entry for homeless
services must continue; and Serve 6.8, needs to be at the table in the discussions around a
new homeless service delivery model, known as continuum of care.
• The City shall have a representative on the advisory/leadership board of the new Murphy
Center.
May 28, 2013 Page 4
Financial Impacts
The City’s share will come from the City’s General Fund Reserves. Providing financial assistance
to the Murphy Center is a long term investment. Helping people out of homelessness prevents future
community costs associated with homelessness.
Typically, funding requests for human services are made thru the City’s Spring Competitive Process.
The Spring Competitive Process was not a good match for the current Murphy Center situation
because the funds do not become available until October 1, 2013. Also, the Competitive Process
funds cannot pay for any cost of services, projects or programs expended prior to October 1, 2013.
Over the years, the City has also funded several social service programs and activities, outside of the
Competitive Process, from General Funds. For example, since 2009, the City has funded:
• Homeward 2020 (the original $100,000 was through the exceptions process) and continues
to do so with a $25,000 sponsorship each year out of the City Manager’s Office budget (and
approved through BFO), for a total of $175,000.
• The Murphy Center Capital Campaign in 2009 ($5,000), 2010 ($6,000), and 2011 ($2,000)
using contingency funding.
• The United Way Temporary Winter Homeless Shelter ($3,000 – operating costs).
• The Crossroads Safehouse, in 2010 - $3000 – appraisal report; and, in 2010 - $350,000 for
renovation of Crossroads’ new facility from Police Capital Improvement Expansion fees.
• The Bender Mobile Home Park relocation assistance – 2012 ($50,000) – BFO.
• The City has also provided “sponsorships” through a donation and sponsorship line item in
BFO through the City Manager’s Office. For those sponsorships that were unexpected and
not funded through BFO, the CMO usually relies on Contingency or Community
Opportunities funds to cover. Agencies receiving this funding include United Way, Habitat
for Humanity, Crossroads Safehouse, and the Food Bank of Larimer County.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the funding request and financial agreement because the Murphy
Center plays such a critical role in the delivery of services to the homeless and near-homeless in the
community, a role that is likely to become more important as a new model (e.g., “continuum of
care”) evolves in the North Front Range area. United Way has carried the cost of operating the
center for the past four years, a year longer than originally intended. United Way has demonstrated
that it needs the financial assistance of the City and the other partners, to pay for part of the costs of
six months of operations of the Center. After that time, it appears very likely that Serve 6.8 will take
over the ownership and operation of the center. Serve 6.8 has said that they intend to continue the
original mission and services of the center. Serve 6.8 also appears to have the capacity, experience
and mission to continue the important services the Center now provides, and to work collaboratively
toward a new homeless model.
Code.
STEP SEVEN
APPEALING THE DECISION TO CITY
COUNCIL
Appeals of any final decision of a decision
maker can be filed with the City Clerk within 14
calendar days of the date of a decision by any
of the following parties:
The applicant,
Anyone who owns, occupies, or has some
other legal interest in the property which was
the subject of the decision made by the
decision maker,
Anyone who received the mailed notice of, or
spoke at, the hearing of the decision maker,
Anyone who sent written comments to the
decision maker prior to the action which is
being appealed, or a
City Councilmember.
For more info on the appeal process, visit
fcgov.com/appeals.
Questions regarding the appeal process should
be directed to the City Clerk at 970-221-6515 or
fcgov.com/cityclerk.
6 CITIZENS’ DEVELOPMENT REVIEW GUIDE 2012
standards and metrics due to a variety of
circumstances. Alternatively, a project may
propose a design element that is aligned with
City standards but does not exactly meet a
precise metric, e.g., a 15’ setback. The code
allows for some flexibility by offering a process
for modifications of standards. These
modifications cannot be detrimental to the
public good and they must meet one or more of
the four criteria outlined in the LUC (see
Section 2.8 of the Land Use Code for more
details).
It is important to remember that modification
requests are not indicative of the quality of a
project, but more the site’s constraints in
meeting the prescriptive standards set forth in
the LUC. Sometimes modifications can make a
project better. For example, the use of
pervious paving would be considered a
modification. Each modification needs to be
evaluated against the applicable criteria and
not on the number of modifications requested.
CITIZENS’ DEVELOPMENT REVIEW GUIDE 2012 5
review.
After staff review, the project planner provides
the applicant with a letter with all reviewer’s
comments and redlined development plans. If a
project is ready for hearing, the project
planner and the applicant schedule a Type 1 or
Type 2 hearing (see green box to the right for
more details on hearing types).
Development Standards
There are two sections (or articles) of the Land
Use Code (LUC) addressing site design. Article 3
of the LUC contains the General Development
Standards. General Development Standards
4 CITIZENS’ DEVELOPMENT REVIEW GUIDE 2012
Neighborhood Services
Park Planning
Pavement Management
Real Estate Services
Street Oversizing
Stormwater
Technical Services (Surveying)
Traffic Operations
Transfort
Transportation Planning
Water Conservation
Water/Waste Water
Zoning
The outside agencies involved in development
review can include:
Cable, telephone and internet providers
Colorado Department of Transportation
(CDOT)
County assessors
Ditch companies
Railroads
Post Office
Power/gas providers
Poudre Fire Authority
Schools and universities
Utility agencies (non-City)
CITIZENS’ DEVELOPMENT REVIEW GUIDE 2012 3
to meet and the most effective means and
opportunities for neighbors to provide feedback
and work with the developer for the best
outcome. DRO meetings are held between City
staff and the neighbors, without the applicant
present, to focus on the development review
process instead of the proposed project.
2 CITIZENS’ DEVELOPMENT REVIEW GUIDE 2012
2.1.2 of the Land Use Code, “Overview of
Development Review Procedures,” for
additional information about the development
review process.
CITIZENS’ DEVELOPMENT REVIEW GUIDE 2012 1
ATTACHMENT 4
2Q 2013 Work with IT staff to implement changes.
6. Add information on Historic
Preservation projects and
signs
2Q 2013 Work with IT staff to implement changes.
7. Explore feasibility of adding a
“last updated” date
Unknown Will start discussions with staff in February,
2013. If feasible, related staff time, required
resources and time estimates will be
determined.
8. Make as many documents as
possible searchable.
Ongoing This is currently being done. Staff will
continue to refine and improve efforts in this
regard.
9. Explore the possibility of
having one project name and
number through entirety of
Unknown Will start discussions with staff in February,
2013. If feasible, related staff time, required
resources and time estimates will be
4Q 2012 Welcome Sarah Burnett.
12. 3-phase approach to multi-
family projects
4Q 2012 Continue to assess code and make changes
as needed.
!"# !$%&''()'"*'&
!"# !$%&''()'"*'&
' !)+,
) -*"'+
!.
*/0 ! ,
*/0+! ,# !"# !$
1)1-
2).'//
!)'
!1)+
. !)$1/*!.
!"# !$% */0 3')(
4
5
6
ATTACHMENT 1